Kitchen v. Kitchen, 2026 ONSC 65

CITATION: Kitchen v. Kitchen, 2026 ONSC 65

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-2252-1

DATE: 2026/01/12

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

SOMJI J

Overview

1The Applicant father brings a Motion to Change the Final Order of Engelking J., dated April 17, 2018 (the “Final Order”), relating to support for the parties’ two children—who are now ages 21 and 18—and for the mother to pay support owed on an imputed income.

2The Final Order involved a shared parenting schedule and set-off child support. However, between 2022 and 2023, both children came to live primarily with the father, resulting in a material change in circumstances. Nonetheless, the father continued to pay child support to the mother, as per the Final Order, for a period pending his ability to file a Motion to Change. On the other hand, the Respondent mother failed to pay child support or contribute to the children’s s. 7 expenses. The mother also failed to comply with her financial disclosure obligations to allow for an adjustment of child support. Consequently, the father seeks her income be imputed for the years 2023 to 2025.

3More specifically, the father seeks an Order that:

a. the mother’s income be imputed at $62,388 for the period from 2023 to the present;

b. based on the imputed income, the mother pay retroactive child support for the youngest child for the period of November 2023 to September 2025 on the imputed income and at a rate of $500/month;

c. the mother continue to pay ongoing child support for the youngest child based on an imputed income;

d. child support for the eldest child be terminated effective November 2022;

e. the mother pay him s. 7 expense arrears in the amount of $5,218.03 for both children;

f. the mother pay ongoing s. 7 expenses for both children based on a proportionate share of the parties’ incomes;

g. the mother obtain a life insurance policy naming him primary beneficiary to secure her support obligations;

h. this court impose a fine of $10,000 against the mother for failing to provide financial disclosure in breach of r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLR”); and

i. substantial indemnity costs against the mother in the amount of $14,000.

4The mother failed to file a timely Answer or comply with disclosure orders. She attended the Motion to Change hearing claiming she filed some materials with the court which were not accepted. She argues that while she was previously working, she no longer has secure employment and is incapable of paying the amounts requested by the father.

Issues

5The issues to be decided are:

a. Does the mother owe retroactive child support, and if so, should it be ordered on the basis of the imputed income suggested by the father? In addition, how should child support be treated going forward?

b. Does the mother owe retroactive s. 7 expenses, and how should s. 7 expenses be treated going forward?

c. Should the mother be required to obtain a life insurance policy to secure her support obligations?

d. Did the mother breach the FLR by failing to provide financial disclosure? If so, what is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances?

Analysis

A. Retroactive child support and income imputation

6The parties married on September 25, 2005, and separated on April 22, 2013. They have two children: CLK, born March 2004; and AJK, born May 2007.

7The parties settled all property issues on May 2014. As part of the final property settlement, the mother received $10,000 for a portion of equity in the home, a transfer RRSP funds of $14,334, and a lump sum payment of $109,557 from the father’s federal pension. The Final Order also required the father to make spousal support payments until June 2023.

8The parties subsequently obtained a Divorce and Final Order governing parenting on April 17, 2018. The Final Order provided a shared parenting schedule and the father to pay Table child support of $1,838 per month based on an income of $125,000, and the mother to pay Table child support of $412 per month an on an income of no less than $28,253. The Final Order required that as of July 1, 2019, the mother’s child support payable would be her actual income or $35,000, whichever was higher. It appears that the Final Order recognized that the mother was capable of earning an income approximating a minimum wage income of $35,000/year.

9It is important to note that this is not the first time the mother has failed to maintain her child support obligations. The Final Order required the mother to pay the father child support arrears of $6,529 accumulated since the parties’ separation in 2014.

10In May 2022, the eldest child, CLK, went to reside with the father and in November 2023, the youngest child, AJK, joined him. Despite the change in the children’s primary residence, the father continued to pay some child support to the mother until May 2024. The mother, however, did not contribute to child support or s. 7 expenses.

11The mother is self-employed as a residential painter. She operates a company called Wall’s Prep and Paint. Following the change in the children’s residence, the father made repeated attempts to obtain income disclosure from the mother with no success. These efforts are discussed in further detail below on the issue of the mother’s alleged breach of court orders.

12Consequently, the father brought a Motion to Change on December 19, 2024. The mother did not respond to disclosure requests from the father’s counsel. A case conference was held before Maranger J. on June 2, 2025.

13Given the mother’s failure to provide income disclosure, Maranger J. ordered: (1) the mother to provide financial disclosure by July 31, 2025; (2) that the matter be set down for a one- hour motion; and (3) that the mother pay fixed costs for the case conference in the amount of $750, given the inability to have a meaningful conference without disclosure.

14The father was finally able to obtain the mother’s personal tax returns for 2021 to 2024 and some income receipts pertaining to the mother’s self-employment. However, the disclosure is incomplete, and portions of the bank statements are redacted. According to the mother’s financial disclosure and financial statement, her annual income for the years 2020 to 2025 are as follows:

Year	Line 15000 income
2020	$32,192
2021	$29,626
2022	$41,486
2023	$23,557 (support income $8,387; gross self-employment income $20,391; net self-employment income $15,170)
2024	$19,830 (gross self-employment income $26,975; net self-employment income $14,858)
2025	$49,263 – Income self-reported on mother’s financial statement filed October 7, 2025.

15The income tax returns for 2020 to 2022 were not included in the mother’s filings, and consequently it is difficult to discern the breakdown in her self-employment income from the Notices of Assessment alone.

16Given the late and piecemeal financial disclosure provided by the mother, her failure to provide business records, and the discrepancy between her reported income of $49,263 in her financial statement and the income reported on her personal income tax return for 2025, the father hired Peter Campbell, an expert in vocational assessments. Mr. Campbell prepared a Labour Market Research Report (“Report”) relying on several resources, including job postings for painters in the Ottawa region, to determine what someone in the market could reasonably earn as a full-time painter in the Ottawa/Gatineau area.

17Mr. Campbell has been employed in the field of vocational rehabilitation since 1993 and has experience performing vocational assessments for over 25 years, including on family related matters. Mr. Campbell is registered at the College of Vocational Rehabilitation Professionals and is a member of the Vocation Rehabilitation Association of Canada. Mr. Campbell filed an acknowledgment of an expert’s duty to provide a fair, objective, non-partisan opinion to the court. Upon review of his curriculum vitae and Report, I am satisfied that his opinion on the range of wages for painters in the region is reliable and accept his findings.

18According to the Report, the lowest job posting for a painter was $18.50 per hour, which is above minimum wage. The wage range is between $25 to $30 per hour, and 93% of painters work in the construction industry for a 35–40-hour work week. According to Mr. Campbell, a painter working a 40-hour week can be expected to earn the following range of annual salaries:

	Low	Medium	High
Ottawa:	$39,512.40	$49,910.40	$62,388.00
Ontario:	$39,512.40	$51,990.00	$67,171.08
Gatineau	$46,791.00	$63,822.93	$85,242.80

19The mother has not provided any evidence to challenge Mr. Campbell’s findings. She appeared in person on the day of the motion claiming that she relocated to Kemptville, that she has been living at various addresses, and that she is of limited financial means.

20It is well established in law that child support is the right of the child and parents have a financial obligation to support their children which arises at birth and continues even after separation: Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 36.

21Child support is tied to the payor’s income. The presumptive rule is that the quantum of support will be determined by the Table amounts: Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, s. 3(1); Colucci, at paras. 34, 114. Once a support order is issued, the onus is on the payor to establish there has been a material change in circumstances warranting a change in the support to be paid. In this case, I am satisfied that there was a material change in circumstances when the children moved in with the father in November 2022 and November 2023, resulting in the collapse of the shared parenting arrangement and a shift to the children’s primary residency with the father.

22Furthermore, payor parents are subject to a duty of full and honest disclosure: Colucci, at para. 42, citing Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 763, at para. 33. Financial disclosure by parents is the “linchpin” on which fair child support depends and the relevant legal tests must encourage the timely provision of necessary information: Colucci, at para. 48. Where a payor, in this case the mother, fails to comply with the duty to disclose and leaves the recipient unaware of increases (or in this case, any change in income), a retroactive award will be appropriate: Colucci, at para. 42, citing Michel, at paras. 32, 34.

23Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines provides that the court may impute to a spouse “such amount of income … as it considers appropriate” and provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances. The relevant portions of s. 19(1) read as follows:

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

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

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

24However, this court is not entitled to impute an arbitrary amount of income to the father. Such an approach would be unfair: Monahan-Joudrey v. Joudrey, 2012 ONSC 5984, at paras. 20- 21; Staples v. Callender, 2010 NSCA 49, 85 R.F.L. (6th) 236, at para. 21. On the other hand, the children’s right to child support should not be undermined by a parent’s failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations and unwillingness to engage in court proceedings.

25Finally, the self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions, and the amount of child support can be established: Meade v. Meade (2002), 31 R.F.L. (5th) 88 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 81. This includes the obligation to present information in a user- friendly fashion. A recipient should not have to incur the expense to understand it: Reyes v. Rollo (2001), 24 R.F.L. (5th) 120 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 44. The onus rests upon the parent seeking to deduct expenses from income to provide meaningful supporting documentation in respect to those deductions, failing which an adverse inference may be drawn: Orser v. Grant, [2000] O.J. No. 1429 (S.C.), at para. 8.

26Here, the father has been diligently requesting the mother to provide income disclosure to ascertain her income for support purposes since January 2023, a requirement, as per the Supreme Court of Canada in Colucci, for requesting a retroactive adjustment of support. The mother failed to provide income disclosure notwithstanding her obligation to do so annually under paragraph 13 of the Final Order. Furthermore, the mother’s financial disclosure is incomplete, and minimal income receipts were filed as requested by the father’s counsel or as ordered by Maranger J. In addition, the disclosure that the mother did provide was piecemeal and unsupported by affidavit evidence that would allow one to meaningfully understand her self-employment income.

27The mother filed some of her income tax returns with the court over the counter at the motion hearing on October 7, 2025, which I have accepted and considered. However, she failed to provide any affidavit evidence to explain the status of her painting company, her work history over the past five years, the nature and reason of her business deductions, and whether there have been any medical or other challenges that prevented her from being fully employed as a painter and with the potential to earn, as per the Report, as much as $62,000 annually.

28In support of his position for imputation, the father has provided reliable evidence through Mr. Campbell’s Report that sets out the wage ranges for full-time painters.

29Having considered the mother’s personal income tax returns, her failure to provide complete financial records, her failure to provide affidavit evidence explaining her low earnings (below minimum wage) in some years, her own financial statement wherein she reports that she presently earns $49,253, and the Report, I find that the mother has been both intentionally underemployed and has failed to provide proper income disclosure. I find there is sufficient reliable evidence upon which to impute her income at $49,000. This figure is just below the median income range for a painter in Ontario. There will be an Order that the mother’s income for the years 2023 to 2025 and going forward will be imputed at $49,000/year.

30The father does not seek a retroactive adjustment of support for CLK for the six-month period between May 2022 and November 2022, when the child resided primarily with him. Rather, he seeks that child support for CLK simply be terminated effective November 1, 2022, during which he was no longer a child of the marriage for support purposes. There will be an Order that child support for CLK be terminated effective November 1, 2022.

31As per the table set out at Exhibit J of the father’s affidavit, dated September 29, 2025, the father continued to make child support payments for AJK between November 1, 2023, and July 1, 2024. This resulted in overpayments of $5,806 given that AJK was residing primarily with him. There will be an Order that the father’s child support for the period of November 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024, shall be retroactive adjusted to $0. There will be an Order that the mother shall reimburse the father $5,806 for overpayment of child support for this period.

32In addition, the mother should have been paying the father child support for AJK of $441/month from November 1, 2023, on an imputed income of $49,000. Consequently, there will be an Order that the mother’s child support for the period of November 1, 2023, to December 31, 2025, is retroactively adjusted to $441/month based on the mother’s imputed income of $49,000. There will be an Order that the mother will pay the father retroactive child support in the fixed amount of $11,466 ($441 x 26 months) for this period.

33There will be an Order that the mother pay the father the total support arrears of $17,272 ($5,806 and $11,466) in installments of $300/month commencing January 1, 2026.

34The Final Order specified that support would be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”). It is unclear from the parties’ submissions if a Support Deduction Order was issued and if the FRO has been enforcing the support payments. If support payments were made through the FRO, then counsel shall modify the language of the draft Order accordingly.

35Finally, AJK continues to reside with the father and is in full-time school. There will be an Order that the mother shall pay ongoing child support of $441/month, effective January 1, 2026, for AJK on an imputed income of $49,000/year. This ongoing support is over and above the monthly payments of $300/month for the retroactive child support arrears.

B. Retroactive and ongoing s. 7 expenses

36Paragraph 8 of the Final Order required the parties to share s.7 expenses equally. Given the mother’s lack of engagement, the father has paid most of the children’s s. 7 expenses in the last two years. The father does not seek reimbursement for all s. 7 expenses. Rather, he seeks the mother pay her proportionate share for AJK’s competitive basketball, therapy, optometry, dental, and educational expenses in the amount of $3,789. With respect to CLK, he seeks that the mother share in the costs of university tuition for September 2025, in the amount of $2,858.

37The mother argues that she cannot afford these payments. She takes issue with the $220 costs for the prom, therapy costs, and the costs for university. However, her opposition to these expenses was not set out in an affidavit but rather last-minute verbal submissions made at the motion hearing.

38With respect to post-secondary expenses, it is well recognized that parents have an obligation to provide support for their children who are minors or enrolled in a full-time program of education to the extent they are capable of doing so, unless the child is above 16 and has withdrawn from parental control: Family Law Act, R.S.O.,1990, c.F.3, ss. 31(1), 31(2) (“FLA”); Lewi v. Lewi (2006), 80 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.). In this case, the evidence indicates that the eldest child has been enrolled in university full-time for the 2025-2026 academic year.

39I find the expenses incurred by the father are reasonable and supported by receipts. The mother has not provided any reliable evidence for why she is unable to contribute to the children’s s. 7 expenses as per the requirements of the Final Order. In her correspondence to the counsel in May 2025, the mother states she did not approve of AJK’s braces, but it was pointed out to her that she was aware of AJK’s need for braces and consented as early as February 20, 2020.

40Furthermore, if the mother was of the view that the amounts should have been reduced to a share proportionate to her income, it was her responsibility to share her financial disclosure with the father and either come to an arrangement directly with him, or alternatively, seek a Motion to Change. She failed to do both. There will be an Order that the mother shall reimburse the father for her proportionate share of the children’s s.7 expenses for the period of February 2023 to October 31, 2025, in the amount of $5,218.

41The father recognizes that he earns considerably more than the mother. His income as per his financial statement of November 26, 2024, is $187,473. The father is agreeable to sharing s. 7 expenses on a proportionate basis going forward. This would include anticipated s. 7 expenses for post-secondary education for both children.

42There will be an Order that the mother shall proportionally contribute to future s. 7 expenses for both children based on an imputed income of $49,000 or her line 15000 income, whichever is higher. These expenses shall include the following:

a. All associated costs of post-secondary education, inclusive of tuition, books, residence, and meals;

b. the portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to AJK;

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, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

d. extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities inclusive of costs for AJK’s competitive sports.

43As already noted, the Final Order stipulated that support would be enforced by the FRO. If a Support Deduction Order has not yet issued, there will be an Order that it be issued going forward. While the mother is self-employed, making the collection of wages challenging, the FRO can garnish tax refunds.

44There will be an Order that: Unless the Support Order is withdrawn from the Office of the Director of the FRO, it shall be enforced by the Director and any amounts owing under the Order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

C. Life Insurance request

45The father requests that the mother obtain a life insurance policy to secure her child support obligations. In her very brief Answer consisting of a few lines on each subject, she indicates she refuses the request. She does not explain why. In her financial statement, the mother does not account for any insurance payments, suggesting that she does not have a life insurance policy. She has refused to confirm if she does or does not have a policy despite requests for confirmation from the father’s counsel.

46The mother claims $2400/month for mortgage and/or rent in her financial statement; however, she does not specify if she owns any home against which she could secure her support obligations.

47I would note that the requirement to obtain life insurance is not a new request. At paragraph 25 of the Final Order, Engelking J. ordered that the mother obtain a life insurance policy in the minimum amount of $150,000 for the benefit of the support recipient, and to maintain the policy in force. There is no evidence that the mother complied with this term of the Final Order.

48A payor spouse can be ordered to designate the other spouse as the beneficiary irrevocably on a life insurance policy, but there must be some evidence of the payor’s insurability: FLA, s. 34(1)(i); see also Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606, 50 R.F.L. (7th) 1, at paras. 66-74. In this case, there is no evidence that the mother attempted to secure life insurance as required to do so by the terms of the Final Order. The father’s request for security of support is a reasonable one given the mother’s persistent failure to meet her support obligations.

49Consequently, there will be an Order that the mother secure a life insurance policy in a reduced amount of $50,000 with the father as an irrevocable beneficiary to secure her retroactive and ongoing child support obligations within 60 days. If the mother is unable to secure such a policy, she will provide written confirmation from no less than three insurance providers stating the reason for her inability to be insured within 60 days.

D. Did the mother breach the FLR, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances?

50The father seeks that the mother pays a monetary penalty of $10,000 pursuant to r. 1(8) of the FLR for her breach of the following court disclosure orders:

i. The Final Order requiring financial disclosure within 30 days of request;

ii. The Automatic Order of the Court pursuant to r. 8.0.1 of the FLR requiring financial disclosure;

iii. Maranger J.’s Order of June 2, 2025, requiring the mother to provide income tax returns, notices of assessment, records and receipts relating to her self- employment, and bank statements, by July 31, 2025.

51Rule 1(8) of the FLR states:

If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including

(a) an order for costs;

(a.1) an order to pay an amount to a party or into a court as a penalty or fine.

52Rule 1(8) of the FLR authorizes the court to issue various remedies for a person’s failure to obey a court order. While the listed remedies are largely procedural, the rule provides the court with broad discretion to make orders it considers necessary to address a party’s failure to comply with a court order, particularly where the orders address the well-being of children: Bouchard v. Sgovia, 2021 ONCA 709, 63 R.F.L. (8th) 257, at para. 51.

53To find there has been non-compliance with a court order and issue a remedy pursuant to r. 1(8), the court must undertake a three-part inquiry:

1. The court must ask whether there is a triggering event of non-compliance with a court order that would allow it to consider the wording of r. 1(8).

2. If the triggering event exists, the court should then ask whether it is appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party by not sanctioning that party under r. 1(8).

3. In the event the court determines it will not exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party, it is then left with the very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy under r.1(8): Oliver v. Oliver, 2020 ONSC 2321, at para. 37; K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338, at para. 31.

54If a party is unresponsive, indifferent, defiant, and blatantly or chronically disregards the FLR, then r. 1(8)(a.1) is an appropriate tool for the court to hold a non-complying party accountable: Dalla Bona v. Lucas, 2024 ONSC 4397, at paras. 6, 8.

55In this case, I am satisfied that there was a triggering event of non-compliance. The father requested on January 25, 2023, that the mother provide her 2021 Notice of Assessment. He then followed up on February 6, 2023, and March 29, 2023, at which time he also asked the mother for her 2022 Notice of Assessment. He followed up again on April 20, 2023, June 6, 2023, and February 29, 2024, and did not receive responses to his requests.

56The father’s counsel then contacted the mother on September 20, 2024, requesting that she provide income tax returns and Notices of Assessment for 2021, 2022, and 2023, as well as three recent pay stubs. Counsel followed up again on September 30, 2024, with no success.

57Following the initiation of the Motion to Change, the deadline for receiving the mother’s materials passed on February 24, 2025. The father agreed to a further 30-day extension at the first court appearance. Further requests were made on March 26, 2025, May 14, 2025, and May 21, 2025, still with no response.

58As already noted, Maranger J. ordered the mother to file financial disclosure by July 31, 2025. Counsel for the father acknowledges that some disclosure was eventually received, but it was after the deadline. During the motion hearing, the mother claimed she did gather the documents as required by July 31, 2025, but had only a receipt from Staples acknowledging she attended the premises to make copies of documents. It is unclear what documents the receipt refers to. I do not find this to be adequate proof of timely compliance with Maranger J.’s Order.

59In addition, process servers attempted to serve the mother documents on the Motion to Change at 388 Towline Road in Kemptville, Ontario, the residence where the mother was known to reside. I would also add that this is the address on her 2023- and 2024-income tax returns. The process servers attended on December 21, 2024, December 30, 2024, and again on January 15, 2025. In the first instance, no one came to the door and the father’s counsel card was left, but the mother failed to contact counsel. On the second occasion, a woman answered the door and said she was house sitting and returned into the home mid-conversation. On the third occasion, an unidentified male answered and said the mother was not home and that he would not take her mail. The materials were left at the door and counsel also followed up by sending the documents by email. On the second and third occasions, the mother’s known white Honda with a registered plate in her name was parked in the driveway.

60The mother’s complete disregard for the father and counsel’s request for financial disclosure, which was a required term of the Final Order, or to engage with counsel after a process server attended her home, demonstrates a blatant disregard of both the Final Order and the court process. The mother’s only explanation at the motion hearing for disengagement was that she was between homes at the time. However, this explanation was not provided in an affidavit, and its reliability is questionable given a resident did confirm she lived at the address and her car was parked outside. I find the mother’s blatant disregard of her disclosure obligations under the Final Order, as well as the subsequent court orders, warrants the exercise of the court’s discretion that she be held accountable pursuant to r. 1(8) of the FLR.

61However, with respect to remedy, I find the proposed fine of $10,000 to be excessive. In arriving at an appropriate remedy, I must also consider the mother’s ability to pay. The mother will have considerable retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses to pay, as well as a costs order as the unsuccessful party on this Motion to Change. She is presently re-establishing herself and her business in a new community. In these circumstances, I find that an appropriate remedy would be a fixed penalty of $2,000 payable to the father in 30 days.

Costs

62The father seeks substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $14,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

63Entitlement and quantum of costs is in the discretion of the judge: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1).

64Rule 24 of the FLR sets out the legal framework for cost orders in family cases: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, at para. 9, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 392. The starting point is that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs: FLR, r. 24(3). However, in assessing entitlement to costs, judges must also consider the following: written offers to settle (rr. 18 and 24(14)(a)(iii)); any unreasonable conduct on the part of a successful party (r. 24(7)); and if a party has acted in bad faith (r. 24(10)).

65In this case, the father was the successful party and is presumptively entitled to costs. There was nothing in the father’s conduct that would disentitle him to a costs award.

66In determining the amount to be awarded, r. 24(14) requires a judge to consider:

(a) the reasonableness and proportionality of the following factors, as applicable, as they relate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the step:

(i) Each party’s behaviour.

(ii) The time spent by each party.

(iii) Any written offers to settle, including offers that do not meet the conditions set out in subrule (12) or the requirements of rule 18.

(iv) Any legal fees, including the number of licensed representatives and their rates.

(v) Any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates.

(vi) Any other expenses properly paid or payable; and

(b) any other relevant matter.

67Modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes: (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (4) to ensure, as per r. 2(2), that cases are dealt with justly: Mattina, at para. 10.

68Rule 24(14)(a)(i) permits the court to consider the reasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case to determine quantum of costs. Unreasonable conduct by a party can warrant a higher costs award. Examples include giving false information, deceit, fraud and failure or significant delay in providing disclosure: Francisco v. Francisco, 2018 ONSC 708, at para. 37. If a party’s conduct reaches the high threshold of bad faith, it can warrant a costs award on a full recovery basis: r. 24(10). In this case, the mother’s significant delay in providing disclosure, disregard for court orders, and lack of engagement with counsel during the court proceedings warrants an elevated costs award.

69The matter was not complex. Had the mother cooperated with her obligations under the Final Order and responded to the father’s requests in early 2023, a Motion to Change would not likely have been required. The most significant challenge was the mother’s lack of engagement and failure to provide financial disclosure, resulting in the father having to incur costs to obtain a vocational assessment to determine the mother’s income in anticipation of an uncontested trial. Had the mother cooperated with her disclosure obligations, including providing proper income receipts, these costs would have been unnecessary. However, I note that the father’s bill of costs does not request reimbursement for the Report. Counsel has also not included attendance for the case conference for which costs were previously fixed.

70Counsel for the father, along with junior associates, billed approximately 55 hours for work done since 2024. This included communicating with the parties, the expert, and process servers; preparing affidavits and motion materials; analyzing the mother’s late materials; and preparation for and attendance at the motion hearing. I find the total hours spent was reasonable. The mother’s counsel charged between $270 and $295/hr, which is commensurate with her five years of experience. The junior associates were engaged at lower rates.

71While there is reference to offers to settle in the bill of costs, there is no indication if these were made.

72Finally, I must consider the financial means of the parties, their ability to pay, and the effect of any costs ruling on the parties and children: Fyfe v. Jouppien, 2012 ONSC 97, 10 R.F.L. (7th) 371, at para. 11; M. (A.C.) v M (D.) (2003), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (C.A.), at para. 45. I am aware from the mother’s appearance in court that she is re-establishing herself in a new community, is of limited financial means, and that she will have retroactive and ongoing support payments to make.

73The overall objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the case, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), at para. 26.

74Having considered the father’s success, the mother’s unreasonable conduct, and the reasonableness of the rates and billings, I find that an elevated costs award in the fixed amount of $14,000 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) is fair and reasonable in this case.

75The mother will pay the father fixed costs in the amount of $14,000.

76Costs incurred for the purposes of support are enforceable by the FRO pursuant to s. 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31 (the “Act”): see also Scipione v. Scipione, 2015 ONSC 5982, 68 R.F.L. (7th) 66, at para. 142, citing Wildman v. Wildman (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.). In this case, the Motion to Change related entirely to child support.

77The costs award constitutes the father’s time and expense in relation to support or maintenance, and as such, should be enforceable by the Director of the FRO pursuant to s. 1(1)(g) of the Act. There will be an Order that:

a. The costs award relates to support within the meaning of s. 1(1)(g) of the Act, and as such, is enforceable by the FRO.

b. Unless the Support Order is withdrawn from the Office of the Director of the FRO, it shall be enforced by the Director and any amounts owing under the Order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

Order

78The father’s counsel shall prepare a draft Order consistent with this decision. Counsel shall confirm if the FRO has been engaged, and if so, propose terms for the draft Order to ensure the language allows FRO to make the necessary retroactive adjustments. In addition, the father’s counsel shall forward a draft Support Deduction Order if one has not issued. Both orders should be provided to me for review and issuance no later than January 30, 2026.

Somji J

Released: January 12, 2026

CITATION: Kitchen v. Kitchen, 2026 ONSC 65