CITATION: FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE v. CASTELLANO, 2026 ONSC 4386
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-00000165-E001
DATE: July 28, 2026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DIRECTOR, FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANNETTE M. JOHNSON
Applicant
– and –
GREGORY CASTELLANO
Respondent
Peter McCullough, for the Applicant
Self Represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
ABRAMS, J
Introduction
[1] This is a default hearing brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office ("FRO") pursuant to s. 41 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31 ("FRSAEA").
[2] The Director relies upon a sworn Statement of Arrears showing support arrears of $209,024.64 as of March 3, 2025. The Director seeks a declaration of default together with enforcement relief under s. 41(10) of the FRSAEA.
[3] Mr. Castellano appeared on his own behalf.
Issue
[4] The issues are:
a. whether the Director has established that Mr. Castellano is in default of his support obligations;
b. whether Mr. Castellano has rebutted the statutory presumptions respecting the amount of arrears and his ability to pay; and
c. what enforcement remedies are appropriate.
Statutory Framework
[5] Section 41 of the FRSAEA establishes a specialized enforcement proceeding designed to secure compliance with support orders.
[6] Where the Director files a sworn statement of arrears, the amount of arrears set out in that statement is presumed to be correct. The payor is also presumed to have the ability to pay the support owing.
[7] The burden rests upon the payor to rebut those presumptions through credible and persuasive evidence.
[8] A default hearing is an enforcement proceeding. It is not a motion to change, and it is not an occasion to revisit the merits of the underlying support order. Unless varied by a court having jurisdiction to do so, a support order remains valid and enforceable.
[9] In Gray v. Rizzi, 2016 ONCA 152, the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of full and frank financial disclosure in family law proceedings and confirmed that a payor cannot gain an advantage from a failure to provide reliable financial information.
[10] Where a payor fails to provide adequate disclosure, the court is entitled to enforce existing support obligations in accordance with the statutory presumptions created by the FRSAEA.
[11] If the court finds a default, s. 41(10) authorizes a broad range of enforcement remedies, including payment schedules, reporting requirements, security, and imprisonment for a period not exceeding 180 days.
Evidence
Mr. Castellano
[12] Mr. Castellano testified over two hearing days, March 10, 2025, and July 2, 2025.
[13] He was called to the bar in 1990 and practised law for approximately twenty years. His licence was suspended by the Law Society of Ontario in 2010. He testified that around that time he began experiencing significant mental health difficulties. His licence was reinstated in 2021.
[14] Mr. Castellano testified that his practice was almost exclusively family law and that approximately half of his files were funded through Legal Aid Ontario.
[15] In 2024, he became aware of pending criminal charges against him. As a consequence, his licence was again suspended. He attended a Law Society hearing on January 17, 2025, and, at the time of the first hearing date, was awaiting the outcome.
[16] He testified that prospective employers would inevitably learn of the criminal charges and that this impaired his employment prospects.
[17] Mr. Castellano testified that he suffers from bipolar disorder and remains under the care of both a psychiatrist and a therapist. He also experiences anxiety and depression.
[18] He further testified that police seized his work computer and backup drive during the criminal investigation, leaving him without access to client files.
[19] Mr. Castellano separated from his spouse in 2007. He testified that he practised as a sole practitioner, rented boardroom space for approximately $300 per month, and conducted most client meetings remotely through Zoom.
[20] According to Mr. Castellano, his legal practice initially continued despite the pending charges because they were not widely known. Once the charges became public, however, the practice effectively collapsed. Clients terminated retainers and transferred their files elsewhere.
[21] He continued advertising for new clients. He testified that Google advertising had previously generated two or three new clients each day. By the time of the hearing, he was receiving only two or three inquiries per week.
[22] Mr. Castellano testified that participation in this proceeding was personally difficult because it required him to revisit significant aspects of his history.
[23] He resides rent-free in a cottage owned by his mother.
[24] Mr. Castellano testified that he had commenced a motion to change and argued that his current financial circumstances were the relevant consideration in assessing his ability to pay. He maintained that his mental health challenges have substantially affected his earning capacity.
[25] Mr. Castellano filed a sworn financial statement dated March 10, 2025. He did not file income tax returns or Notices of Assessment. He testified that he has not filed income tax returns since 2010.
[26] His financial statement estimated monthly income at $4,700, or approximately $56,400 annually. He estimated monthly expenses at $9,401, or approximately $112,812 annually.
[27] The financial statement did not explain how he meets the annual deficit exceeding $56,000.
[28] Mr. Castellano disclosed ownership of a 2014 Acura TL valued at $10,000, a 1995 Dodge Charger valued at $15,000, a stereo and television valued at $5,000, and a record collection valued at $5,000.
[29] He also disclosed an interest in a Henson trust containing approximately $100,000 in capital. He described the interest as entirely discretionary and testified that he receives approximately $500 per month from the trust.
[30] By the second hearing date, Mr. Castellano's licence had been suspended indefinitely, and he was no longer permitted to practise law.
[31] He testified that he remained entitled to collect accounts receivable and identified one unbilled file worth approximately $5,000. He stated that he had no other receivables.
[32] Mr. Castellano testified that he had attempted to establish a home renovation business with an experienced partner, but that the venture had never obtained any contracts and ultimately did not proceed because neither partner possessed a suitable vehicle.
[33] He also attempted to develop a mediation practice and advertised those services for approximately six months without obtaining any engagements.
Cross-Examination
[34] During cross-examination, Mr. Castellano acknowledged the accuracy of the arrears set out in the Director's Statement of Arrears.
[35] He agreed that the arrears totalled $209,024.64 and testified that, to his knowledge, no payments had been made toward those arrears.
[36] He further conceded that he was not in a position to dispute the calculations contained in the Director's Statement of Arrears.
[37] Mr. Castellano agreed that his gross billings in 2023 were $89,765.89. He did not know the amount of his billings in 2024.
[38] He continued to estimate his annual income at approximately $56,400.
[39] Regarding the Henson trust, Mr. Castellano testified that he had previously requested capital distributions from the trustees, who are his brothers, but those requests had been unsuccessful.
[40] He estimated that approximately $100,000 in trust capital remained available.
[41] Mr. Castellano acknowledged that his motion to change had not succeeded. Rather, his pleadings had been struck, and he was pursuing an appeal.
Credibility and Reliability
[42] I found Mr. Castellano generally forthcoming in his testimony.
[43] He readily acknowledged several facts contrary to his position, including the arrears amount asserted by the Director, the absence of payments toward those arrears, and his inability to dispute the calculations contained in the Statement of Arrears.
[44] His evidence concerning his suspension from practice, the decline of his law practice, his unsuccessful efforts to secure alternative employment, and his mental health challenges was internally consistent and was not materially undermined on cross-examination.
[45] I accept that Mr. Castellano is experiencing serious professional, financial, and personal difficulties. I further accept that the suspension of his law licence has substantially impaired his earning capacity.
[46] However, significant aspects of his financial evidence are unsupported by independent documentation.
[47] His financial statement reflects annual income of approximately $56,400 and annual expenses of approximately $112,812, without any credible explanation for how the resulting deficit is financed.
[48] He has not filed income tax returns since 2010 and produced no tax returns, Notices of Assessment, banking records, accounting records, or other objective evidence capable of independently verifying his current financial circumstances.
[49] Accordingly, while I generally accept his evidence concerning his personal and professional circumstances, I assign limited weight to his unsupported evidence concerning his income, expenses, assets, and overall ability to pay.
Submissions of the Director
[50] Counsel for the Director submits that Mr. Castellano has failed to make meaningful efforts to satisfy the arrears.
[51] Counsel further submits that Mr. Castellano has access, at least potentially, to trust assets but has not directed any trust distributions toward payment of support arrears.
[52] The Director emphasizes that Mr. Castellano does not dispute the amount of the arrears.
[53] Finally, counsel submits that Mr. Castellano previously sought a capital distribution from the trust to renovate a cottage he does not own but never sought such a distribution for the purpose of reducing support arrears.
Analysis
[54] The Director has filed a sworn Statement of Arrears showing arrears of $209,024.64 as of March 3, 2025.
[55] By operation of the FRSAEA, that statement is presumed to be correct.
[56] Mr. Castellano has not rebutted that presumption.
[57] To the contrary, he expressly acknowledged the arrears amount and conceded that he was unable to challenge the calculations.
[58] I therefore find that support arrears of $209,024.64 were owing as of March 3, 2025.
[59] The second statutory presumption is that Mr. Castellano has the ability to pay.
[60] Mr. Castellano relies principally upon the collapse of his law practice, his suspension from practice, his unsuccessful efforts to generate alternative income, and his mental health difficulties.
[61] I accept those circumstances are genuine and significant.
[62] Nevertheless, the burden remains upon him to establish inability to pay.
[63] He has failed to provide reliable and comprehensive financial disclosure capable of satisfying that burden.
[64] The court has no income tax returns, Notices of Assessment, business records, or other objective financial documentation.
[65] His financial statement raises significant unanswered questions, particularly concerning the substantial gap between his reported income and expenses.
[66] Moreover, there remains evidence of assets and potential access to trust income or capital, although I do not rest my decision solely upon the existence of the Henson trust.
[67] The central difficulty is that Mr. Castellano has not produced reliable evidentiary support for his claimed inability to pay.
[68] The principles articulated in Gray v. Rizzi apply directly. A payor cannot rely upon deficiencies in his own financial disclosure to avoid enforcement of an existing support obligation.
[69] This proceeding is not a motion to change support and is not an opportunity to revisit the appropriateness of historical support orders.
[70] Mr. Castellano's motion to change has not resulted in any variation of the support obligation. The existing orders therefore remain fully enforceable.
[71] Having regard to the statutory presumptions, Mr. Castellano’s admissions, the absence of reliable financial disclosure, and the entirety of the evidence, I conclude that Mr. Castellano has failed to rebut either presumption created by s. 41 of the FRSAEA.
[72] I therefore find that Mr. Castellano is in default of his support obligations and owed arrears of $209,024.64 as of March 3, 2025.
Appropriate Remedy
[73] The remaining issue concerns the appropriate enforcement remedy.
[74] The Director requests a structured repayment plan together with specified periods of imprisonment that would become operative upon future non-compliance.
[75] I am satisfied that such relief is authorized by s. 41(10) of the FRSAEA.
[76] Given the magnitude of the arrears, the lengthy history of non-payment, the absence of meaningful reduction of the arrears, and Mr. Castellano’s failure to rebut the statutory presumptions, the proposed enforcement approach is proportionate and appropriate.
[77] The repayment schedule proposed by the Director provides Mr. Castellano with an opportunity to address the arrears while preserving meaningful enforcement consequences in the event of continued default.
Disposition
[78] Mr. Castellano is declared to be in default of his support obligations.
[79] Support arrears in the amount of $209,024.64 were owing as of March 3, 2025.
[80] Pursuant to s. 41(10) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, Mr. Castellano shall pay the arrears in accordance with the schedule set out in the Order issued concurrently with these reasons.
[81] Mr. Castellano shall be subject to the periods of imprisonment specified in that Order in the event of non-compliance.
[82] The periods of imprisonment shall be consecutive and cumulative in accordance with the terms of the Order.
[83] Mr. Castellano shall pay costs to the Director in the amount of $3,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
[84] An Order shall issue accordingly.
_______________________________________
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. W. Abrams
Released: July 28, 2026
CITATION: FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE v. CASTELLANO, 2026 ONSC 4386
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-00000165-E001
DATE: July 28, 2026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
DIRECTOR, FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANNETTE M. JOHNSON
Applicant
– and –
GREGORY CASTELLANO
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Abrams, J.
Released: July 28, 2026