Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Applicant
AND:
TENISHA ODELIA POLLARD, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
COUNSEL: Guy Hunter, for the Applicant
Ryan Aalto, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 4, 2026
Endorsement
1The Respondent mother brings this motion for the following orders:
An order for child support based on the Applicant father’s 2025 income.
An order fixing arrears of child support owed since January 1, 2025 and a repayment schedule.
An order that the Applicant father deliver his Form 13.1 Financial Statement.
An order that the Applicant father provide the Family Law Value of his pension.
An order that granting the Respondent mother leave to amend her Amended Answer to advance a claim for spousal support.
An order splitting the claim for a divorce from the other issues in this case
2On July 16, 2026, this motion was adjourned on consent to August 4, 2026. At that time, Justice C. Leach granted the Applicant father leave to bring a cross-motion on the very limited issue of the designation of a beneficiary on his life insurance policy related to the Respondent mother’s motion. The Court also ordered that neither party shall not exceed a total of 30 minutes for their submissions on both motions.
3On July 29, 2026, the Applicant father filed a motion to adjourn the Respondent’s motion and for relief in respect of his cross-motion related to his life insurance policy, seeking the following orders:
An order to adjourn the hearing of the motion or at least the issue of imputation or updating of income of the Applicant for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support to Tuesday August 18, 2026 so that “updating TTD disclosure” can be made.
Leave to short serve motion materials including an affidavit in support of the Applicant’s motion, a responding affidavit to the Respondent’s June 25, 2026 notice of motion, and a Factum if necessary.
Leave for the Applicant to serve and file an Amended Application within 30 days of August 4 or August 18, 2026.
An order that the Applicant does not need to provide a Financial Statement until 30 days after his LIUNA pension has been valued and after the Respondent provides proof of all her date of marriage and date of separation assets (pension, Jamaican assets).
Leave for the Applicant to serve and file a supplemental affidavit, if necessary, updating his financials.
An order that paragraph 1(A) of the present consent Order dated June 4, 2026 of Justice Sharma that “Tenisha Odelia Pollard is the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000 being 50% of the Applicant’s workplace/union associated life insurance coverage for security for his child support obligations for the child [TW] shall be changed to “[TW] is the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000 being 50% of the Applicant’s workplace/union associated life insurance coverage for security for his child support obligations for the child [TW] for as long as child support is payable.”
In the alternative, the Applicant is to designate another person (who has not threatened to kill the Applicant) other than the Respondent as beneficiary of his life insurance to cover his child support obligations for the child [TW].
In the further alternative, that the OCL shall be designated as the beneficiary of his life insurance to cover his child support obligations for [TW].
4The Applicant father did not file a Factum or a Confirmation of Motion in respect of the Respondent’s motion or his cross-motion. Instead, he relies on an affidavit sworn July 8, 2026.
5At the outset of the motion, counsel indicated that they had largely reached a consensus on the issues described above other than child support arrears and life insurance.
Background
6The parties are the parents of a nine-year old daughter (“TW”). They were married in 2014 and have been separated since January 30, 2024 according to the Respondent mother and since July 14, 2018 according to the Applicant father.
7The Respondent mother states that she sponsored the Applicant to come to Canada from Jamaica. During their marriage, the parties had six children in their home. In addition to their daughter, TW, the Respondent mother had four children from a prior relationship and the Applicant’s daughter from Jamaica lived with them.
8On November 27, 2024, the Applicant father commenced this Application for a divorce only. On December 13, 2024, the Respondent mother, self-represented, filed an Answer seeking decision making responsibility, primary residence of the child, child support, an order requiring the Applicant to designate the Respondent as the irrevocable sole beneficiary of any workplace life insurance coverage as security for child support, and other relief.
9At a Case Conference held on September 25, 2025, Justice Mathen noted that the Applicant had been duly served with notice of the conference but failed to appear or file any materials. The Court ordered that:
The Respondent has leave to bring a short motion for interim child support.
The Respondent shall serve and file amended pleadings by October 16, 2025.
The Applicant will have 45 days to respond to the amended pleadings. He shall include with his pleadings:
a. a Form 13 Financial Statement and attachments;
b. proof of year-to-date income; and
c. his Notices of Assessments from the Canada Revenue Agency for the last three years.
10On October 23, 2025, the Respondent mother, represented by Mr. Aalto, filed an Amended Answer which included a claim for equalization of net family property.
11The Applicant did not comply with Justice Mathen’s Order. He only provided a draft Financial Statement, a paystub dated December 24, 2025 and excerpts of his 2024 income tax return. While he was previously self-represented, I note that the Applicant has been represented by counsel since at least January 15, 2026.
12In December 2025, the Respondent mother brought a motion for child support and life insurance as security for child support as the parties were unable to agree on the Applicant’s income for support purposes.
13The Applicant father is employed by Skygrid Construction Inc. as a construction worker. He is a unionized worker through his union, LIUNA Local 183. A paystub dated December 24, 2025, shows that the Applicant’s income for 2025 was $134,724.08 as of December 21, 2025.
14On January 15, 2026, Justice Nakonechny granted the following consent Order:
(1) On a without prejudice basis, for as long as the Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams, maintains employment such that he has $200,000 life insurance coverage through his workplace, he shall designate:
(A) the Respondent, Tenisha Odella Pollard as the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00, being 50% of his workplace/union associated life insurance coverage, as security for his child support obligations to [TW]. If at the time of the death of the Applicant, the Applicant no longer has an obligation child support for Taleah, the Respondent shall hold the monies in trust for [TW]; and,
(B) on a without prejudice basis the other $100,000 in coverage shall be irrevocably shared $50,000 each for the Applicant Christopher Peter Williams’ two other children: [SH] and [KPW].
(2) If at a future date the Applicant shall secure a different job through a different union or employer which provides more or less coverage, he shall maintain the Respondent Tenisha Odella Pollard as a 50% beneficiary of that life insurance for as long as child support is owing to the Respondent for the child Taleah and his other two children Shiheen Willams and Kaenu Williams shall be maintained as 25% beneficiaries respectively.
(3) The Applicant shall provide proof to the Respondent of his authorization and demand for the Union or workplace insurer to implement these designations and these coverage amounts, within 14 days of the date of this Order. If the order as granted cannot be implemented by the workplace insurer, the parties shall Revisit the issue.
(4) On a without prejudice basis to both parties the Applicant shall pay the Respondent $1000.00 in child support by January 24, 2026 and another $1000.00 by February 24, 2026.
15The Applicant father did not comply with Justice Nakonechny’s Order. On May 11, 2026, Mr. Aalto asked Mr. Hunter to rectify the insurer’s designation of TW, rather than the Respondent mother, as the 50% beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Mr. Hunter responded that he would followup but has provided no proof that this designation has been rectified.
16The Respondent mother’s Financial Statement sworn October 9, 2025 shows that her income is $41,712.00. In that context, the Applicant father’s payment of a total of $3,300.00 in child support in 2025 had significant impact on the Respondent and TW, and represented a significant underpayment as the Applicant father should have paid $1,183.00 per month given his income.
17On May 11, 2026, Mr. Aalto sent the following message to Mr. Hunter:
We need to move this matter along.
We need your client’s sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement, and his Reply to our client’s Amended Answer dated October 9, 2025, issued October 23, 2025 (enclosed).
Also, we request proof of your client’s income by way of 2025 income tax return, or 2025 T4 statement if not filed, and proof of year-to-date income for 2026.
We also need your client to obtain the Family Law Valuation of his LIUNA pension. Our client’s position on the valuation date is January 30, 2024, for the reasons set out in the Amended Answer.
If your client’s position is an alternate date, then he can request a valuation as of the two valuation dates from his pension administrator.
Please propose a reasonable deadline for your client to provide the above, failing which we will bring a motion for an order for him to obtain his pension valuation.
18The Respondent mother states that Mr. Hunter responded on May 11, 2026 that the family law valuation of the Applicant’s pension “would not be coming”.
19On May 28, 2026, the Respondent mother brought a motion for the following orders:
An order that the Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams shall provide the Family Law Value of his pension, using January 30, 2024, as one of the valuation dates, including an order that he shall submit his complete Family Law Valuation package to his pension administrator and pay the prescribed fee within 30 days, and provide a copy of his documents sent to his pension administrator, within 5 days thereafter.
An order that the Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams shall provide his 2025 income tax return (and notice of assessment when issued), 2025 T4 statement, and year to date paystub for 2026, within 7 days.
An order that the Applicant shall provide a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement with the required attachments, within 30 days.
An order that the Applicant shall provide any Reply he wishes to file in response to the Respondent’s Amended Answer dated October 9, 2026, within 30 days.
An order for life insurance to secure child support in accordance with the draft order attached as Exhibit “H” to the Respondent’s affidavit dated May 19, 2026, and an order that the Applicant shall comply with the order by directing his insurer to change the 50% beneficiary from the child, Taleah Pollard Williams, to the Respondent, Tenisha Odella Pollard, as 50% irrevocable beneficiary, within 3 days, and to provide proof of such direction to the Respondent or her counsel immediately.
20On June 4, 2026, Justice Sharma granted the following consent Order:
- On a without prejudice basis, for as long as the Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams, maintains employment such that he has $200,000 life insurance coverage through his workplace, he shall designate:
(A) the Respondent, Tenisha Odella Pollard as the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00, being 50% of his workplace/union associated life insurance coverage, as security for his child support obligations to [TW]. If at the time of the death of the Applicant, the Applicant no longer has an obligation child support for Taleah, the Respondent shall hold the monies in trust for [TW]; and,
(B) on a without prejudice basis the other $100,000 in coverage shall be irrevocably shared $50,000 each for the Applicant Christopher Peter Williams’ two other children: [SH] and [KPW].
If at a future date the Applicant shall secure a different job through a different union or employer which provides more or less coverage, he shall maintain the Respondent Tenisha Odella Pollard as a 50% beneficiary of that life insurance for as long as child support is owing to the Respondent for the child Taleah and his other two children Shiheen Willams and Kaenu Williams shall be maintained as 25% beneficiaries respectively.
The Applicant shall provide proof to the Respondent of his authorization and demand for the Union or workplace insurer to implement these designations and these coverage amounts, within 14 days of the date of this Order. If the order as granted cannot be implemented by the workplace insurer, the parties shall Revisit the issue.
The Applicant, Christopher Peter Williams, shall comply with this order by demanding by way of letter to his insurer to change the 50% beneficiary from the child [TW] to the Respondent Tenisha Odella Pollar, as 50% irrevocable beneficiary for as long as child support is payable, within 10 days, and to provide proof of such direction to the Respondent or her counsel immediately.
There shall be no costs with respect to matters settled in paragraphs 1 to 4 above. The balance of the relief requested in the Respondent’s notice of motion dated May 26, 2026 is adjourned to a motion on July 2, 2026, unless settled before that date.
21On June 28, 2026, the Respondent mother brought a motion for the orders described in the notice of motion dated May 28, 2026, as well as the following relief:
An order that the Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams shall pay child support in the table amount of $1,183.00 per month based on his disclosed 2025 income as of December 21, 2025, $134,724.08, or such higher table amount based on his 2025 income, commencing July 1, 2026, and continuing on the first day of each month that follows.
An order fixing child support arrears from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 at least $11,694.00 (or such higher amount based on his income) and payable at a rate of $300.00 per month until paid calculated as:
(a) For 2026, at $1,098.00 ($183.00 x 6 months).
(b) For 2025, at $10,596.00 ($14,196.00 owed less $3,600.00 paid).
An order for leave to amend the Respondent’s Amended Answer dated October 9, 2025 to claim for spousal support pursuant to Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules.
A severance of the Divorce and the corollary relief in this Application, and an order permitting either party to file for an uncontested divorce by way of Form 36: Affidavit for Divorce, pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.
22The Respondent mother’s motion, filed June 25, 2026, for the above relief was adjourned on consent on July 16, 2026, to August 4, 2026. At that time, Justice C. Leach granted the Applicant father leave to bring a cross-motion on the very limited issue of the designation of a beneficiary on his life insurance policy related to the Respondent mother’s motion. The Court also ordered that neither party shall exceed a total of 30 minutes for their submissions on both motions.
23On July 29, 2026, the Applicant father filed a motion to adjourn the Respondent’s motion and for relief in respect of his cross-motion related to his life insurance policy, seeking the following orders:
An order to adjourn the hearing of the motion or at least the issue of imputation or updating of income of the Applicant for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support to Tuesday August 18, 2026 so that updating TTD disclosure can be made.
Leave to short serve motion materials including an affidavit in support of the Applicant’s motion, a responding affidavit to the Respondent’s June 25, 2026 notice of motion, and a Factum if necessary.
Leave for the Applicant to serve and file an Amended Application within 30 days of August 4 or August 18, 2026.
An order that the Applicant does not need to provide a Financial Statement until 30 days after his LIUNA pension has been valued and after the Respondent provides proof of all her date of marriage and date of separation assets (pension, Jamaican assets).
Leave for the Applicant to serve and file a supplemental affidavit, if necessary, updating his financials.
An order that paragraph 1(A) of the present consent Order dated June 4, 2026 of Justice Sharma that “Tenisha Odelia Pollard is the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000 being 50% of the Applicant’s workplace/union associated life insurance coverage for security for his child support obligations for the child [TW] shall be changed to “[TW] is the irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000 being 50% of the Applicant’s workplace/union associated life insurance coverage for security for his child support obligations for the child [TW] for as long as child support is payable.”
In the alternative, the Applicant is to designate another person (who has not threatened to kill the Applicant) other than the Respondent as beneficiary of his life insurance to cover his child support obligations for the child [TW].
In the further alternative, that the OCL shall be designated as the beneficiary of his life insurance to cover his child support obligations for [TW].
Form 13.1 Financial Statement and Pension Valuation
24The Applicant father has failed to comply with Justice Mathen’s Order that, almost one year ago, required him to deliver a Form 13.1 Financial Statement. Rather than ask this Court for an Order directing the Applicant to produce his financial statement and pension valuation, which has already been granted, a better approach may have been to bring a motion pursuant to Rule 1(8) to strike this Application: See Singh v. Seth, 2022 ONCA 837.
25In his affidavit sworn July 8, 2026, the Applicant father states that “… my lawyer and I don’t have time this week for a new financial statement but I am providing an early May pay stub that shows much more modest income this year”.
26The Applicant asks that he be given a further 50 days to produce a financial statement and pension valuation. The Respondent asks that 30 days be granted.
27I order that the Applicant father deliver by August 20, 2026:
(a) an application for the “family law value” of his pension for date of separation asserted by each party to the pension administrator of the pension plan for LIUNA Local 183 Members.
(b) a copy of the above application to the Respondent mother.
28I order that the Applicant father deliver by September 21, 2026:
(a) a financial statement in Form 13.1 to the Respondent mother.
(b) a copy of every personal income tax return filed by the Applicant for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 including any materials that were filed with the returns.
(c) a copy of every notice of assessment and reassessment issued to the Applicant for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
(d) the most recent statement of earnings issued by the Respondent’s employer indicating the total earnings paid in the year to date, including overtime;
Child Support
29The Applicant has not provided a financial statement or a copy of notices of assessment since 2022 as ordered by Justice Mathen.
30For 2024, the Applicant father’s Line 15000 income was $119,099.84 according to a single page of his electronic filing that he provided. In his affidavit sworn July 8, 2026, the Applicant provided a T4 slip that shows his employment income in 2025 from Skygrid Construction was $134,724.08. The Applicant father attached a paystub from Skygrid dated May 8, 2026 which shows that his income for the one-week period ending May 3, 2026, as well as his year-to-date income, was $1,587.62. The Applicant states that the paystub is incorrect and he projects that his income for 2026 will be $79,381.00. The Applicant states that his income has decreased activity within the condominium construction industry.
31The parties have agreed that the Applicant father shall pay child support in the amount of $1,183.00 per month on a temporary, without prejudice basis, based on his disclosed income of $134,724.08.
Arrears of Child Support
32In her Amended Answer the Respondent mother seeks the payment of child support from February 1, 2024. On this motion, the Respondent seeks the payment of child support commencing January 1, 2025.
33A court may order, on a temporary or final basis, that a spouse pay child support for any or all children of the marriage in accordance with the applicable guidelines: See Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 15.1.
34In respect of whether child support should be ordered on a retroactive basis, Brown J. noted in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, at para. 10, that:
(1) Child support is the right of the child, which right cannot be bargained away by the parents, and survives the breakdown of the relationship of the child’s parents;
(2) The child support owed will vary based upon the income of the payor parent, and is not confined to furnishing the “necessities of life”;
(3) Retroactive awards are not truly “retroactive”, since they merely hold payors to the legal obligation they always had to pay support commensurate with their income;
(4) Retroactive awards are not confined to “exceptional circumstances” or “rare cases”; and
(5) A court should consider whether the recipient parent’s delay in seeking retroactive support was reasonable in the circumstances, the conduct of the payor parent, the circumstances of the child, and the hardship the retroactive award might entail (para. 133).
35The Applicant father seeks to adjourn the motion for retroactive child support until October 2026 on the basis that he may not have provided the Court with complete information about the amount of child support he has paid.
36Whether a motion for the adjournment should be granted requires a consideration of the interests of the parties and interest of the administration of justice in the orderly processing of cases on their merits: Roberts v. Miller, 2015 ONCA 500, at para. 35. In deciding a request for an adjournment, Rule 2(4) of the Family Law Rules requires that a Court must deal with a case justly by ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties, saving expense and time, dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. The request for an adjournment is dismissed.
37In respect of whether a temporary retroactive order for child support should be granted, I find that the Applicant chose to grossly underpay child support while, at the same time, he delayed the delivery of his income tax returns, notices of assessment and financial statement notwithstanding requests for same, an obligation under the Family Law Rules to produce them and an Order of this Court requiring their production. It is not just to further delay holding the Applicant father to his legal obligation to pay child support based on his own stated income.
38I adopt the calculation of arrears provided by the Respondent mother and find that the Applicant father has arrears of child support in the amount of $1,098.00 for 2026 and $10,596.00 for 2025. I accept the Respondent’s submission that these arrears should be repaid at the rate of $300.00 per month. The Applicant must bear any resulting hardship in implementing this very modest repayment plan particularly as the need for repayment results from his own actions.
Leave to File an Amended Amended Answer and to File an Amended Application.
39The Applicant father seeks leave to amend his Application to add a claim for equalization of net family property and for a parenting order. The Respondent mother seeks leave to amend her Amended Answer to add a claim for spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis.
40Rule 11(3) of the FLR states:
On motion, the court shall give permission to a party to amend an application, answer or reply, unless the amendment would disadvantage another party in a way for which costs or an adjournment could not compensate.
41In McKay v. Vlazny, 2022 ONSC 1056, Marc Smith J. stated:
5 The rule is mandatory, and an amendment may be permitted at any stage of the proceedings: see Lerus v. Vilgrain, 2020 ONCJ 77, at paras. 315 and 316.
6 An amendment will be allowed unless the opposing party can demonstrate bad faith or that the amendment will cause disadvantage that cannot be remedied through costs or an adjournment. The fact that the amendment is an afterthought or whether it raises a new issue is irrelevant: see Smith v. Smith, 2021 ONSC 1990, at paras. 18 to 24.
7 The amendment must be allowed unless it is plain and obvious that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The party resisting the amendment must demonstrate that the amended claim stands no change of success: see Cohen v. Estate of Cohen, 2021 ONSC 2463, at paras. 44 to 47.
42Neither party has identified a disadvantage that would result from these amendments. On consent, leave is granted to the parties to amend their pleadings.
Leave to Split the Claim for Divorce from other Issues in this Case
43Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules states:
The court may, on motion, make an order splitting a divorce from the other issues in a case if,
(a) neither spouse will be disadvantaged by the order; and
(b) reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of any children of the marriage
44With respect to clause 12(6)(a) of the FLR, “disadvantage” means a legal disadvantage where “…the severance would impair or prejudice the rights of that party in such a manner that it would impede their ability to pursue those rights, or work a profound unfairness.”: Nijher v. Nijher, 2022 ONSC 3222, at para. 27 (per Emery J.).
45The parties have identified no such disadvantage and consent to this order.
Leave to Amend the Order of Justice Sharma to Designate Someone other than the Respondent Mother as the 50% of the Applicant Father’s Life Insurance Policy
46The Applicant father states that he has concerns for his personal safety based on the following incidents:
(a) In June or July 2025,”… I was at my residence after coming downstairs from the upper level of my home. My daughter and my girlfriend were present, and we were preparing for a barbecue. During that time, I noticed that I had a missed telephone call from an individual known to me as “AJ”. When I returned the call, AJ informed me that an individual named “Nicko” had slashed my vehicle tires. I asked AJ why this had occurred, and he responded that he did not know the reason. During the conversation, AJ accused me of being a “police informer”. I also came to understand that the individual alleged to have slashed my tires was AJ’s friend and one of the Respondent’s close friends.” The following day, he contacted AJ and during that conversation AJ threatened to “lock me up” if he reported this matter to the police.
(b) On another unspecified occasion, the Respondent allegedly told the Applicant that “… she would have her live-in boyfriend (Corey Hamblett), who was recently arrested on multiple drug and weapon charges, shoot me. This same individual has been charged with serious weapons offences. I remain extremely frightened for my safety.
47The Applicant states that because he has a strong Jamaican patois, and is worried about the cost of these proceedings, Mr. Hunter did not fully understand until about mid-June 2026 that the Applicant was not willing to consent to have the Respondent as the beneficiary of the life insurance because of his concerns for his personal safety. As a result the Applicant asks that the Court consider an alternate arrangement that secures his child support obligation while addressing his safety concerns.
48In response, the Respondent denies the Applicant’s allegations. She states:
If he thinks that I would have him murdered for $100,000 in life insurance, which I don’t know if he is implying, then he should discuss his fears and anxieties with a therapist. He is “sucking and blowing”. In paragraph 35 of his affidavit, he states “I wish to make it clear that I am not alleging that the Respondent herself would misuse or improperly benefit from any life insurance proceeds”. It is unclear as to what he is alleging. His argument is non-sensical.
The Order of Justice Sharma, dated June 4, 2026, was not only on consent, but the exact same terms of the order was also consented to by the Applicant in January 2026. He consented to the order twice. I have been seeking compliance with the January 2026 consent for many months. My counsel had to bring a motion to convert it to an order on June 4, 2026, as the Applicant would not comply with the January 2026 consent.
49The Respondent states that she has never threatened the Applicant. She states that Corey Hamblett is her former boyfriend and that they have never lived together. He has been in jail since January 5, 2026 awaiting trial and states that Mr. Hamblett has never spoken to the Applicant. Further, the Respondent states that AJ is her friend’s husband and that she does not know “Nicko”. She states that any dispute between the Applicant and AJ has nothing to do with her.
50There are few particulars (when, why, etc.?) regarding the Applicant’s serious allegation that the Respondent threatened to have him murdered. There is no independent evidence to support this allegation nor did the Applicant did not report this allegation to the police. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent has failed to establish that the Respondent threatened to have the Applicant murdered. Further, I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that the Applicant’s life is in danger if he complies with Justice Sharma’s Order. Accordingly, the Applicant’s motion to vary the designated beneficiary of the Order that requires the Applicant to arrange for life insurance is dismissed.
Order
51Order to go as follows:
(1) By August 20, 2026, the Applicant father shall:
a. deliver a completed application for the “family law value” of his pension to the pension administrator of the pension plan for LIUNA Local 183 Members, using January 30, 2024 as one of the valuation dates, as well as using the date of separation asserted by the Applicant as the other valuation date.
b. pay the prescribed fee.
(2) By August 20, 2026, the Applicant father shall deliver a copy of the above application, and proof of payment of the prescribed fee, to the Respondent mother.
(3) By September 21, 2026, the Applicant father shall deliver to the Respondent mother:
a. a financial statement in Form 13.1.
b. a copy of every personal income tax return filed by the Applicant for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 including any materials that were filed with the returns.
c. a copy of every notice of assessment and reassessment issued to the Applicant for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
d. the most recent statement of earnings issued by the Respondent’s employer indicating the total earnings paid in the year to date, including overtime;
(4) Commencing July 1, 2026, and continuing on the first day of each month that follows, the Applicant father shall pay table child support in the amount of $1,183.00 per month on a temporary, without prejudice basis, for the child TW, based on his disclosed income of $134,724.08.
(5) Arrears of table child support for the period from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026, for the child TW, is fixed at $11,694.00, and shall be paid by the Applicant father at a rate of $300 per month, on the first day of each month, to the Respondent mother commencing on September 1, 2026 until paid.
(6) The Applicant, Christoper Peter Williams, is granted leave to amend his Application to add a claim for equalization of net family property and a parenting order.
(7) The Respondent, Tenisha Odella Pollard, is granted leave to amend her Amended Answer dated October 9, 2025, to claim for spousal support.
(8) The Divorce is severed from the corollary relief in this Application. Either party may file for an uncontested divorce by way of Form 36: Affidavit for Divorce.
(9) The Applicant’s motion to vary the life insurance provisions of the temporary order of Justice Sharma dated June 4, 2026, is dismissed.
(10) Unless the order is withdrawn from the office of the Director, Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director, and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.
(11) A Support Deduction Order shall issue.
(12) For as long as child support is to be paid, the payor and recipient, if applicable must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within 30 days of the anniversary of this order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.
(13) This order bears interest at the postjudgment interest rate of 4 per cent per year effective from the date of this order. A payment in default bears interest only from the date of default.
(14) Within three days, the Applicant father shall upload to Case Center his Application and Amended Application, as well as all Endorsements and Orders that have been issued in this proceeding, under the bundle “Court Documents”.
(15) Within three days, the Respondent mother shall forthwith upload to Case Center her Answer and Amended Answer under the bundle “Court Documents”.
(16) The parties shall attend by videoconference on August 6, 2026 at 9:00 am to make costs submissions. Ten minutes is set aside.
(17) By September 30, 2026, each party shall: (a) submit an intake form to Mediate393 for the purpose of mediating the issues of child support, equalization of net family property and a parenting order. (b) send a copy of their intake form to the other party. [Note: An intake form may be obtained by contacting Mediate393 (www.mediate393.ca) by email at mediate361@mediate393.com or by telephone at 416-977-0718.]
(18) A Settlement Conference shall be held on December 17, 2026, at 2:00 pm.
(19) This Order is effective immediately without a formal order being issued and entered.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Date: August 4, 2026