Hall v. Herrington, 2026 ONSC 3724

Hall v. Herrington, 2026 ONSC 3724

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-29

HEARD: 2026/02/03-2026/02/06

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Shae-Alexis Hall, the Applicant

AND:

Ryan Herrington, the Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Lia Bramwell

COUNSEL: Alison Campbell, Counsel for the Applicant

Respondent is Self-Represented

HEARD: February 3-6, 2026

TRIAL DECISION

Introduction

1Ms. Hall and Mr. Herrington lived together from 2018 to 2020, when they separated briefly, then reconciled. They separated permanently on January 27, 2022. They have two children – Sonny, born in 2019, and Poppi, born in 2021.

2The children have lived primarily with Ms. Hall since separation. Issues of parenting time and decision-making were resolved prior to trial.

3The issues for trial were child support, ongoing and arrears, s. 7 expenses, ongoing, and security for Mr. Herrington’s child support obligations.

4Pursuant to the Order of Justice Leroy, which was made on consent in August 2022, Mr. Herrington was required to pay $1,219 per month in child support, based on an income of $80,500.

Positions of the Parties

Child support and s. 7 expenses

5Mr. Herrington, though originally the Respondent, is the Applicant in this Application. With respect to child support, Mr. Herrington seeks a reduction to $530 per month in the amount of child support he is required to pay. He asserts that he should only have to pay child support based on a minimum-wage income. He asserts that s. 7 expenses should be split equally.

6Mr. Herrington argues that his income was significantly reduced after Justice Leroy’s Order because of his electrician business going bankrupt and his limited ability to find work since then, due to his criminal record, and what he asserts are negative economic conditions.

7Ms. Hall, the Respondent in this Application, argues that the amount of child support Mr. Herrington is required to pay should not change. She further argues that s. 7 expenses should be split such that Mr. Herrington pays 70% of the expenses while she pays 30%.

8Ms. Hall argues that Mr. Herrington has consistently failed to meet his disclosure obligations and has not provided evidence to support his claims about his business going bankrupt, his criminal record, current economic conditions, and the impact of those factors on his ability to earn an income. She further argues that, even if he was able to establish that he earns less than he did when he agreed to Justice Leroy’s Order, income should be imputed to him. She asserts that he is earning more than he says he is earning. In the alternative, she asserts that he can earn what he was earning when that Order was made and is simply choosing not to.

Retroactive child support

9Mr. Herrington asserts that he does not owe any retroactive child support because, in addition to what FRO has collected from him, he has made extra payments to Ms. Hall directly. He says that these payments total $6,185.

10Ms. Hall asserts that there are arrears of child support owing from October 2025 through January 2026, and that they total $6,095. She argues that any extra payments that Mr. Herrington sent to her directly were gifts from him to her.

Security for child support

11Ms. Hall asks that Mr. Herrington be required to obtain life insurance, naming her as the beneficiary, to secure his child support obligations in the event of his death.

Issues to be determined

12The questions that I must answer on this Application are as follows:

a. What income should be assigned to Mr. Herrington for the purposes of calculating what child support he should pay?

b. How should s. 7 expenses be shared between Ms. Hall and Mr. Herrington, based on their respective incomes?

c. Does Mr. Herrington owe Ms. Hall anything on account of child support arrears?

d. Should Mr. Herrington be required to obtain life insurance to secure his child support obligations in the event of his death?

Issue #1 – What income should be assigned to Mr. Herrington for the purposes of calculating what child support he should pay?

13Mr. Herrington argues that his electrician business failed, and he has not been able to find work as an electrician that pays him what he was making in 2022, when he consented to the Order that Justice Leroy made. That Order fixed his income at roughly $80,000 and ordered him to pay $1,219 per month in child support. He says that he is prepared to pay child support of $530 based on an income in the range of minimum-wage because that is all he can earn.

14In this Application, it is Mr. Herrington who must prove, based on evidence tendered at trial, that his circumstances have changed to the point that he is only able to make minimum wage. He did not do so. In fact, the evidence he brought forth at trial pointed away from this conclusion. Accordingly, his argument that he is only capable of generating income in the minimum-wage range must be rejected.

15I have a wide discretion when determining what child support is correct. I must balance Sonny and Poppi’s interests in receiving the child support that they are entitled to, Sonny and Poppi and their parents’ interest in certainty and predictability around what is going to be paid, and the need to be flexible to ensure a fair result when a parent’s ability to pay changes. The bottom line is that Sonny and Poppi must receive an amount of support from Mr. Herrington that is in line with his income and that is predictable and certain.¹

16When deciding what amount Mr. Herrington should be paying in child support, I must look at the evidence that Mr. Herrington has provided about his income. He has a duty to provide full disclosure of his income, and he has a duty to provide all information necessary to support any changes he says have happened with his income. Ms. Hall, and the Court, do not simply take Mr. Herrington’s word for it. Without having all the necessary information that she is entitled to, Ms. Hall cannot consider what Mr. Herrington is suggesting his income should be for child support purposes and decide whether she agrees with him. Neither can I.²

17In this case, despite multiple court orders that he provide full financial disclosure, Mr. Herrington did not provide any financial disclosure to support his assertion that he was only earning the equivalent of minimum wage until immediately before the trial started, and he continued to provide financial disclosure after the trial began. He did not provide his tax returns for 2021, 2022, and 2023 until late January 2026. He did not submit complete financial documentation for 2024 or 2025. He disclosed incomplete banking records. His financial statements are incomplete. For example, his 2022 financial statement does not disclose a bank account that he admitted that he had. As described below, he swore an updated financial statement in the middle of his evidence, and it did not accurately list his bank accounts or his debts. That is not the way that financial disclosure is to be provided. Mr. Herrington essentially dumped hundreds of pages of material on Ms. Hall shortly before the trial. Mr. Herrington also attended at the trial with stacks of material and seemed to want to just give it all to me in the hopes that I would sort it out. That is not how a trial works. It is not appropriate to expect Ms. Hall or the Court to sift through hundreds of pages of material to try to put together a coherent picture as to what income Mr. Herrington is earning and from what sources he is earning it.

18In his evidence at trial, Mr. Herrington testified that he has been an electrician for 16 years and that he has earned a “Master” certification. He has been self-employed for most of that time and, at the time of Justice Leroy’s 2022 Order, operated a business called Herrington Electric Inc. Shortly after Justice Leroy’s Order, Mr. Herrington became involved in a dispute with the IBEW, which is the union representing electricians, and he ended up having to pay approximately $125,000 to the IBEW, as well as approximately $40,000 in legal fees. He testified that he was forced to sell the assets of Herrington Electric Inc. to pay these amounts.

19Mr. Herrington testified that he declared corporate and personal bankruptcy by June 2023 and that, by that time, he had personal debts of approximately $220,000. He said that he lost his home and began living with his parents. He started working again as a sole- proprietor electrician in late 2023 or early 2024.

20Mr. Herrington submitted income tax documentation and financial statements at trial, which were marked as exhibits. This documentation showed that in 2021, Mr. Herrington declared an income of approximately $80,500 for tax purposes. In 2022, his income was declared as $1.51. In 2023, it was $23,000. In 2024, he had $3,028 and received $17,000 from his mother, who was supporting him at the time. He testified that in 2025 he earned about $16,000 from electrical jobs he did.

21Despite this testimony, Mr. Herrington, during his evidence, attended court with an updated but unsworn financial statement. The financial statement was sworn before me and tendered as an exhibit. It states that in 2025, his gross income from all sources was $77,000 and lists his monthly self-employment income as $6,416.

22Mr. Herrington testified that his efforts to earn an income since his bankruptcy have been focused on trying to get work as an electrician. He said that he has made some effort to get a job as an electrician, as well as non-electrician jobs, but those efforts have gone nowhere. He testified that he has made phone calls, put an advertisement on the placemat at a local restaurant, and relied on word of mouth. He did not submit any evidence corroborating these efforts.

23Mr. Herrington also testified that he believes that his criminal record is a barrier to him securing work. He did not submit a copy of his criminal record, nor does he seem to know much about it. He gave vague evidence of a drug trafficking conviction many years ago. Mr. Herrington concludes that his criminal record has prevented him from getting work in factories because he has not received a call back after the criminal record check is done.

24Mr. Herrington testified that he has a standing offer of full-time employment as an electrician from a friend who works in the oil and gas industry in Alberta. He said that this employment would pay well but that he has not taken it because he does not want to be away from his children.

25Mr. Herrington testified that he was able to make child support payments in accordance with Justice Leroy’s Order up to September 2025 because he had some earnings from his electrical business and he received significant financial assistance from his family. He stopped making payments in September 2025 because he simply ran out of money and his family would no longer provide him with financial support.

26Mr. Herrington also testified that he made extra payments to Ms. Hall between February 2023 and September 2025, over and above the child support he was paying. He provided corroborating documentation for these payments, and Ms. Hall agreed that he made them. These extra payments totalled $6,185.50.

27In summary, the incomplete financial disclosure that Mr. Herrington provided may suggest that he declared corporate and personal bankruptcy, and the income he has reported to the government for income tax purposes in recent years has been very low. However, the fact is that he was able to secure money to make child support payments of $1,219 per month up until September 2025, and he paid an additional $6,185.50 on top of those payments over the 2 years and 7 months that preceded September 2025. Further, he swore a financial statement during his evidence in court that stated that his income for 2025 was $77,000.

28Ms. Hall asks me to impute income to Mr. Herrington. She asks me to find that the appropriate income to assign to Mr. Herrington for child support purposes is $80,500, which is what it was when he consented to the Order of Justice Leroy. Ms. Hall argues that Mr. Herrington has not met the burden on him to show, through evidence, that his income has departed from that. Further, she asks me to find that, even if Mr. Herrington’s income has dropped, that is because of Mr. Herrington’s intentional underemployment. In other words, Ms. Hall argues that if Mr. Herrington is not earning what he was earning before, that is because he is not taking all the steps he could and should be taking to secure employment that pays what he was making before.

29Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines provides that a court may impute to a spouse “such amount of income … as it considers appropriate” and provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances. The relevant portions of s. 19 read as follows:

a. 19(1) Imputing Income – The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

i. (a) the spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;

ii. (f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

iii. (h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains, or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax.

30Imputing income is one method by which the Court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. To meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally underemployed. Clause 19(1)(a) of the guidelines is a test of reasonableness.³

31The following three questions should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:

a. Is the party intentionally underemployed or unemployed?

b. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?

c. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?⁴

32Because it is Ms. Hall who is asking that I impute income to Mr. Herrington, it is Ms. Hall who must satisfy me that Mr. Herrington is intentionally unemployed or under-employed, and she must do so based on evidence.⁵ However, I must also take into account that Ms. Hall’s ability to put forth evidence has been hampered by Mr. Herrington’s failure to make proper and complete financial disclosure in the years since Justice Leroy’s Order was made.⁶

33The absence of a reasonable job search will also usually leave the Court with no choice but to find that the person who is supposed to be paying support is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.⁷

34I do not need to find that Mr. Herrington specifically intended to evade his child support obligations before I can impute income to him. If I find that he is choosing to earn less than what he is capable of earning, that is sufficient to find that he is intentionally under-employed or unemployed. I must consider whether Mr. Herrington’s choice, if I find that he has chosen to earn less than what he is capable of earning, is reasonable.⁸

35I find that the answer to the first question, as to whether Mr. Herrington is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, is yes. I find that while Mr. Herrington has provided evidence of the bankruptcy of his business and his personal bankruptcy due to problems with the union, the fact remains that he is a master electrician with 16 years of experience and a demonstrated ability to earn in the range of $80,000 per year. I note, as an aside, that he earned $80,000 per year in 2022, when the economy was still recovering from COVID. Mr. Herrington testified that he has a standing offer of lucrative work as an electrician in Alberta but that he has chosen not to take it. Further, Mr. Herrington did not provide much evidence at all about the steps he has taken to find work as an electrician or in another field. I find that he made vague statements about there being no work for electricians in this area and about having applied for jobs in factories but receiving no calls back. He provided no corroborative evidence, such as copies of resumes or cover letters sent, or dates and times of contacts with prospective employers. All of this leads me to conclude that Mr. Herrington is intentionally unemployed or underemployed.

36Having found that Mr. Herrington is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, the burden then shifts to Mr. Herrington to answer the second question. He must demonstrate that his unemployment or underemployment is necessary because of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of Sonny or Poppi, or his own reasonable health needs. He has not done so.

37When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way.⁹ It must be a reasoned, thoughtful, and highly practical decision.¹⁰ As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children, and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income.¹¹ A party who is well educated and skilled and has no compelling reasons for not working or not putting in sufficient effort to work risks being found to be intentionally unemployed.¹² Reckless behaviour or misconduct that diminishes income-earning capacity may also result in income being imputed.¹³

38In the case before me, Mr. Herrington has not provided any evidence of a reasoned, thoughtful, and practical decision being made by him to reduce his income dramatically because of a reasonable educational or health requirement for himself or the children. Nor has he provided any evidence of any other reasonable or rationale basis for what he asserts is a decline in his income to a minimum-wage level.

39Mr. Herrington asks me to simply accept that his business failed because of a dispute with the union over what he was supposed to be paying his unionized workers and that the business and he went bankrupt. He asks me to simply accept that, despite having 16 years of experience as a master electrician, he cannot find work as an electrician or in any other field. He asks me to simply accept that he cannot find work in places such as local factories that advertise that they are looking for employees because he has a vague and dated criminal record. He asks me to simply accept that he has not pursued lucrative employment as an electrician in Alberta because he does not want to miss out on time with his children. And he asks me to accept this avoidance of work in Alberta in the face of Ms. Hall’s evidence, which I accept, that not only do the children live primarily with her, but Mr. Herrington is inconsistent and unreliable with respect to his exercise of parenting time with them. I find that none of what Mr. Herrington asks me to simply accept are reasonable explanations for his failure to support his children to the best of his ability.

40I find that the responsibility for the failure of his business due to the dispute with the IBEW over the payment of unionized electricians lies with Mr. Herrington. He was an experienced master electrician. He clearly understood the benefits of employing certified unionized electricians. To assert that he did not understand that it would cost him something to do so defies logic. Ultimately, Mr. Herrington did not run his business properly, and he became embroiled in a legal dispute that cost him a great deal. The obligation was on him to do everything he could to get back on his feet quickly and to replace his lost income. He did not do so.

41Instead, Mr. Herrington has made what I find to be half-hearted and undocumented attempts to do electrical jobs here and there. He has not kept records relating to these jobs. He testified that he was paid in cash for some of them and did other jobs in exchange for the discharge of vaguely described debts owed by him. He has not provided Ms. Hall with proper financial disclosure related to these jobs.

42Further, while Mr. Herrington insists that there is no work for him as an electrician, on his own or working for a company, he also insists that he cannot find any other work, including unskilled labour in a factory setting, because of his criminal record. As stated earlier, Mr. Herrington asks me to find that his criminal record is a barrier to his employment, yet he does not seem to know what convictions are on it or when the conviction or convictions was or were entered. I also note that Mr. Herrington, based on his evidence, would have had the criminal record that he asserts now is a barrier when he was earning over $80,000 a year, in 2022. His criminal record is from many years ago, according to his evidence. In addition, Mr. Herrington’s criminal record is of his own making and because of his own misconduct. Accordingly, it cannot relieve him of his obligation to earn what he can to support his children.

43Lastly, and perhaps most glaringly unreasonable, is Mr. Herrington’s decision to stop making child support payments in September 2025, claiming to be unable to make further payments due to a lack of work and a lack of further financial assistance from family when he has an offer of employment as an electrician in the Alberta oil and gas industry. Mr. Herrington says he does not want to be away from his children. However, he does not live with them, has not for years, and is inconsistent in exercising parenting time.

44Beyond this, it is a fact of life for many people in this country, including parents who are in intact relationships with the other parent of their children, that they must travel long distances, in some cases across the country, to work in a geographic area or in an industry that is far from home because those opportunities do not exist where they live. Mr. Herrington must go where the work is because his children are entitled to support. He, like the many other parents in this country who must commute long distances, even on airplanes, needs to find a way to support his children financially while also maintaining his relationship with them.

45Having found that Mr. Herrington is intentionally unemployed or underemployed and having found that his reasons for being so are not reasonable, I must turn now to the third question–what income is properly imputed to Mr. Herrington for child support purposes?

46The payor’s previous income is a rational basis on which to impute income, as it is the amount that the payor would have continued to earn but for their decision to leave their job.¹⁴ The Court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities, and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The Court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity.¹⁵

47The Court will usually draw an adverse inference against a party for his or her failure to comply with their disclosure obligations as provided for in section 21 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and impute income.¹⁶ The parent must make full and complete financial disclosure to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue is before the Court.¹⁷

48In the case before me, I find the evidence that Mr. Herrington submitted in the form of his income tax documentation from the years after 2022 to be of little assistance in determining what income should be imputed to him. This documentation suggests that his income ranged from $1.50 to $23,000. These figures are significantly out of line with what Mr. Herrington was earning in 2022, when Justice Leroy’s Order was made and Mr. Herrington acknowledged he was earning over $80,000 annually. Further, Mr. Herrington was able to gather sufficient funds to make child support payments up to September 2025. He was also able to come up with an additional $6,185 between February 2023 and September 2025 to make the extra payments that he made to Ms. Hall. He also testified that he was doing electrical jobs for cash or in exchange for debt relief. Given all of this, I find that his income tax returns and/or notices of assessment are not reliable evidence. I also note that these documents were, in many cases, unclear or incomplete and were also dumped on Ms. Hall and on the Court on the eve of, or during, the trial, despite many earlier orders that financial disclosure be produced.

49I find that the best evidence that was before me of what Mr. Herrington is earning, or is capable of earning, is in the financial statement that was sworn during his testimony in court. He testified that it was prepared with the assistance of an accountant, and he swore it to be true. It lists an income for 2025 of $77,000. While Mr. Herrington attempted to step back from this figure somewhat by saying that he had business expenses associated with earning this amount, the fact is that he has not submitted any evidence of business expenses. This was his personal financial statement, and he swore it to be true. It states that he is earning income of a little over $6,000 per month and $77,000 annually. Given that this is current, sworn evidence, and given that it is roughly in line with the $80,000 that the last available reliable evidence put his income at, it is this figure that I find reasonable to use in imputing income to Mr. Herrington. His income for child support purposes will be set at $77,000.

Issue #2 – How should s. 7 expenses be shared between Ms. Hall and Mr. Herrington, based on their respective incomes?

50Mr. Herrington and Ms. Hall will share s. 7 expenses proportionally based on their respective incomes. As stated, Mr. Herrington’s income will be set at $77,000.

51Ms. Hall testified that she is a school custodian. She has been off work, unpaid, since January 2025, due to an injury sustained in a car accident. Her current sources of income are Ontario Works, the Child Tax Benefit, and a diet allowance of $135 per month that she receives from the Ontario Disability Support Program because Sonny is diabetic and requires a special diet.

52Ms. Hall submitted evidence demonstrating that her income in 2022 was $29,916, in 2023 was $27,323 and in 2024 was $3,906. Her income dropped dramatically in 2024 because of the car accident, injury and resulting leave from work. Ms. Hall has undergone rehabilitation and is slated for a gradual return to work in 2026.

53Ms. Hall asks me to calculate the proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses based on an imputed income of $80,500 to Mr. Herrington and an imputed income of $33,000 to Ms. Hall. This would result in a proportionate sharing of 70% to Mr. Herrington and 30% to Ms. Hall.

54I find this to be a reasonable apportionment of s. 7 expenses between the parties given that I have imputed an income of $77,000 to Mr. Herrington and given that I find Ms. Hall’s suggestion that $33,000 be imputed to her to be reasonable. I find Ms. Hall has been quite fair in proposing this figure, given that it is higher than any annual income she has earned in the past and given that her return-to-work date had not been settled at the time of trial.

55In summary, s. 7 expenses will be shared proportionately, based on income, between the parties, with Mr. Herrington paying 70%, based on an imputed income of $77,000, and Ms. Hall paying 30%, based on an imputed income of $33,000.

Issue #3 – Does Mr. Herrington owe Ms. Hall anything on account of child support arrears?

56Ms. Hall asserts that Mr. Herrington owes her approximately $6,095 in child support arrears because of his failure to pay child support from October 2025 to February 2026, when the trial took place. Mr. Herrington agrees that he did not make any child support payments during this time. However, he asserts that he made $6,185 in extra payments to Ms. Hall between February 2023 and September 2025 that were over and above child support payments. He asks that these extra payments be considered an overpayment that essentially cancels out the five months of arrears that Ms. Hall claims.

57Ms. Hall accepts that these payments were made but argues that these extra payments were gifts from Mr. Herrington to her and that they were not a form of child support. Mr. Herrington argues that they were not gifts to Ms. Hall but rather, that they were to provide her with some extra financial support for the children when he was able to send something extra her way.

58I accept Mr. Herrington’s argument that these payments were made to Ms. Hall on top of what he was required to pay pursuant to Justice Leroy’s Order and that they should be considered when the issue of child support arrears is determined. While I accept Ms. Hall’s evidence that some of the messages associated with the payments, most of which were e-transfers, seem to suggest that Mr. Herrington was sending money to her on those occasions in order to do something nice for her, I find that, on balance, Mr. Herrington was primarily sending extra money, when he had it, for the benefit of the children.

59Mr. Herrington made these payments over and above the child support payments he was making. He was not required by a court Order to make them. I find that it would not be fair to conclude that these extra payments were gifts and that he therefore owes Ms. Hall another roughly $6,000 in child support arrears. I find that these extra payments, which total $6,185, are properly considered as discharging the arrears of $6,095 that Mr. Herrington owes Ms. Hall for the child support payments he failed to make from October 2025 to February 2026.

Issue #4 – Should Mr. Herrington be required to obtain life insurance to secure his child support obligations in the event of his death?

60Mr. Herrington testified that he does not have life insurance because he cannot afford it. He also said he has not investigated the cost of life insurance. Ms. Hall asks me to order Mr. Herrington to get life insurance to ensure that his child support obligations would be covered in the event of his death.

61Section 12 of the Child Support Guidelines and s. 34(k) of the Family Law Act give me the authority to order Mr. Herrington to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligations. However, where there is no existing life insurance policy in place, as is the case here, the Ontario Court of Appeal urges that I be cautious in requiring Mr. Herrington to obtain insurance. It is best to have evidence of Mr. Herrington’s insurability and the cost of the insurance, assuming it is available to him. It is also important for me to know exactly what amount of insurance would be appropriate because it should not exceed the amount of child support that Mr. Herrington would likely have to pay over the duration of the support award.¹⁸

62There is no evidence before me of Mr. Herrington’s insurability or the cost of any available insurance, and I am therefore hesitant to make an Order that he may not be capable of complying with. To balance the interests of Ms. Hall and the children in having Mr. Herrington’s child support obligations secured with the interest of fairness to Mr. Herrington, there will be an Order requiring Mr. Herrington to obtain life insurance and to name Ms. Hall as an irrevocable beneficiary on the policy. However, if Mr. Herrington is denied coverage, he will be able to dispense with the need to have a life insurance policy by providing proof to Ms. Hall that he has been recently declined by at least two insurance companies. He must do so by providing Ms. Hall with copies of the life insurance applications and the insurers’ responses.

63Similarly, if Mr. Herrington cannot secure his child support obligations with life insurance because the cost is prohibitive, he must provide Ms. Hall with copies of quotes from at least two insurers and must set out in writing to Ms. Hall why the cost is prohibitive. If Ms. Hall does not accept his assertion that the cost of life insurance is prohibitive, Mr. Herrington can bring a Motion to Change the Final Order, seeking to have the life insurance condition removed.

Costs

64Ms. Hall is entitled to costs as the successful party.

65The parties are strongly urged to come to an agreement with respect to the monetary amount to be awarded to Ms. Hall for costs.

66If they cannot come to an agreement by July 24, 2026, the parties must submit written submissions regarding costs, addressing the issues that I must consider in awarding costs, as set out in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. Written submissions are to be prepared and submitted in accordance with Rule 24(19). Ms. Hall, as the clearly successful party, will submit her costs submissions by August 10, 2026. Mr. Herrington will submit his responding submissions by August 24, 2026, and Ms. Hall will submit any necessary reply submissions by August 31, 2026.

67Costs submissions are to be filed with the Court, copied to the judicial assistant at CornwallJudicialAssistants@ontario.ca, and uploaded to Case Centre.

68If no costs submissions are received within the timelines noted above, the Court will deem the costs issue to be resolved.

Conclusion

69Mr. Herrington is ordered to pay monthly child support in accordance with an imputed income of $77,000.

70Mr. Herrington will pay 70% of the s. 7 expenses for the children. Ms. Hall will pay 30%.

71Ms. Hall’s claim for child support arrears is dismissed.

72Mr. Herrington will make best efforts to secure life insurance with Ms. Hall as the irrevocable beneficiary.

73Any other request for relief sought by either party that is not addressed in the Final Order, set out below, is dismissed.

Order

74Final Order to go, pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, as follows:

Monthly Child Support

a. The Respondent Father shall pay the Applicant Mother child support for the benefit of Sonny Anthony Hall-Herrington, born April 23, 2019, and Poppi Hall-Herrington, born June 11, 2021 (the Children), commencing March 1, 2026, at a rate of $ 1,175 per month, based on an imputed income of $77,000.

S. 7 expenses

b. The Federal Child Support Guidelines define special and extraordinary expenses (s. 7 expenses) as follows:

i. Expenses that exceed those that the parent requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, considering that parent's income and the amount that the parent would receive under the applicable table or, where the Court has determined that the table amount in inappropriate, the amount that the Court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or

ii. Where paragraph (i) is not applicable, expenses that the Court considers are extraordinary, considering:

1. The amount of the expense in relation to the income of the parent requesting the amount, including the amount that the parent would receive under the applicable table or, where the Court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the Court has otherwise determined in appropriate;

2. The nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities;

3. Any special needs and talents of the Children;

4. The overall cost of the programs and activities; and

5. Any other similar factor that the Court considers relevant.

c. The Applicant Mother and the Respondent Father shall share agreed-upon s. 7 expenses related to the support of the Children in proportion to their respective incomes as determined by this Court, specifically, the income imputed to the Respondent Father in the amount of $77,000 and the minimum-wage income imputed to the Applicant Mother in the amount of $33,000. Based on the income identified above, the Applicant Mother shall be responsible for 30% and the Respondent Father 70% of s.7 expenses.

d. S. 7 expenses shall include:

i. Childcare expenses incurred because of the custodial parent's employment, illness, disability, or education training for employment;

ii. That portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the Children;

iii. Health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist, or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses, and contact lenses;

iv. Diabetic supplies required for Sonny, which shall include, but not be limited to, syringes and wipes required for changing/cleaning his Dexcom;

v. Extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet Children's particular needs;

vi. Expenses for post-secondary education; and

vii. Extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

Life insurance as security for child support

e. Subject to his ability to qualify for same, the Respondent Father shall maintain a life insurance policy, or the equivalent thereof, in the amount of $150,000 to secure his obligation to provide for the financial support of the Children.

f. If the Respondent Father is unable to secure a life insurance policy because he has been declined coverage, he must provide to the Applicant Mother, within 30 days of the date of this Order, proof that he has been recently declined by at least two insurance companies for such coverage. Such proof is to include copies of the applications for life insurance and copies of the prospective insurers’ responses to the Respondent Father.

g. If the Respondent Father is unable to secure a life insurance policy as a result of the cost of such insurance being prohibitive, he must provide to the Applicant Mother, within 30 days of the date of this Order, proof of the cost of the required coverage from at least two insurance companies and an explanation, in writing, as to why the cost is prohibitive to him. Such proof is to include copies of the written quotes for insurance provided by the prospective insurers. If, after receiving proof of the cost of the required coverage, the Applicant Mother disagrees with the Respondent Father’s assertion that the cost is prohibitive, the Respondent Father can seek a further Order of the Court varying this provision.

h. If a life insurance policy becomes available to the Respondent Father through his employment, the Respondent Father must avail himself of that life insurance policy and must name the Applicant Mother as the irrevocable beneficiary, in trust for the Children.

i. In the event the Respondent Father can secure life insurance, the purpose of the insurance is to replace the support obligations and not to provide a windfall if the insured dies. Therefore, the Respondent Father may request that the amount of life insurance required be lowered no more than once every year on the basis that the amount required has been reduced by the passage of time or other relevant factors. The following factors shall be considered in determining the reduced amount of insurance:

i. The amount of total support obligated to be paid pursuant to this agreement, an amending agreement, or Court Order;

ii. The number of years left of the support obligation; and

iii. Any other benefits the child, or the children, receive on the insured’s death from the insured’s employer or otherwise.

j. The Respondent Father shall name the Applicant Mother as the irrevocable beneficiary for the children of the above-noted life insurance policy and shall maintain this designation for so long as the obligation to support for at least one of the children remains in force and effect.

k. In the event that the policy should not be in place, lapse, or is no longer in force and effect as per this Order, or the insurance available is less than the amount identified above, any and all support outstanding pursuant to this Order, or available at law, shall constitute a first charge on the Respondent Father’s estate in favour of the Applicant Mother.

l. In addition to any other remedy the Applicant Mother may have against the estate of the Respondent Father in the event the insurance proceeds are not paid, the Applicant Mother shall be entitled to make an Application under the Succession Law Reform Act, or successor legislation, on behalf of either or both Children as dependents.

Costs

m. If the parties cannot come to an agreement by July 24, 2026, with respect to costs, the parties must submit written submissions regarding costs as set out in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. Written submissions are to be prepared and submitted in accordance with Rule 24(19) and in accordance with the following timelines:

i. The Applicant Mother, as the successful party, will submit her costs submissions by August 10, 2026;

ii. The Respondent Father will submit his responding submissions by August 24, 2026; and

iii. The Applicant Mother will submit any necessary reply submissions by August 31, 2026.

n. Costs submissions are to be filed with the Court, copied to the judicial assistant at CornwallJudicialAssistants@ontario.ca, and uploaded to Case Centre.

o. If no costs submissions are received within the timelines noted above, the Court will deem the costs issue to be resolved.

The Honourable Justice L. Bramwell

Footnotes

1. 1Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24.
2. 2Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24.
3. 3Drygala v. Pauli 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(C.A).
4. 4Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200.
5. 5Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552 (C.A.).
6. 6Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260.
7. 7Filippetto v. Timpano, 2008 CanLII 3962 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 417, (S.C.J.); T.L. v. D.S., 2019 ONCJ 809.
8. 8Drygala v. Pauli 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(C.A).
9. 9Riel v. Holland, 2003 CanLII 3433 (Ont. C.A.)
10. 10Hagner v. Hawkins 2005 CanLII 43294 (ONSC).
11. 11Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137.
12. 12Bemrose v. Fetter, 2007 ONCA 637; M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
13. 13Rogers v. Rogers, 2013 ONSC 1997; Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, 2014 ONSC 6773.
14. 14Olah v. Olah 2000 CanLII 22590 (ONSC); Weir v. Therrien, 2001 CanLII 28136 (ON SC), [2001] O.J. No. 2612; Vitagliano v. Di Stavolo 2001 CanLII 28202 (ONSC); Zagar v. Zagar, 2006 ONCJ 296; Laing v. Mahmoud, 2011 ONSC 4047.
15. 15Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 CanLII 26573 (ONCA).
16. 16Smith v. Pellegrini, 2008 CanLII 46927 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 3616, (S.C.J.); Maimone v. Maimone, 2009 CanLII 25981 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 2140, (S.C.J.).
17. 17Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
18. 18Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606.