Nitin Rai v. Isha Chopra Rai, 2026 ONSC 4010

CITATION: Rai v. Rai, 2026 ONSC 4010

COURT FILE NO. : FS-21-00026127

DATE: 202607010

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Nitin Rai

Applicant

– and –

Isha Chopra Rai

Respondent

Arkadi Bouchelev, for the Applicant

Nadab Patres, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, and November 10, 2025, and June 15 and 17, 2026

JUSTICE J.S. Shin Doi

1The parties had a short marriage of less than three years. The respondent (the “Mother”) immigrated to Canada from India sponsored by her ex-husband. She met the applicant (the “Father”), who was also formerly married, on an online matrimonial app. At the beginning of the marriage, the parties lived with the Father’s family in the basement of their home. The parties separated after having one child (the “Child”) who is now six years old. The Child has primary residence with the Mother and parenting time with the Father.

2The issues are:

(a) What parenting time is in the best interests of the Child?

(b) What decision-making regime is in the best interests of the Child?

(c) How much child support is the Father required to pay?

(d) What is the proportionate share of section 7 expenses?

(e) Is the Father required to pay spousal support and if so, how much?

(f) What equalization payment should be made?

3I conclude that it is in the best interests of the Child that the parties have equal parenting time in accordance with the following schedule: Mondays and Tuesdays with the Mother, Wednesdays and Thursdays with the Father, and alternating Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays with the Mother/Father. The exchanges are to occur at school. I also conclude that it is in the best interests of the Child that there be joint decision-making responsibility. The Father shall pay child support and child support arrears as set out below. The parties shall share section 7 expenses proportionate to their incomes as set out below. The Father shall pay mid-range spousal support to the Mother for a period of four years from the date of separation in the sum set out below. The Father shall also pay the amount of $14,550.67 as equalization to the Mother.

BACKGROUND FACTS

4The Father immigrated with his parents from India to Canada in or about 1999 at the age of eleven. He is now 38 years old. The Father obtained a diploma in Automative Service from Centennial College in 2008. He was previously married in 2013 for less than two years.

5The Mother, who is turning 39 years old, immigrated from India to Canada in or about 2013. She came as an international student. At the time of her arrival, the Mother was married to her first husband who accompanied her to Canada. The Mother and her first husband resided in Toronto for approximately one year and then relocated to Alberta in 2014. The Mother and her first husband divorced in 2015.

6The parties met on an online matrimonial app in November 2018 and then met in person in Toronto. The Father travelled to Calgary to see the Mother a few times. The Mother applied for jobs in Toronto and was successful in obtaining a job.

7The parties decided to get married in January 2019 and were married on March 2, 2019. Following their marriage, the parties moved into the Father’s parents’ home, where they resided with the Father’s parents until approximately November 2020.

8The parties’ son was born on December 16, 2019.

9The parties moved from the Father’s parent’s home in November 2020 to a rental property for four to five months and then moved to another rental property where the Father resided after the separation.

10During the marriage, the parties purchased a property, municipally known as 611-321 Spruce Street, Waterloo, Ontario (the “Waterloo Property”). The Waterloo Property was purchased as an investment property and never served as the parties’ matrimonial home. The Waterloo property was sold in 2024. The net proceeds of the sale in the amount of $56,194.62 is currently held by the real estate solicitor who acted for the parties.

11The parties separated on September 2, 2021. From September 2021 to March 2022, the Mother lived in a shelter with the Child. The Mother received a loan from family and friends. The Mother arranged virtual calls between the Father and the Child during this time.

12On October 8, 2021, the Father commenced the Application, seeking decision-making responsibility and parenting time.

13On October 11, 2021, the Father brought an urgent motion seeking an order restraining the mother from removing the Child from Ontario. A month before the separation, the Mother had obtained a life-long Indian visa for the Child. On October 14, 2021, the court granted the motion, ordered that the Child’s passport be deposited with the Mother’s lawyer for safekeeping, and made an interim parenting time order. The court ordered that the Father be given parenting time on Mondays and Fridays between 9:00 am and 1:00 pm with drop off and pick up at a playland.

14On December 20, 2021, the Mother filed an Answer, claiming spousal support, child support, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and costs.

15On March 5, 2022, the parties tried to reconcile. The Mother and the Child returned to live at the rental property with the Father.

16On April 14, 2022, the court made a consent order directing the release of the Child’s passport to the parties in order to allow them to secure a visa and travel with the Child to India to visit family members. The court furthered ordered that the parties should retain the Child’s passport.

17On May 18, 2023, the mother left the matrimonial home again and did not return. She moved into a subsidized Toronto Housing apartment in Toronto.

18The Mother and the Child travelled to India for 3 months and then returned.

19On October 31, 2023, the parties agreed to list and sell the rental property in Waterloo and the court ordered that the Father make certain disclosure.

20In November, 2024, the Father was terminated from his employment.

21On October 9, 2025, the Father filed an Amended Application, claiming a divorce, equalization, and costs.

22On October 17, 2025, the Mother filed an Amended Answer.

23On October 24, 2025, the Father filed a Reply.

CREDIBILITY

24Both parties and the witnesses were largely credible. They were generally candid and forthright in their testimonies. There were a few instances where each party was evasive. The Father was evasive when asked about his severance and payment of the mortgage for the Waterloo Property and the Mother was evasive when asked about the slapping and fall incidents.

25I disagree with each party that the other party was not credible. The Father says that the Mother is not credible because she made false allegations and inflammatory statements against the Father and his family with no corroborating evidence. The Father also says that the Mother was evasive. I agree that the Mother was hesitant in parts of her testimony, but her evidence was consistent and credible. The Mother says that the Father’s testimony was inconsistent, vague, and contradictory. In my view, the Father’s testimony was consistent and specific, and not contradictory.

ANALYSIS

What parenting time is in the best interests of the Child?

26It is in the best interests of the Child that the Child have equal parenting time with the parties in accordance with the following schedule: Mondays and Tuesdays with the Mother, Wednesdays and Thursdays with the Father, and alternating Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays with the Mother/Father.

27The Father asks for equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 basis and the Mother asks that the Father have alternate weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. The Mother opposes parenting time due to communication issues and concerns about the Child’s safety.

28Parenting time is defined at s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) s. as follows,

parenting time means the time that a child of the marriage spends in the care of a person referred to in subsection 16.1(1), whether or not the child is physically with that person during that entire time. 

29The Divorce Act, at s. 16(1) provides that the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order. Subsection 16(2) states that when considering the factors, the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. Subsection 16 (3) sets out the factors to be considered as follows,

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

30The past conduct of a parent is not to be considered unless it is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order: Divorce Act, at s. 16(5).

31The Divorce Act, s. 16(6) stipulates that parenting time should be consistent with the best interests of a child,

Parenting time consistent with best interests of child

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

32The Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, at s. 24 requires the court to consider the best interests of the child in making a parenting order and the factors related to the circumstances of the child.

33I will now analyze and consider the best interest factors.

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

34The Child is six years old. The Child is young and needs stability. The Child does not have any special needs. The Child does not have any health issues other than myopia in his eyes.

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

35The Child has a good relationship with each of the parties.

36The Child also has a good relationship with his paternal grandparents whom he sees occasionally when he is in the care of the Father. The Child enjoys spending time with his paternal grandparents, aunt, and cousins.

37The Child has less contact with the Mother’s family who resides in India.

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

38Each party is generally willing to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the other. However, the Mother wishes to increase parenting time with the Father by only one additional night. The Father says that the Mother’s conduct suggests that she is intentionally trying to minimize the Father’s involvement with the Child. The Father states that the Mother would rather enrol the Child into a day camp than have the Child spend time with the Father.

(d) the history of care of the child;

39The Mother has consistently been the primary caregiver, attending to the Child’s day-to-day needs. The Mother says that the Child has been thriving in her care.

40The Father has had limited parenting time with the Child. The Father first had virtual parenting time with the Child when the Child lived in a shelter with the Mother and then in person parenting time but the Father was required to work weekends which impacted his ability to have parenting time. The Father currently has parenting time five nights out of 14 nights.

41The Father says he was not informed when the Child fell, hit his head on floor, and got stitches. The Father says he is traumatized about the incident.

42The Father alleges that the Mother refused parenting time on one occasion because he was one minute late. The Father’s friend, Eric Kaplun testified that the Father had difficulty obtaining parenting time with the Child. The Mother refused to allow the Child to attend a birthday party because the Father did not have parenting time.

43The Father’s father alleges that the Mother was possessive with the Child. The grandparents were not permitted to see the Child for approximately one year. The Mother gave no explanation for not allowing these visits. When the Father obtained access to the Child, the Child was able to see his paternal grandparents. They missed the Child very much. The Father’s father says that they have a beautiful and amazing relationship with the Child now.

44The Father’s father says the Father is an excellent parent as he looks after the Child, plays with the Child, takes the Child to medical appointments, does school homework with the Child, and takes the Child to events.

45The Father’s friend and co-worker Raef Eskander observed the Father parenting the Child in 2024 at a badminton game. In October 2024, they went together on a one-day trip to USA, the Father was very excited about buying toys and clothes for the Child. Mr. Eskander says the Father was concerned that the Child was not focussed, and the Father was a bit sad. In August 2024, the Father was scheduled to come to the store where he worked to assist with a VIP event but the Father cancelled his attendance due to his change of plans with parenting time.

46The Father’s friend Inderjeet Singh testified that he saw the parties socially and went on vacations together. He observed that the parties were not comfortable with each other and the Mother would have loud arguments with others and not be patient with guests. He also observed the Child with the Father and the Father’s family and the Child had strong bonds, respected each other, and loved each other. The Child did not want to go back to the Mother after the Father’s parenting time. Mr. Singh had no cause for concern about the Father parenting the Child.

47The Father’s sister is a psychotherapist. She says the Mother was possessive and reactive during the marriage. She says that the Mother became quite distant and stopped engaging with the Father’s family. She says that the Mother was reactionary to events, not caring or mindful. She says when the paternal family engaged with the Child, the Mother would get upset easily, defensive, and angry. The sister says the Father has a loving relationship with the Child and the Father’s family is caring.

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

48The Child’s views and preferences are unknown as the Child is still young and cannot be ascertained.

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

49The parties were both born in India and share that common culture with the Child.

50The Child is enrolled in a French immersion school. The Father is fluent in French and assists the Child with the French language.

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

51The Father is employed in a role that allows him flexibility to care for the Child.

52The Father’s family including his sister is willing to support the Father in childcare. The paternal grandfather says that he and the paternal grandmother would love to assist the Father in caring for the Child.

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

53I find that based on the evidence, each party would be able and willing to care and meet the needs of the Child.

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

54The Mother says that the parties have communication difficulties. The Father says communications have not been difficult but alleges that the Mother has made unilateral decisions, such as enrolling the Child in daycare.

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

55There is conflicting evidence about family violence. The Mother alleges that the Father abused her and that his family mistreated and humiliated her. The Father denies any family violence, physical, or psychological abuse.

56The Mother alleges that the Father would push her and yell at her. She alleges that he would yell at her when she was at work and also yell at her about cooking and cleaning while she was pregnant. The Mother says she did not receive any emotional support from the Father or his family. She says that she was denied visitors by the Father’s father. She alleges that she was prevented from leaving the house by the Father and his family and was subject to yelling, harassment, and shaming.

57The Father alleges that the Mother slapped the Child. The Mother denies that there was any slapping and that the Child suffered from an ear infection. The Father reported the alleged slapping to the doctor who called the Children’s Aid Society. The Mother says that the Child denied that he was hit by the Mother.

58The Father’s father observed loud yelling and erratic behaviour by the Mother. He says that the Mother made false allegations that the Father’s family was disrespectful towards her. During the Mother’s pregnancy, the Father’s sister states the Mother’s mood changed, the Mother had pregnancy blues, and a lot of misunderstandings started to happen.

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

59There is no civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the Child.

Conclusion

60The Child was only two years old when the parties separated. The Child is now six years old and has had parenting time with the Father. The Child has a good relationship and strong bond with each of his parents and the Father’s extended family. In my view, the alleged family violence incidents were isolated. The alleged conflicts between the Mother and the Father and his family were minimized or eliminated after the separation. Each party should not use corporal punishment to discipline the Child. It is in the best interests of the Child that the Child has equal parenting time with each of the parties. Since the Child is still young, a predictable schedule will assist the Child with stability.

What decision-making regime is in the best interests of the child?

61Joint decision-making responsibility is in the best interests of the Child.

62Decision-making responsibility with respect to a child is defined in the Divorce Act, at s. 2(1),

decision-making responsibility means the responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including in respect of

(a) health;

(b) education;

(c) culture, language, religion and spirituality; and

(d) significant extra-curricular activities; 

63Subsection 16.1(1) permits a court to make an order for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage, on application by either or both spouses; or a person who is a parent of the child who stands in the place of a parent.

64Either or both spouses may be allocated decision-making responsibility pursuant to s. 16.3,

16.3 Decision-making responsibility in respect of a child, or any aspect of that responsibility, may be allocated to either spouse, to both spouses, to a person described in paragraph 16.1(1)(b), or to any combination of those persons.

65Day-to-day decisions are allocated to the parent who has parenting time unless the court orders otherwise pursuant to s.16.2(2),

Day-to-day decisions

(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, a person to whom parenting time is allocated under paragraph 16.1(4)(a) has exclusive authority to make, during that time, day-to-day decisions affecting the child.

66The Mother asks for sole decision-making authority. The Father asks for joint decision-making authority.

67Based on the consideration of the best interest factors and analysis above, it is in the best interests of the Child that the parties have joint decision-making authority. The history of care further indicates that both parties have made joint decisions for the Child including education and healthcare.

68Both parties selected the Child’s physician and both parties have been involved in health decisions. The Father failed to inform the Mother about an alleged ear infection issue in December 2024 but once the Mother raised it, the Father brought the Child to the doctor. The Father says he does not remember whether he informed the Mother that he was taking the Child to the doctor.

69Both parties have agreed on education, in particular, French Immersion School. The parties are also in agreement about the Child’s religion.

70Typically, the parties would email or text each other about the Child. Communication difficulties and conflict have arisen with respect to the Child’s extra-curricular activities and scheduling. In my view, the question of participation, timing, and costs of extra-curricular activities should be discussed and determined in advance.

71There are disagreements with respect to travel with the Child. The Mother alleges that the Father has refused to allow her to take a trip outside of Ontario during her own parenting time in December 2023. The Father says that there is a real possibility that the Mother will take the Child to India and not return. The Father asks that neither party remove the Child outside of Ontario without the written consent of the other party or a court order. The Mother has already travelled to India and returned with the Child. The Mother also has employment and housing in Ontario. It is in the Child’s best interests that each party exercises decision-making including travel during his/her own parenting time. Each party may travel with the Child during that party’s parenting time. If the party wishes to travel with the Child during the other party’s parenting time, the party must seek the other party’s consent. A party travelling with the Child shall provide a travel itinerary including contact information and flight information.

Is child support payable and if so, how much?

72The Father shall pay child support arrears in the sum of $9,390.20 from 2021 to 2025 plus monthly child support in 2026 based on his income until the commencement of equal parenting time.

73The Father is required to pay child support for the Child pursuant to the Divorce Act, s. 15.1,

15.1 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring a spouse to pay for the support of any or all children of the marriage.

74The Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, at s. 1(a) “establish[es] a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation.”

75Pursuant to s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, in the event that each spouse exercises at least 40% of parenting time with a child, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account: (a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses; (b) the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and (c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

76The Father’s income based on his Notices of Assessment and corresponding child support obligation as set out in the 2017 Child Support Table Look-Up based on the Federal Child Support Tables are set out below. Also, the Father’s payments as recorded by the Mother are set out below.

Year

Father’s Income

Child Support Due

Payable

Paid

Balance

2021

$101,728

$923.68

$923.68 x 3 months (Oct, Nov, Dec) = $2,771.04

$935 x 3 months =$2,805

• $33.86

2022

$126,122

$1,116

$1,116 x 2 months (Jan, Feb) =$2,232

Reconciliation (March 2022 to May 2023)

$0 x 2 months (Jan, Feb) =$0

($935 x 2 months (March, April) = $1,870)

($800 x 2 months (May, Oct) =

$1,600

$700 x 6 months (June to Sept, Nov, Dec) = $4,200

$2,232

2023

$114,095

$1,020.72

$1,020.72 x 6 months (June to Dec) = $6,124.32

$1,116 x 4 months (June to September) = $4,464

$1,660.32

2024

$140,177

$1,226.27

$1,226.27 x 12 months (Jan to Dec) = $14,715.24

$1,116 x 11 months = $12,276

$2,439.24

2025

$42,750

$390.45 (Jan to Sept) and $361.50 (Oct to Dec)

$390.45 x 9 months (Jan to Sept) = $3,514.05

$361.50 x 3 months (Oct to Dec) = $1,084.50

$251 x 6 months (Mar to Sept) =$1,506

$3,092.50

Total

$9,390.20

77The Mother claims that the total outstanding child support arrears are the sum of $15,864. I calculate child support arrears owing by the Father to the Mother as the sum of $9,390.20.

78The Mother has had primary residence of the Child since the parties separated in 2021 except when the parties attempted to reconcile. The Mother returned to the matrimonial home from March 2022 to May 2023. The Father says he assumed all the financial responsibilities of the family including payment of groceries and rent during that period. Further, the Mother says that she received child support during that period as noted above. As held by Justice Sah in Baroudi v. Young, 2024 ONSC 4425 at para. 134, “table child support presupposes the applicant’s requirement to pay child support, as it assumes that parents sharing their accommodation with the children on a day-to-day basis meet their obligations to the children in accordance with their ability.”

79There is conflicting evidence about the payments made by the Father to the Mother during the period of attempted reconciliation. The parties had a common intention of reconciliation when they resumed co-habitation for 14.5 months in the matrimonial home. However, it is not clear that they reconciled. The parties agree that they maintained separate rooms and did not engage in conjugal relations, and that the Mother declared herself as separated on her income tax returns. The parties agree that the date of separation is September 2, 2021. The Father says that he did not pay child support during the period when the parties resumed co-habitation from March 2022 to May 2023. However, the Father in the Agreed Statement of Facts says he always paid child support. Also, the Mother’s chart of child support paid indicates that the Father did make payments from March to December 2022 as well as the months of January, July, August, and September 2023. The Mother says that the Father paid the amount of $935 for the months of March and April 2022, the amount of $800 for each of May and October 2022, and the amount of $700 for the months of June to September and November to December 2022. I find that payments made by the Father, which the Mother accepted is child support for the period March 2022 to May 2023. I do not order table child support for that period.

80The Father says that he paid child support in May 2023 when the Mother moved out for a second time. He says that he was paying approximately $1,116 per month based on his 2022 income and this continued until November 2024. I accept the Mother’s evidence in the chart which indicates that he paid $1,116 per month for June, July, August, and September 2023.

81The Father stopped child support in 2024 for 3 months. In November 2024, the Father lost his job and did not pay child support in December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025. The Father started receiving EI benefits in March 2025. The Father explains that he was terminated from his employment and received employment insurance. He requested a child support holiday because he used the severance monies to pay his debts.

82The Father obtained a Sales Manager job with Fun Day in October 2025. He manages indoor playgrounds. His compensation is the sum of $42,750 per year pursuant to his employment contract dated October 17, 2025.

83The Mother claims that the total outstanding child support arrears are the sum of $15,864. The Mother asks that $1,033 be paid per month in child support from December 1, 2025, with an imputed income of $110,000. The Mother argues that the Father’s income should be imputed at $110,000 given his employment history and that he is capable of securing employment with this level of income.

84The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19(1) permits a court to impute income to a spouse as it considers appropriate where the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage.

Imputing income

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

(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;

85In Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal confirmed that income may be imputed where a spouse is intentionally underemployed or fails to disclose income fully.

86I decline to impute income to the Father. The Father was terminated and then sought and obtained employment that would give him flexibility to care for the Child. One of the reasons that the Father was terminated was that he had difficulty managing his job demands with the Child’s needs. I do not find that the Father is intentionally under-employed in his new position. If he is intentionally under-employed, then I conclude that the under-employment is required so that he can meet the needs of the Child.

87The Mother argues that the Father had undisclosed rental income from the Waterloo Property which he denies. I do not find on the evidence that there is undisclosed rental income. The Mother further argues that he has income from a business, Cricket Cadets. I accept the Father’s explanation that he is not involved in the business of Cricket Cadets.

88I agree with the Father that when equal parenting time commences, there would be no child support payable given that the parties’ respective incomes are comparable. The conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse are now comparable. The Father shall pay child support from the date of separation, September 2, 2021, to the start of equal parenting time in 2026.

How much section 7 expenses are payable?

89The parties shall contribute to section 7 expenses in proportion to their incomes.

90The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 7(1) provides that a court may provide for special or extraordinary expenses. Subsection 7(2) provides that the guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense is that the expense is shared by the spouses in proportion to their respective incomes.

Special or extraordinary expenses

7 (1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation:

o (a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the spouse who has the majority of parenting time;

o (b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;

o (c) 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;

o (d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;

o (e) expenses for post-secondary education; and

o (f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

Definition of “extraordinary expenses”

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (f), the term extraordinary expenses means

o (a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse 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 is appropriate; or

o (b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account

(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse 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 is appropriate,

(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,

(iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children,

(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and

(v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.

91The Mother submits a chart of section 7 expenses for 2023, 2024, and 2025 (Exhibit 37). The Mother says that she has paid for section 7 expenses since the date of separation. It is the Father’s position that there are no section 7 expenses he owes. In my view, the section 7 expenses listed by the Mother in her chart: daycare, boys and girls club, swimming, skating, martial arts are reasonable and payable. The Father asks for explanation for the amounts in the Mother’s section 7 expenses chart she provided. I agree with the Father that “medical”, “Montreal trip for birthday”, “groceries and entertainment” require further context which specifies the necessity for the expense in relation to the Child’s best interest and the reasonableness of the expense pursuant to section 7. The Mother shall provide supporting invoices and receipts and context for the section 7 expenses listed in the chart as well as a list of section 7 expenses paid for 2021 and 2022. Upon receipt, the Father shall pay the Mother his contribution for reasonable expenses in accordance with his proportionate share.

92The Father’s income and the Mother’s income as set out in their respective disclosure documents are set out below along with a calculation of their proportionate shares.

Year

Father’s Income

Mother’s Income

Proportionate Shares

2021

$101,728

$2,035.80

98% Father 2% Mother

2022

$126,122

$2,035.80

98% Father 2% Mother

2023

$114,095

$23,560

83% Father 17% Mother

2024

$140,177

$30,000

82% Father 18% Mother

2025

$42,750

$38,726

52% Father 48% Mother

93The parties shall pay section 7 expenses in accordance with the proportionate shares above. The Father accepts that section 7 expenses should be paid in proportion to the parties’ annual incomes. The Mother asks that the Father pay 60% of the section 7 expenses she pay 40%, but that would be inconsistent with the percentages noted above.

Is the Father required to pay spousal support and if so, how much, and for how long?

94The Father is required to pay spousal support to the Mother in the sum of $41,432. The Mother qualifies for support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. The Father shall pay spousal support to the Mother for a period of 4 years (48 months), in the mid-range, based on his actual income as set out as follows:

Year

Father’s income

Mother’s income

Spousal Support with Child Support (Divorcemate, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines)

2021

$101,728

$2,035.80

$1,870 per month for 3 months (Oct to Dec) = $5,610

2022

$126,122

$2,035.80

$2,506 per month for 2 months (Jan to Feb) = $5,012

2023

$114,095

$23,560

$1,159 per month for months (June to Dec) = $6,954

2024

$140,177

$30,000

$1,988 per month for 12 months = $23,856

2025

$42,750

$38,726

$0 per month for 12 months

2026

[estimate $42,750]

[estimated $38,726]

[$0] per month for 12 months

Total

$41,432 for 48 months

95The Mother claims spousal support of $746 per month or alternatively, a lump sum payment of $35,808 for 48 months or four years. The Father opposes the spousal support claim on the grounds that the Mother does not qualify for spousal support and that the Mother is self-sufficient.

96The Divorce Act, s. 15.2(1) provides the court with jurisdiction to make an order requiring a spouse to pay as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse. Subsection 15.2(6) sets out the four objectives for spousal support;

Objectives of spousal support order

(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

97Subsection 15.2(4) requires the court to take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, when making a spousal support order,

Factors

(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

98According to Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, entitlement to spousal support must be established prior to determining the quantum and duration of a spousal support order. The three groups of entitlement to spousal support are (a) compensatory; (b) contractual; and (c) non-compensatory”: Fatima v. Akhtar Agha, 2024 ONSC 7040, at para. 96.

99I am satisfied that the Mother is entitled to spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. The marriage was short but during the marriage, the Mother resigned from her job due to her pregnancy. The Mother describes her pregnancy as “extremely stressful”. The Mother started bleeding during her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital and then went on bedrest. She was a stay-at-home mom and cooked and cleaned for the Father and his family. The Mother says that she was often isolated. The Mother also established entitlement on a needs basis. Upon separation, the Mother was not employed, had little means to support her needs, and was initially unable to support herself. She lived in a shelter following the separation in 2021. There was a brief period from March 2022 to May 2023 when the parties attempted to reconcile, during which her housing and other needs were met by living with the Father and the Father was paying child support.

100The Mother is educated, having earned an MBA and undergraduate degree Bachelor of Business Administration, and obtained Human Resources designation from George Brown College. The Mother had full-time positions in administration in the retail and hospitality industries before moving from Calgary to Toronto. She worked in the Human Resources department at Tim Hortons. She received advice from her gynecologist to rest during her pregnancy and decided not to return to work. I reject the Father’s position that she did not go back to work because she was interested in obtaining employment insurance. The Mother has since obtained an administrative job with the Toronto District School Board.

101I accept the Mother’s income as shown in her Notice of Assessment. I reject the Father’s submission that her annual income is more than the amount set out in her Notice of Assessment based upon the Father’s calculation which includes her Employment Insurance for two months per year.

102Given the short length of the marriage, the function that she played during the marriage, as well as her education, employment history, age, and recent success in obtaining employment and supporting herself, I conclude that four years of spousal support as requested by the Mother in the mid-range with child support is reasonable to compensate the Mother for the losses and hardships caused by the marriage breakdown.

How is Net Family Property to be equalized between the parties?

103The Father shall pay the amount of $14,550.67 to the Mother to equalize Net Family Property.

104The Father’s position is that the Mother should pay the amount of $115.25 to the Father. The Mother’s position is that the Father should pay the amount of $80,997.70 to the Mother. The Mother asks for unequal division of Net Family Property.

105As outlined in Saroli v. Saroli, 2021 ONSC 4450, at para. 33:

The Family Law Act, Part 1, “provides that upon the breakdown of a marriage the spouses will, in most circumstances, share equally any increased wealth accrued by the couple during the marriage. Assets are not divided or redistributed between the spouses. Rather, the parties each retain their respective ownership interest in their assets, and an equalization payment is made if one spouse’s net worth has grown more than the other’s net worth during the marriage.

106Subsection 4(1) defines Net Family Property as follows,

“net family property” means the value of all the property, except property described in subsection (2), that a spouse owns on the valuation date, after deducting,

(a) the spouse’s debts and other liabilities, and

(b) the value of property, other than a matrimonial home, that the spouse owned on the date of the marriage, after deducting the spouse’s debts and other liabilities, other than debts or liabilities related directly to the acquisition or significant improvement of a matrimonial home, calculated as of the date of the marriage

107Subsection 5(1) sets out how Net Family Property is equalized by payment by one spouse to the other spouse with the lesser Net Family Property,

5 (1) When a divorce is granted or a marriage is declared a nullity, or when the spouses are separated and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation, the spouse whose net family property is the lesser of the two net family properties is entitled to one-half the difference between them. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 5 (1).

108The court may award a spouse an unequal division of Net Family Property if equalizing would be unconscionable pursuant to subsection 5(6),

Variation of share

(6) The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to,

(a) a spouse’s failure to disclose to the other spouse debts or other liabilities existing at the date of the marriage;

(b) the fact that debts or other liabilities claimed in reduction of a spouse’s net family property were incurred recklessly or in bad faith;

(c) the part of a spouse’s net family property that consists of gifts made by the other spouse;

(d) a spouse’s intentional or reckless depletion of his or her net family property;

(e) the fact that the amount a spouse would otherwise receive under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation that is less than five years;

(f) the fact that one spouse has incurred a disproportionately larger amount of debts or other liabilities than the other spouse for the support of the family;

(g) a written agreement between the spouses that is not a domestic contract; or

(h) any other circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 5 (6).

109I conclude that variation of the equalization payment is not warranted. I find that equalizing Net Family Property would not be unconscionable having regard to the s.5(6) factors. I am satisfied with each party’s disclosure. I do not find evidence that debts and other liabilities were incurred recklessly or in bad faith by either party. I also do not conclude that equalization would be disproportionately large in relation to the period of cohabitation which is less than five years.

110I turn to the Comparison of Net Family Property Statements. The major asset to be equalized is the Waterloo Property. On their respective Net Family Property Statements, the Father lists the Waterloo Property as $340,000. The Mother lists the Waterloo Property as $500,000 for the Father and $25,000 for the Mother. Neither party provided an appraisal with respect to the Waterloo Property. The Father says that it was only at trial that the Mother took the position that the Waterloo Property was worth $500,000. The Father purchased the condominium in Waterloo for $286,618 in August 2020 with a five-year mortgage. It was not a matrimonial home. The Waterloo Property was used as a rental property, and the rental income was used for its carrying costs. The Mother says she made a $25,000 contribution to the purchase price but most of the monies were from a joint account held by the Father. The Waterloo Property was sold on April 1, 2024 for $340,000. It is reasonable to use the sale price of $340,000 as the value of the Waterloo Property.

111The Father says that the valuation date mortgage in connection with the Waterloo property is $283,805.38. The Mother says $280,000. I agree with the Father that his figure is more precise and should be used.

112The parties dispute the value of the Mother’s 2017 Hyundai Tucson as of the date of separation. The Father asserts $25,000 while the Mother asserts $14,000. Neither party provided an appraisal or any evidence as to what the car was worth on the valuation date. I will use the middle value of $19,500 as a reasonable amount. The Father accepts that the Mother’s car loan has an outstanding balance of $15,802.13.

113The Father claims a car with a value of $35,163.72 purchased 4 months prior to the marriage and a car loan of $27,037.89 at the date of marriage. It would be reasonable to include those amounts given the short duration of the marriage and the supporting evidence provided.

114The Father says his RRSP had a value of $186.24 on the date of separation. The Mother says his RRSP has a value of $3,000. The Father provided his TD Mutual Funds RRSP Statement (Exhibit 9) which states that the value was $186.24 as of September 30, 2021, so I accept the Father’s value.

115The Mother has provided values of bank accounts with various values. The Father states that he will accept the Mother’s balance of $2,147.11 for the account ending in 9614. The parties also agree on the balance of the Mother’s account ending in 4312 of $4,608.71.

116The Mother claims $7,000 for loans from family and friends. The Mother did not provide proof of the loans so they should not be included in the calculation of Net Family Property.

117The Mother’s Scotiabank Visa shows a balance of $942.52. The Father argues that the supporting statement is from 2025, not 2021. However, the 2025 supporting statement shows a much higher balance. I accept the balance as stated by the Mother. The Mother then provided an updated credit card statement showing a balance of $1258.30 which should be used in the calculation.

118The Father lists his RBC credit card with a balance of $5,204.15. The Mother lists the balance as $2,494.68. The Father says that his previous monthly balance was $2,773.52 and he then added the expenses for a total of $5,204.15. I accept the Father’s evidence that he added the previously monthly balance and expenses to the date of separation to reach the balance. The Father’s RBC credit card statement indicates that he paid the amount of $2,773.52 on September 6, 2021, after the date of separation. The statement shows a balance of $3,025.30 as of September 16. 2021 (Exhibit 16).

119I calculate the Father’s Net Family Property as $35,733.08 and the Mother’s Net Family Property as $6,631.74. The difference is $29,101.34 so the Father shall pay one half the difference which is $14,550.67 as equalization to the Mother.

DISPOSITION

120I order the following:

Parenting Time: The parties shall share equal parenting time with the Child: Mondays and Tuesdays with the Mother, Wednesdays and Thursdays with the Father, and alternating Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays with the Mother/Father. Pick-up and drop-off shall occur at the Child’s school during school days. If school is not in session, the exchange shall occur on a location that is agreed upon by the parties. Each party shall be fully responsible for the Child’s daily care, activities, meals, bedtime routines, and general well-being during their designated parenting time. Neither party shall use corporal punishment to discipline the Child.

Primary Residence: The Child’s primary residence shall be with the parent with whom he is scheduled to reside that week, in accordance with the parenting time schedule.

Holiday Schedule: Major holidays and school breaks shall be shared as follows:

(a) Father's Day: With the Father from 8:00 AM to evening:

(b) Mother's Day: With the Mother from 8:00 AM to evening:

(c) Child's Birthday: No alteration to the regular schedule;

(d) Parent's Birthday: No alteration to the regular schedule;

(e) Thanksgiving: With the Father in odd-numbered years, and the Mother in even-numbered years;

(f) Halloween: With the Father in odd-numbered years, and the Mother in even- numbered years (costumes are the responsibility of the hosting parent);

(g) Christmas Holidays: i. Even-numbered years: the Mother from Christmas Eve until 10:00 AM on Christmas Day; the Father from 10:00 AM on Christmas Day until 4:00 PM on Boxing Day; ii. Odd-numbered years: the Mother from 4:00 PM on Christmas Eve until 10:00 AM on Christmas Day; the Father from 10:00 AM on Christmas Day until 4:00 PM on Boxing Day; iii. New Year's Holidays:

1. Odd-numbered years: Respondent Mother from 4:00 PM on New Year's Eve until 12:00 Noon on January 1;

2. Even-numbered years: Applicant Father from 4:00 PM on New Year's Eve until 12:00 Noon on January 1;

(h) Remainder of Winter Holidays: Any remaining time during the Christmas and New Year's period shall be divided equally between the parties;

(i) Other Statutory Holidays: All other statutory holidays (e.g., Family Day, Victoria Day, Labour Day) shall follow the regular parenting time schedule; and

(j) Summer Holidays: Summer holidays shall be divided equally between the parties. Each party shall have alternating weeks. The Mother shall have the first choice of holiday weeks in even-numbered years, and the Father shall have the first choice of holiday weeks in odd-numbered years.

Decision-making Responsibility: Both parties shall share joint decision-making responsibility for the Child including decisions related to health, education, religion, significant extra-curricular activities and all other matters concerning the Child’s well-being.

Access to Records: Both parents shall have full and independent access to the Child’s medical, educational, and other important records without requiring prior approval. Both parties shall cooperate to ensure timely access.

Passport and Documentation: Each party may hold all the Child’s important documents including but not limited to the Child’s passports, birth certificate, social insurance number, and vaccination records. Each party shall provide a copy of all important documents to the other party. Either party is permitted to apply for/renew a passport and any government documentation for the Child.

Travel: Each party may travel with the Child during that party’s parenting time. A party travelling with the Child shall provide a travel itinerary including contact information and flight information. If the party wishes to travel with the Child during the other party’s parenting time, the party must seek the other party’s consent.

Child Support: The Father shall pay child support in the sum of $9,390.20 from 2021 to 2025 plus monthly child support in 2026 based on his income until the commencement of equal parenting time.

Section 7 Expenses: The parties shall share section 7 expenses in proportion to their incomes as set out above. The Mother shall provide the Father with supporting invoices and receipts and context for the section 7 expenses.

Spousal Support: The Father shall pay mid-range spousal support to the Mother for a period of four years from the date of separation in the sum of $41,432.

Equalization: The Father shall pay the amount of $14,550.67 as equalization to the Mother.

121If there are any calculation errors, the parties may schedule a case conference with me.

122I am inclined not to award costs to either party because there was divided success. However, the parties may make written costs submissions of up to 5 pages in length plus a Bill of Costs within 15 days. The parties shall send their costs submissions to Gladys.gabbidon@ontario.ca, and upload a copy to Case Centre.

JUSTICE J.S. SHIN DOI

Released: July 10, 2026

CITATION: Rai v. Rai, 2026 ONSC 4010