CITATION: Theriault v. Gray, 2026 ONSC 434

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-0028-00

DATE: 2026-01-22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Vanessa Danielle Theriault

Peter Howie, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Clinton Gray

Self Represented

Respondent

HEARD: January 15, 2026 at Fort Frances, Ontario

Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Decision On Motion

1The parties attended at motions’ court seeking relief in accordance with the comprehensive Family Case Conference endorsement of Nieckarz J. dated January 7, 2026 (“the Endorsement”).

2Justice Nieckarz conducted a Family Case Conference on January 7, 2026, following which she prepared a thorough and detailed endorsement outlining the steps required in order to have this long outstanding matter proceed to a trial in May 2026.

3I note in the Endorsement, Nieckarz J.’s reference to her previous endorsement dated February 12, 2024 which directed this matter to a trial “as quickly as possible”. Now almost 12 months later, the issues between the parties are still not resolved, and have been the source of friction resulting in countless motions. As such, Nieckarz J. properly placed this matter on a trial list scheduled for May 2026, with specific directions establishing dates to accomplish the steps required to ready this file for a trial.

4Today, the issues set out in paragraph 9 of the Endorsement were directed to be addressed, namely:

a) Whether Mr. Gray’s child support should be varied based on his current circumstances (not based on an undue hardship claim, but rather based on a claim of a material change in income);

b) Whether he should have any relief from the garnishment proceedings of Ms. Theriault; and

c) Whether any orders are required with respect to the joint, and other debt obligations of the parties.

5While motions placed on the Regional Motions’ Court list are only permitted one hour for argument – and if more time is required, a special date needs to be booked – given the nature of this dispute, the fact that the parties have been unable to resolve their issues in a timely or proportional manner, and in light of the Endorsement, the parties were provided with 2.5 hours in order to address the matters outlined in paragraph 9 of the Endorsement.

6The issues identified in paragraph 9 of the Endorsement arise from two Notices of Motion dated November 14, 2025, and a third Notice of Motion dated December 12, 2025, which are summarized in paragraph 2 of the Endorsement. All three of these Notices of Motion were filed by the respondent. While these Notices of Motion identify a number of issues, I note that the Endorsement requires an adjudication today limited to only those issues listed in paragraph 9 of the Endorsement.

7As such, I heard submissions from the parties on the following issues:

a) Should the child support payable by the respondent for the children of the marriage, Abigail Ivy Jean Gray, born August 3, 2022, and Jace Anthony George Gray, born March 22, 2023 (collectively, “the Children”), be varied;

b) Should the respondent’s salary and bank accounts continue to be garnished by the applicant; and

c) Are there any orders required to address the joint debts and other debt obligations of the parties.

Variation of Child Support

8Commencing May 1, 2025 and continuing to the present, the respondent is required to pay $1,613.90 in monthly child support for the Children on an interim, without prejudice basis. This is based upon his 2024 annual income of $111,658.52 as set out in the decisions of Lepere J. dated April 23, 2025 and July 16, 2025.

9The respondent seeks a reduction in the amount of child support payable based upon the fact that he is currently unable to work due to medical reasons.

10A letter from Shannon Grynol, Nurse Practitioner, dated December 9, 2025 indicates that as of December 6, 2025, the respondent is to be off work for medical purposes. In a form entitled “Initial Attending Physician’s Statement for Physical Illness” of the respondent’s disability insurance carrier, Desjardins Insurance, Nurse Practitioner Shannon Grynol provides a principal diagnosis of anxiety, requiring a psychiatry consult and of unknown duration.

11On this basis, I accept that the respondent has not worked since December 6, 2025, and has applied for short term disability benefits through his employer. Unfortunately, at this time, Desjardins Insurance has not yet confirmed that they will accept the claim of the respondent – the claim was not submitted properly the first time, and the respondent has had to file an appeal with additional supplementary documentation and evidence – and no benefits have been paid.

12The respondent did provide a one pager from Desjardins Insurance providing a summary of the short term benefits which are available, indicating that if eligible, an employee shall receive 70% of their weekly earnings, up to a maximum of $2,000 per week. As such, the respondent submitted that when his STD claim is accepted, he will be receiving 70% of his regular income, and that reduced figure should be used to calculate his present support obligations.

13Counsel for the applicant submits that no variation should be made on the basis of reasoning in the case of Crowe v. McIntyre, 2014 ONSC 7106, which states that in order to justify a child support variation, the change in circumstance must be material, and not trivial or inconsequential. In addition, the change must be significant, long lasting, and not short-lived.

14I agree with the court’s decision in Crowe v. McIntyre, but note that it addressed a “permanent” child support situation which existed pursuant to a final order. Clearly parties subject to a final determination with respect to child support should not be permitted to seek a variation in the quantum of child support payable based upon trivial or short term changes in income. However, in this case before me, the child support order I am being asked to vary is one which was made on an interim, without prejudice, basis. If the parties require the trial time set aside in May 2026 to determine a final child support order, then any future variation of the same will be subject to the principles set out in Crowe v. McIntyre. At this time, I am simply being asked to consider whether a change should be made to the interim without prejudice child support order which will be reviewed in four months at trial.

15I find that a 30% reduction in income is significant, and not trivial. While it is arguable that the reduction will be short lived – lasting only as long as the respondent remains disabled by his anxiety diagnosis – there is currently no time frame provided by the respondent’s medical practitioners within which the disability will be resolved.

16Accordingly, the respondent’s obligation to pay child support shall be varied on an interim without prejudice basis, especially given that no decision by Desjardins Insurance has been made regarding the respondent’s entitlement to STD benefits.

17The respondent was unable to work since December 6, 2025. I therefore am prepared to vary the amount of child support which is payable commencing December 1, 2025, payable on the first of each month thereafter until otherwise determined by this court. However, I am making this decision contingent upon the respondent providing evidence that he is in receipt of short term disability benefits from Desjardins Insurance, and until such evidence is provided to the applicant, the respondent shall continue to be obligated to pay $1,613.90 in monthly child support.

18I make this decision assuming confirmation of eligibility and benefits will be received in the near future. However, if STD benefits are denied, and if the respondent is therefore in a position where he has received no income from December 6, 2025, the parties are directed to set up a Case Conference before me in order to discuss the implications of such a decision from Desjardins Insurance.

19Assuming confirmation of benefits is confirmed, I determine that the amount of monthly child support payable for the Children on an interim without prejudice basis to be $1,139.29 commencing December 1, 2025.

20I arrive at this figure by reviewing the paystub provided by the respondent and which shows his 2025 income as being $104,250.73. Since this annual income figure only goes to December 6, 2025 which is the last date the respondent worked, and assuming a bi-weekly payment of $1,947 which is shown on November 2025 pay stubs submitted into evidence, for the last three weeks of December 2025 he would have earned another $2,920.50. That means his income would have been $107,171.23 for 2025, and 70% would total $75,019.86.

21I recognize that there may be other ways in which to approach the numbers, however making my decision on an interim without prejudice basis, this is the approach to the math which I am adopting and which is most beneficial to the Children who are entitled to support.

22An annual income of $75,019.86 attracts a monthly child support table amount of $1,139.29 for two children, which is contingent upon the respondent providing confirmation that he is in receipt of short term disability benefits, and in which case shall be payable commencing December 1, 2025 until otherwise agreed upon or determined by the judge hearing the trial in May 2026.

Continuation of Garnishment

23The respondent made submissions relating to bank accounts which were frozen due to garnishment proceedings commenced by the applicant. In addition, he understood from comments made by the applicant’s counsel that the efforts to collect monies which were due to the applicant and payable by the respondent have resulted in amounts exceeding those owed being garnished.

24The applicant’s counsel submitted that based upon the child support order requiring monthly payments of $1,613.90, $350.35 too much had been garnished as of the date of this motion. In other words, if child support is payable on December 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026, then the garnishment proceedings have effectively resulted in efforts to collect $350.35 beyond what is owed.

25Mr. Howie also confirmed that if a variation in child support is ordered, then the value of excess amount which was collected would increase. Assuming the respondent receives disability benefits, and satisfactory evidence is provided to the applicant, then more than $350.35 “extra” would have been collected, and based upon my decision above, this excess amount would total $1,299.57.

26Because this figure represents child support, should this excess amount become owing to the respondent, then this amount shall be credited to the February 2026 child support payment which is owed, with the balance of $160.28 to be credited to the child support owing for March 2026.

27It was clear through the submissions of the parties that the garnishments had not only been filed in order to collect the child support which the respondent owed to the applicant, but also to collect the costs which are owed by the respondent on account of orders made during the course of this litigation. These costs total $3,500.

28In an affidavit sworn January 2, 2026 which was filed by the applicant, a law clerk of the applicant counsel’s law firm, Amanda Marie Coulson Buttineau, provided evidence as to the amounts of support and costs owed by the respondent, and the amounts which the garnishment proceedings had collected (“the Buttineau Affidavit”). Mr. Howie was clear in that while these monies were collected, or believed to be collected, they had not all yet flown through to his client. I am therefore making my decision with respect to the garnishment issues based on the fact that the monies which are set out in the Buttineau Affidavit accurately reflect what was owed, what was collected, and what is or will be paid to the applicant. My reasons for doing so are set out in the following paragraphs.

29The evidence in the Buttineau Affidavit is clearly set out in a chart found at paragraph 8, and shows the amount owed by the respondent as $15,047.30, the amount collected as $11,897.65, and the amount outstanding and yet to be paid by the respondent as $3,149.65.

30Again, this chart reflects monies owed on account of legal costs as well as child support, and as already noted, $350.35 too much child support was collected. Adding this amount to the $3,149.65 which is showed as still outstanding by the respondent, this totals $3,500, which is the amount of legal costs the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant and which he has still not paid.

31The amounts in the chart found in the Buttineau Affidavit “balance”’ and reflect the submissions of the applicant.

32During the respondent’s submissions, I asked him to review this chart and tell me whether or not he agreed with the math. I also asked him whether or not he had his own accounting of what was owed, collected and outstanding as a result of the litigation. The respondent did not have any accounting to provide to me, and instead agreed that he could not argue with the numbers presented by the applicant.

33As such, it is clear that the respondent still owes the applicant legal costs in the amount of $3,500 which has not yet been paid. On this basis, there is no reason to interfere with the garnishment proceedings, and until the costs are either collected from or paid by the respondent, the garnishment efforts in regards to the outstanding costs’ awards shall remain in place.

34With respect the garnishment efforts relating to the collection of outstanding child support, Mr. Howie undertook to cease and withdraw those efforts if the amount of monthly child support payable was varied. My decision above reflects a variation, but Mr. Howie shall not be obliged to take any steps with respect to the child support garnishment proceedings until confirmation of disability benefits has been provided and the variation is confirmed.

Orders Relating to Joint Debts and Obligations

35While I was advised by Mr. Howie that these issues were discussed at the Case Conference and involved a line of credit (“LOC”) and a vehicle loan, the respondent only made submissions with respect to the LOC.

36The issues relating to the vehicle loan appear to be related to who was responsible for making payments towards this loan. If this is still an outstanding issue in May 2026, it shall be addressed during the trial, but only if the respondent gives written notice of his intention to do so to the applicant on or before May 1, 2026. If the respondent fails to give notice that issues relating to the vehicle loan will be addressed at the trial, he shall be not be able to do so without first obtaining leave of the trial judge.

37With respect to the LOC, the main issue seemed to be who was paying the outstanding balance and who was using the LOC.

38After discussion as between the parties, it was agreed, on consent, that both parties shall continue to make equal payments towards the carrying costs of the LOC, including interest and insurance premiums, and that neither party shall draw from nor make withdrawals from the LOC.

39Any issues relating to the LOC debt and the parties’ obligation to pay the debt shall be addressed at trial.

Costs

40In light of my decision, if either party wishes to assert a claim for legal costs and disbursements, they shall provide me with written submissions within 7 days of this decision, limited to three pages plus attachments. If parties have reply submissions to the opposing party’s position, those shall be filed within 14 days of this decision.

Issues Arising from this Decision

41Should the parties need further direction regarding the implementation of this decision, especially in light of the moving target regarding support and requiring further information from the respondent’s disability carrier, they shall contact the trial co-ordinator and arrange a case conference in front of me.

42The parties have now addressed the issues raised in paragraph 9 of the Endorsement, and no further motions shall be brought relating to these issues until this matter proceeds to trial in May 2026.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski