CITATION : Scharf v. Crowder , 2026 ONSC 699
COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-22525
DATE: 2026/02/05
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER LYNN SCHARF Applicant – and – TROY STACEY CROWDER Respondent
William Abbott , for the Applicant
Self-Represented, for the Respondent
HEARD: May 27, 28 and 29, June 4, 7 and 10, and September 4, 2024 and July 2, 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION
wilcox, j.
INTRODUCTION
[ 1 ] This is the decision after trial on the issues arising from the breakdown of the parties’ marriage.
background
[ 2 ] The parties cohabited from September, 1999 (per the Applicant) or June, 2000 (per the respondent). They were married on June 25, 2010. There is disagreement about the separation date. The Applicant says it was June 15, 2018, whereas the Respondent says it was September 1, 2017.
[ 3 ] There are three children. Brayden Crowder, born November 17, 1998, is the Applicant’s child from a previous relationship. Maximum (Max) Crowder was born June 29, 2000. Cole Crowder was born July 30, 2002.
[ 4 ] The parties are from the Sudbury area and have extended family there, including grandparents on both sides. Throughout the relationship, however, they lived in various other places in Ontario at times to accommodate the boys’ sports, including Barrie, Orillia, and the Niagara area. They returned to the Sudbury area around the time of separation.
[ 5 ] The Applicant commenced this proceeding by Application issued November 13, 2018. The Respondent’s Answer/Claim by Respondent was dated February 27, 2019. The Amended Application was dated February 24, 2023. There was no amended Answer.
[ 6 ] Initially, both parties were represented. Both changed counsel at some point. The Applicant has been represented throughout. The Respondent has been a self-represented litigant since June 6, 2023.
[ 7 ] Trial began on May 27, 2024 and continued on May 28 and 29, June 4, 7, and 10, and September 4, 2024. The parties and their sons testified. Submissions were not scheduled until July 2, 2025.
[ 8 ] This matter suffers from the lack of information from the Respondent’s side. Other than his Answer, the only documents delivered by him were a Form 13.1 Financial Statement dated February 27, 2019, done when he had counsel, and his Form 13 Financial Statement of March 9, 2022, done when he was self-represented.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
- There was an extensive - 174 item - Statement of Agreed Facts;
Defined terms:
a) Jennifer Lynn Scharf (“Jennifer”)
b) Troy Stacey Crowder (“Troy”)
c) Brayden Crowder (“Brayden”)
d) Maximum Crowder (“Max”)
e) Cole Crowder (“Cole”)
f) National Hockey League (“NHL”)
g) 103 Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario P0M 3E0 (“the matrimonial home”)
h) The second mortgage on 103 Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario P0M 3E0 in favour of Troy Stacey Crowder’s parents, Mary Crowder and Brian Crowder (“the second mortgage”)
BACKGROUND
The parties started living together in 1999.
The parties were married on June 25, 2010.
Brayden is a child of the marriage.
Max is a child of the marriage.
Cole is a child of the marriage.
Troy was previously employed by the NHL.
Troy was previously employed as a professional hockey player.
Troy has been self-employed.
Troy has bought and sold real estate properties.
Troy has done contract work with the NHL Players’ Association in investments.
Troy has managed his parents’ properties.
During the marriage, Troy was the primary financial provider for the family.
During the marriage, Jennifer was a full-time homemaker.
Jennifer was the children’s primary caregiver.
Jennifer began working in 2017.
Jennifer is employed as a full-time Assistant Project Manager.
Troy’s position is that the parties separated in September 2017.
Jennifer’s position is that the parties separated on June 15, 2018.
SEPARATION
The family lived together in Sudbury until summer 2017.
Jennifer and the children returned to the family’s rental home in Orillia after summer 2017.
Jennifer and the children returned to Orillia so that Max could complete high school in Orillia.
The lease for the Orillia home was in Troy’s name.
The bills for the Orillia home were in Troy’s name.
Troy stayed in Sudbury in September 2017.
Troy moved to Sudbury because he was running as a candidate in the Sudbury riding during the provincial elections for the Conservative Party.
Jennifer and the children remained in Orillia so that the children could finish the school year.
The parties intended to reunite as a family in Sudbury after the 2017/2018 school year.
In June 2018, Jennifer began the process of relocating with the children to Sudbury.
In June 2018, Jennifer learned that Troy was having an affair.
CHILDREN, CHILD SUPPORT, AND SECTION 7 EXPENSES
Troy is not Brayden’s biological father. 31. Brayden is Jennifer’s child from a previous relationship.
Brayden was 1 year old when Jennifer and Troy started living together.
Troy stood in the place of the parent for Brayden.
Brayden was 19 years old when the parties separated.
Brayden was about to start post-secondary education when the parties separated.
Brayden completed the Business Program at Miami University in Ohio, USA, in April 2022.
Brayden started his hockey career in October 2022.
Troy has not paid any child support for Brayden since separation.
Troy has not contributed to Brayden’s section 7 expenses since separation.
Max was 17 years old when the parties separated.
Max was about to start his first year at Humber College in Toronto at the time of separation.
Max completed the Plumbing Techniques course in Humber College in April 2023.
Max lived in Victoria, British Columbia for summer 2023.
Max has decided to return to Humber College for September 2023.
Max will play on the volleyball team at Humber College.
Max will take the Welding Program at Humber College.
Max will be living in Toronto for the 2023/2024 academic year.
Max has taken out OSAP.
Troy has not paid any child support for Max since separation.
Troy has not contributed to Max’s section 7 expenses since separation.
Cole was 15 years old when the parties separated.
Cole was attending Patrick Fogarty Catholic Secondary School in Orillia at the time of separation.
Cole graduated from St. Benedict Catholic Secondary School in 2020.
Cole did not pursue post-secondary education between 2020 and 2023.
Cole will start attending Sault College in September 2023.
Cole lived with Jennifer from the date of separation until August 31, 2020.
Cole played hockey for the Sudbury Cubs in the Northern Ontario Junior Hockey League until April 2023.
Cole will be living in Sault Ste Marie for the 2023/2024 academic year.
Troy has not paid any child support for Cole since separation.
Jennifer has paid for the entirety of the children’s section 7 expenses since the date of separation.
Jennifer paid for Brayden’s tuition.
Troy did not pay for Brayden’s tuition.
Jennifer paid for Max’s tuition.
Troy did not pay for Max’s tuition.
Jennifer paid for Brayden’s residence fees.
Troy did not pay for Max’s residence fees.
Jennifer paid for Brayden’s hockey fees in university.
Troy did not pay for Brayden’s hockey fees in university.
Jennifer paid for Brayden’s transportation costs to and from Ontario to Ohio.
Troy did not pay for Brayden’s transportation costs to and from Ontario to Ohio.
Troy has not paid any child support to Jennifer since the date of separation.
Jennifer and Troy have agreed that there shall be no spousal support payable by either party.
TROY’S CAREER AND INCOME
Troy’s last year in the NHL was 1997.
Troy’s last year of playing professional hockey was 2003.
Troy has a pension with the NHL.
The NHL pension has two components: 1) Canadian and 2) American.
Troy is able to access the American portion of his pension if he is divorced.
The American portion of the pension would generate an income of $950.00 per month.
Troy is able to access the Canadian portion of his pension given he is 55 years of age.
Troy worked in player development for the Calgary Flames.
Troy operated a hockey school called Adventure North Hockey Camp.
Troy operated the hockey school between 2005 and 2008.
Troy worked for the Calgary Flames between 2014 and 2016.
Troy worked as a consultant for the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Troy worked for the Toronto Maple Leafs between 2016 and 2017.
Troy obtained a real estate license in 2002.
Troy ran for provincial elections in 2017.
Troy ran for provincial elections in 2018.
Troy ran for the mayoral position for Sudbury in 2018.
Troy purchased a home municipally known as 261 Wembley Drive, Sudbury in late 2018.
Troy purchased the Wembley Drive home for $137,000.
Troy renovated the Wembley Drive home.
Troy sold the Wembley Drive home for profit.
During the election, Troy represented himself as a successful businessman.
Troy played in charity hockey games.
The charity hockey games provided a honorarium of at least $1,000 per game.
Troy’s travel expenses were paid for by the charity hockey games.
Troy played in the Grey Bruce Celebrity Hockey Classic in Port Elgin in October 2018.
Troy played in the Ric Lindros Celebrity Hockey Classic in Oshawa in November 2018.
Troy played in the NHL alumni games in Timmins in November 2018.
Troy played in the NHL alumni games in Sudbury in November 2018.
Troy played in the Celebrity Ice Cup in Niagara Falls in February 2019.
Troy has experience working in construction sites.
Troy received cash payments in exchange of working for construction.
Troy was offered a job in which he would sell cars and boats.
Troy was offered a job with a salary of $80,000 to $100,000 by a family friend.
Troy was offered a job with commission.
Troy was offered a construction management position.
Troy is well-connected in the community.
Troy is a beneficiary under the Crowded House Family Trust.
The Family Trust had a net business income of $34,869 in 2016.
The Family Trust had a net business income of $50,297 in 2017.
Troy is the trustee of the Crowded House Family Trust.
Troy has received income through the family trust.
In 2018, Troy received $30,297 from the family trust.
Troy has a business called 55 Flex.
Troy is the sole shareholder of 55 Flex.
Troy claims that he has been unemployed since December 24, 2020.
Troy claims that he lives with his parents in the winter.
Troy claims that he lives alone at the matrimonial home in the summer.
MATRIMONIAL HOME
103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario was initially a commercial resort.
103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario was divided into two halves in 2009.
One half of 103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario was sold on January 10, 2010.
The other half of 103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario was changed to a residential property on April 4, 2013.
The residential half of 103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario became the matrimonial home.
Tim Cull appraised the property in May 2015.
The matrimonial home was renovated each summer.
The matrimonial home’s renovations took place between 2010 and 2018.
Troy does not live in the matrimonial home.
Troy has not lived in the matrimonial home since separation.
Jennifer does not live in the matrimonial home.
Jennifer has not lived in the matrimonial home since separation.
Troy changed the locks on the matrimonial home without Jennifer’s consent.
Troy prevented Jennifer from returning to the matrimonial home.
Troy prevented the children from returning to the matrimonial home.
Troy sold the family’s golf cart.
Troy sold the family’s 2016 Dodge Ram.
Troy sold the family’s 4-wheeler.
Troy sold the family’s furniture.
Troy sold various household chattels from the matrimonial home.
Troy brought a motion to list the matrimonial home for sale in March 2022.
Troy’s March 2022 motion was dismissed.
Troy listed the matrimonial home for sale in October 2022.
Troy listed the matrimonial home for sale without Jennifer’s consent.
Troy listed his sister-in-law, Colleen Kutchaw, as the listing agent.
The matrimonial home is no longer listed for sale.
Jennifer was able to access the matrimonial home in November 2022.
THE SECOND MORTGAGE
The second mortgage was taken out in 2015.
The principal amount of the second mortgage is $250,000.
Troy made Jennifer sign an Acknowledgement and Direction in October 2015.
Troy’s parents made Jennifer sign an Acknowledgement and Direction in October 2015.
Jennifer did not receive independent legal advice before signing the Acknowledgement and Direction.
Troy is not making any payments towards the second mortgage.
Troy owed the Canada Revenue Agency in the amount of approximately $103,000 in unpaid taxes.
Troy owes the Canada Revenue Agency in the amount of approximately $103,000 in unpaid taxes.
Troy obtained the second mortgage because he owed taxes to the CRA. PROPERTY
Troy has not obtained a valuation report for his business.
Troy has not obtained a vocational report.
Troy has not obtained a proper valuation of his NHL pension.
Troy has not provided corporate financial statements for 55 Flex.
Troy has not provided general ledgers for 55 Flex.
Troy has not provided supporting documents for the Date of Marriage deductions that he claims.
CRIMINAL CHARGES
Troy was charged in September 2020 with two counts of uttering a forged document.
Troy was charged in September 2020 with two counts of fraud over $5,000.
Troy was charged in September 2020 with two counts of fraudulent concealment.
Troy was convicted on December 14, 2022 of one count of utterance of a forged document.
On December 14, 2022, Troy was ordered to make a restitution payment of $45,4567.50 to Jennifer by August 14, 2023.
Troy has not made the restitution payment.
At the sentencing hearing, Troy said that he has opportunities to work in the US starting fall 2023.
At the sentencing hearing, Troy said he received emergency funds from the NHL emergency fund in the summer of 2022.
Troy’s criminal counsel submitted that Troy’s house arrest order must accommodate his need to go exercise and play hockey.
Troy’s criminal counsel submitted that Troy’s house arrest order must accommodate his need to work with young athletes.
The probation order allows Troy to attend the local hockey area two times a week for 2 ½ hours each.
MISCELLANEOUS
- Troy has disclosed contents of his communications with his previous counsel, Jerome C. Gardner.
the date of separation
[ 9 ] As noted above, there is disagreement about what the date of separation was. The Respondent says it was September 1, 2017, whereas the Applicant says that it was June 15, 2018. The choice of date, the Applicant’s counsel pointed out, makes little practical difference for a couple of reasons. One was that the Respondent owes less in retroactive child support if the Applicant’s later date of separation is used. As for property equalization, counsel said that he had used the values that the Respondent had put into his Financial Statements. The Respondent disputed this, submitting that using his date of separation would be more beneficial to him because he had paid tens of thousands of dollars for the Applicant and children after they separated. This, the argument seemed to be, would have amounted to an overpayment by him. However, there is no financial evidence identifying such payments or their amounts, nor distinguishing between spousal and child support.
[ 10 ] Ascertaining the date of separation is complicated by the fact that the family had been living in Orillia but the Respondent had spent much of his time after his June, 2017 nomination working on his provincial election campaign in Sudbury. Then, when the Applicant and children were in Sudbury, they did not all stay together because there were two sets of grandparents to visit. These could mask some indicia of separation that might otherwise have existed.
[ 11 ] On the other hand, there were indicia of an ongoing relationship between the two alleged dates of separation. As will be seen below under Imputing Income to the Respondent, he split his income in 2017 with the Applicant. The money for the Applicant’s rental accommodations in Orillia for the year following the Respondent’s date of separation came from the Respondent’s account. On election day in June, 2018, the Respondent posted on Facebook a photograph of him, the Applicant and the three boys in a message encouraging support for his candidacy. The Sudbury Star newspaper ran an article dated July 12, 2018 about Brayden Crowder possibly playing for the local OHL hockey team, which article quotes the Respondent and goes on to explain that the Crowder family would continue living in Orillia until Brayden’s brothers finish high school and then move to the Sudbury area. Also, there was evidence that the parties socialized, worked and attended events together. Notably, all three children testified that separation did not occur until in or around June, 2018.
[ 12 ] On balance, I find that the evidence points to the separation date being the June 15, 2018 date as the Applicant alleges.
equalization
[ 13 ] As previously noted, this matter suffers from a lack of information on the Respondent’s behalf. The Family Law Rules contain extensive provisions about financial disclosure. Financial Statements are to be served and filed with the Application and Answer, followed by supporting information. Parties are required to use Form 13.1 Financial Statements where, as here, the case involves a property claim. These forms collect and organize information with respect to assets and debts as of three dates, the date of marriage, the date of separation (the valuation date) and the present. Financial information is to be updated before case conferences, settlements conferences, motions and trials. There are requirements for initial and updated Certificates of Financial Disclosure listing the items disclosed. Furthermore, where, as here, there are property claims, the rules require parties to serve and file Net Family Property Statements and Comparisons of Net Family Property Statements. Parties also have an express duty to correct and update documents found to be incorrect, incomplete or out of date. Where there is failure to follow the rules or obey orders, the court may make various orders as a consequence.
[ 14 ] As previously noted, of the required financial documents, the Respondent served and filed only two Financial Statements, a Form 13.1 dated February 27, 2019 when he had counsel, and a Form 13 dated March 9, 2022 when he was self-represented. These were incomplete and, as was clear from the respondent’s testimony, inaccurate. The Form 13 Financial Statement was the wrong form to use as it does not collect separation date property or debt values.
[ 15 ] Kurke J. held a Trial Management Conference in the case on January 25 th , 2023 and completed the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form (TSEF). It contains several orders:
a) the Respondent was to produce a pension valuation;
b) the Respondent was to produce proof of the date of marriage values of his assets and debts by 60 days before trial;
c) the Respondent was to produce an Amended Answer responding to the Applicant’s forthcoming Amended Application by March 10, 2023;
d) the Respondent was to produce an updated Financial Statement by 15 days before trial and an updated Net Family Property Statement and Comparison of Net Family Property Statements by April 3 rd , 2023.
[ 16 ] The endorsement of Kurke J. of October 4, 2023 indicates that the Respondent brought a Motion in September of that year requesting an extension of the time requirements in the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form to file his documents. This was in the context of the case having been scheduled for trial but not reached in the week of October 3 rd , 2023 and new trial dates being required. The Respondent was given until October 20, 2023 to file. Kurke J. ordered the Respondent to pay $1,000 costs to the Applicant within seven days.
[ 17 ] In October 2023, the Applicant also commenced a related civil case with respect to a mortgage in the amount of $250,000 on the matrimonial home in favour of the Respondent’s parents, Brian Crowder and Mary Crowder. On October 27, 2023 Gordon J. endorsed that an order would issue in the family court file adding the Respondent’s parents, Mary Crowder and Brian Crowder, who lacked capacity, by his litigation guardian, Mary Crowder, as parties to the family law action for the purpose of determining the validity of that mortgage. They were ordered to file an Answer in the family law proceeding no later than November 30, 2023. Gordon J. dismissed the civil case as it was no longer necessary. The family Application had been amended on February 24, 2023 seeking, among other things, to add the Respondent’s parents as respondents and to have the mortgage declared to be void.
[ 18 ] At the outset of trial, counsel for the Applicant sought to have the undefended claims in the Amended Application dealt with. Although the Amended Application was served at a time when the Respondent was represented, there had been no responding Answer from either the Respondent or Mary Crowder. As previously noted, these had been required by March 10, 2023. They were in default to that extent. Therefore I declared that the mortgage on the matrimonial home in favour of Mary Crowder and Brian Crowder was void.
[ 19 ] The Applicant’s counsel also sought to have the Respondent’s pleadings struck for breaching the aforementioned orders of the Court. The alleged breaches were of the orders listed above:
the $1,000 costs order had not been paid; and
the Respondent has not produced the pension valuation, proof of date of marriage values of his assets and debts, an updated Financial Statement, a Net Family Property Statement nor a Comparison of Net Family Property Statements.
[ 20 ] The Respondent did not persuasively dispute these allegations, although he tried to minimize their effect and deflect blame to his former counsel.
[ 21 ] Family Law Rule 1(8) says that if a person fails to obey an order in a case, the Court may make an order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including those listed in 1(8) (a) through (g). The Court must pick a remedy carefully. On one hand, there must be consequences for non-compliance. On the other, the Court should impose consequences that do not deprive it of information needed to make correct decisions.
[ 22 ] If the Court had struck out the Respondent’s Answer, the matter would have proceeded uncontested. Only the Applicant’s evidence and submissions would have been received. The Respondent did not seek an adjournment to allow time to cure the shortcomings. That would not have been a practical solution anyway as the matter was already quite dated. The Court schedule was such that it would likely have been many months before the matter could be rescheduled again. There had already been one extension and plenty of time to comply. Rescheduling was not an attractive option.
[ 23 ] The Respondent was highly unlikely to be able to produce the outstanding pension information or date of marriage values for the trial as scheduled. So, his participation, or lack thereof, would not have affected the information available to the Court with respect to those matters.
[ 24 ] The Applicant’s counsel suggested that, at least, the Respondent could provide a certified cheque or bank draft to pay the $1,000 outstanding costs award and if he did so, he be allowed to participate in the trial to a limited extent but not to deal in evidence with his pension value nor the date of marriage values of his assets or liabilities. Nor would he be allowed to bring evidence contrary to the values given in his most recent Financial Statement, unless it is to the Applicant’s advantage. The Respondent provided the bank draft and trial proceeded on that basis.
[ 25 ] Apart from the disallowed date of marriage values and mortgage, the lack of a proper valuation for the Respondent’s NHL pension and his inaccurate Financial Statements, there were other problems with the Respondent’s evidence of property values. It was clear that there had been various items of furniture, household decoration and recreational use which would have had some significant value and which had been in the Respondent’s care and control after separation, with at least some being sold, for which there were no accurate values available. That some were allegedly held within private corporations of the Respondent’s further obfuscated the situation. Furthermore, the Respondent had not obtained a business valuation, the need for which had been identified at the Trial Management Conference. Consequently, the values available for the net family property equalization were rather soft.
[ 26 ] The Applicant’s counsel produced for use in closing submissions a Net Family Property Statement said to be based on the evidence at trial to assist in determining the equalization amount. It showed the respondent owing the Applicant $228,407.82. The Respondent agreed with the value used for the matrimonial home which was $520,000. The next largest item at about $253,000 was the value given for his NHL pension, based on a statement that he had produced, even if it was not an actuarial calculation of a family law value.
[ 27 ] The Respondent was given the opportunity in submissions to state what equalization number he proposed and why, based on the evidence accepted at trial. Unfortunately, his submissions strayed from that focus. His submissions tended to mix support and property matters. He submitted both that, but for the above-noted evidentiary rulings, he would be owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in equalization, the evidence for which he said had been disclosed to the Applicant’s counsel but not produced in court, and that there should be no equalization. Ultimately, he refused to provide any dollar amount because, he said, if he was ordered to pay any equalization, he would appeal.
[ 28 ] In the circumstances, I will accept the Applicant’s calculations as they are based on her counsel’s submissions as to what the evidence supported which submissions the Respondent did not specifically counter, offering instead only general disagreement, focussed on the procedure rather than on item values. Therefore, I find that the Respondent owes the Applicant an equalization payment of $228,407.82.
spousal support
[ 29 ] The Applicant’s claim included spousal support but she did not pursue it, retroactively or ongoing. The Respondent’s Answer did not claim spousal support, nor oppose the Applicant’s proposed terms in this regard. Therefore, I order that there should be no spousal support payable from either party to the other either on a retroactive or on an ongoing basis.
child support
Applicant’s jobs
[ 30 ] The Applicant testified that she had been a waitress at the start of the relationship. She was then a stay-at-home mother and did not work outside of the home for “many years”. She helped the Respondent with his businesses behind the scenes. At some point, she worked briefly as a lifeguard. Towards the end of the relationship and at separation, she was working as a part-time nanny and cleaning homes. She acknowledged not contributing a great deal monetarily to the family. Post separation, in 2018, she moved back to Sudbury and worked for her brother for about eight months doing bookkeeping and facility management for companies that he owned. She then got hired as a project coordinator with an organization, BGIS, where she was still working at the time of trial. Her annual incomes were:
2017 $14,771.00
2018 $36,942.00
2019 $46,887.00
2020 $53,309.00
2021 $55,020.00
2022 $71,574.00
2023 $75,522.00
2024 $82,000.00
Respondent’s Jobs
[ 31 ] The Respondent was a professional hockey player, as a result of which he has an NHL pension plan with Canadian and American components. His last year with the NHL was 1997. He subsequently played in some other leagues.
[ 32 ] The Applicant testified that they had met in the summer of 1999 when he was home from playing in Germany. He was to go back but that plan fell through, although he was paid anyway. The Respondent had a tryout with the San Jose Sharks in 2001, but injured his shoulder for which he received some monetary compensation. He operated a hockey school called Adventure North Hockey Camp between 2005 and 2008. He worked for the Calgary Flames in player development between 2014 and 2016. He worked as a consultant for the Toronto Maple Leafs between 2016 and 2017, being paid through Crowded House Trust (of which more elsewhere) to split income with the Applicant. He played in charity hockey games in 2018 and 2019, receiving a honorarium of $1,000 or more per game plus expenses, she said.
[ 33 ] There were also some income-related activities outside of hockey. As his mother was involved in real estate, the Respondent had invested his hockey earnings in some properties. The Respondent obtained his real estate license in 2002 but had let it lapse. He has experience working in construction and has received cash payments for such work. He purchased in 2018, renovated and re-sold a home in Sudbury for a profit. The Respondent is the trustee and a beneficiary of the above-mentioned Crowded House Family Trust. He also had a business, 55 Flex, of which he is the sole shareholder. He has been offered positions which he apparently did not accept. One was a “construction management position”. Another was a job offered by a friend, apparently selling cars and boats, with a salary of $80,000 to $100,000 per year plus commissions.
[ 34 ] The Respondent testified that, from 2000 to 2015, he was not employed by anybody. He had a property, the “Doghouse”, which produced “a couple thousand dollars a month” rental income. That and unspecified Workman’s Compensation payments from California for the shoulder injury were “the only real source of income” in that period, he said, except that he had sold the Doghouse property in about 2011.
[ 35 ] The Respondent has been involved in politics. In June, 2017, he was acclaimed as the PC candidate for a Sudbury riding in the June, 2018 provincial election, in which he came second. Subsequently, he also ran unsuccessfully for mayor in Sudbury.
[ 36 ] As a candidate, he was represented as a successful businessman. For example, in an interview published in the Sudbury Star newspaper in 2018 during the mayoral campaign, he indicated that his experience as a professional athlete had taught him about being a team member and achieving goals together. His life experiences as a young man working in construction, his professional sporting career and private business ownership were qualities he said he could bring to counsel. When asked about his background and expertise, he answered that, aside from his playing career, he had operated several small businesses and had invented and patented several hockey-related products that were currently used by NHL players. He also spoke of his volunteer and charity work that had taken him on 10 tours with the Canadian military to help build troop morale in foreign postings. He said that he had also started a group of former NHL players to raise money and awareness for injured troops.
[ 37 ] In his mayoral promotional material filed as Exhibit 26, he indicates that he has worked in construction, owned businesses, run a resort hockey camp, been involved with charity organizations in Sudbury and around the world, and travelled to over one thousand cities.
[ 38 ] The Respondent’s Answer alleges that he is in poor health in that he has a number of physical injuries from playing hockey, including to his knees, shoulders and back, which impacts his ability to work at a physically demanding job. However, despite his stressing repeatedly that his ability was compromised by various injuries that he had suffered from playing hockey, he also said that he had provided some labour in a house renovation and lots of labour in the rebuilding of the collapsed boathouse at the matrimonial home, which boathouse was over 2000 square feet.
[ 39 ] The Applicant emphatically denied that the Respondent had exhibited any poor health during the marriage that inhibited his ability to earn an income. She said that he had recovered from shoulder surgery over a few months, that his mobility was never reduced during the relationship because of health issues and that he was able to participate every day when running for provincial office and for mayor.
[ 40 ] In answer to the Respondent’s questions, Brayden did not recall the Respondent talking of injuries from hockey but believed that the Respondent had had surgery on his shoulder and recalled the Respondent talking of his knees hurting and of getting therapy on them. Max was aware that the Respondent had had shoulder surgeries and had heard the Respondent talk of his knees and of getting stem cell treatments for them.
Imputing Income to the Respondent
[ 41 ] The Amended Application seeks an order imputing income to the Respondent for the purpose of support. As previously noted, the Respondent did not deliver an Amended Answer and Response.
[ 42 ] The Applicant submitted that income should be imputed to the Respondent for a number of reasons. These included that imputation was claimed in the Amended Application, to which there was no Answer. The Respondent’s work history shows that he has the ability to work. Also, he was offered a job with an $80,000 to $100,000 salary. To this I would add that he obviously has a high profile and a lot of connections.
[ 43 ] The Applicant sought an imputation of $44,500. This was based on minimum wage of approximately $34,000 per year [1] plus the Respondent’s NHL pension of $950 per month.
[ 44 ] The Respondent’s Financial Statement of February 27, 2019, states that he was unemployed since July 1, 2017. That is about when he was nominated and began a campaign in a provincial election. It gives his income for “last year”, which would be 2018, as $18,800 and his 2019 income as $350, both of which numbers differ from his income tax records. His expenses, however, are given as $129,641.40.
[ 45 ] His financial statement of March 9, 2022, says that he was unemployed since December 24, 2020, and his income for “last year”, 2021, was $10,000. It says his current income is a “COVID payment” of $10,000, but his expenses are $90,560.52.
[ 46 ] There were some income tax records for the Respondent. For 2016, his Notice of Assessment shows a total income from employment and business of $75,255.
[ 47 ] For 2017, the Crowded House trust had net business income of $50,297 and paid $30,297 to the Respondent and $20,000 to the Applicant. This appears to be the last year it had income. There is no personal income tax return of the Respondent for that year. A Corporation Tax Summary shows, among other things, that income and a net loss in business activities for a total income of $26,802 which the Notice of Assessment for 2017 agrees with.
[ 48 ] For 2018, the Respondent’s income tax return shows a line 150 total income, from business, of $13,554.85, earned as a consultant. His Notice of Assessment agrees. As noted above, this differs from his Financial Statement’s information.
[ 49 ] For 2019, the Respondent’s income tax return shows a total income of $8,497.31, from consulting. There is no Notice of Assessment. Again, this differs from his Financial Statement.
[ 50 ] In 2020, the Respondent’s Notice of Assessment said his income was $26,000.
[ 51 ] So, the Respondent’s information is incomplete and not up to date. His income tax records differed from his Financial Statement numbers. The income tax records indicate that he has had income from business, particularly consulting, at a time when he said that he was not employed.
[ 52 ] In his two Financial Statements, his income is far below his level of expenses, yet his assets increased substantially between the dates of the two statements and his debts decreased.
[ 53 ] When cross-examined about this, he indicated, as previously noted, that the Financial Statement entries were not necessarily accurate. He could not explain where his reported income came from nor why he had incurred business expenses. It appeared that income that he allegedly received from his mother for renovation work on a house (the Wembley house) that she had bought, renovated and resold might not have been reported. When asked how, between his two Financial Statements, his income could be substantially less than his expenses yet his debts decreased, he said only that he had borrowed money from friends and family which had not been recorded in the Financial Statements! Also, whereas his February 27, 2019 Financial Statement said that he had not worked since July 1, 2017, his evidence was that his mother had bought the Wembley house in December, 2018, that the renovations had taken two years and that she had paid him $15,000 to $20,000 per year for his work thereon. In addition, he had been paid for his participation in some unspecified charity hockey events. He also testified that he made less than $10,000 in the last couple of years and less than $15,000 to $20,000 per year for the last seven years, being more numbers that do not necessarily correspond to the other evidence. He testified on September 4, 2024, that he was then not doing anything for money and had no source of income.
[ 54 ] Asked about his position on imputing income to him, the Respondent again spoke of his body having been broken down by hockey and needing surgical repair. He added that COVID had not allowed him to work and that he had lost a lot of the charity work that he previously did because of some charges that the Applicant had laid against him. Also, he had had to deal with that criminal case, this family case and a civil case brought against him by the Applicant.
[ 55 ] The TSEF notes that the Applicant had requested but not received from the Respondent a vocational assessment, an income valuation report and a business valuation which would have added to the evidentiary record with respect to the Respondent’s income for child support purposes. Kurke J. endorsed that the onus is on the Respondent for proof and that the Applicant would make submissions about their absence. At trial, the Respondent testified that he had not obtained any of them.
Law Re: Imputed Income
[ 56 ] The law recognizes that parents have an obligation to support their children to the extent that they are capable of doing so. [2]
[ 57 ] The Child Support Guidelines say that the court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include:
a) The spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed, other than where the underemployment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or a child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational health needs of the spouse, and
b) The spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.
[ 58 ] The Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with this provision in Drygala v. Pauli [3] in the context of a support payer who had quit his job and enrolled in school following separation. The court found that, in applying this provision, the trial judge must ask three questions:
Is the spouse intentionally underemployed or unemployed?
If so, is the intentional underemployment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs?
If the answer to question number two is negative, what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances?
[ 59 ] “Intentionally” was defined to mean a voluntary act. “The parent required to pay is intentionally underemployed if that parent chooses to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. That parent is intentionally unemployed when he or she chooses not to work when capable of earning an income”. [4]
[ 60 ] Bad faith or an intention to evade child support are not required. [5]
[ 61 ] The quantum of income to be imputed must not be arbitrary but is a matter of the court’s discretion, grounded in the evidence and reasonable in the circumstances. Factors to be considered include age, education, experiences, skills, the health of the payor, available job opportunities, and the expected income. [6]
[ 62 ] Drygala continues to be authoritative. [7]
[ 63 ] Under the Child Support Guidelines , the onus is on the payor to disclose specified income information. Failure to do so may result in an adverse inference being drawn and the imputation of income. The Family Law Rules also have extensive provisions requiring the provision, updating, and correction of a party’s financial disclosure.
[ 64 ] The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish an evidentiary basis for a finding that the payor is intentionally unemployed or underemployed and, if so, the appropriate income in the circumstances. [8]
[ 65 ] Although it is common to impute an income equivalent to minimum wage, it need not be the default position. Rather, the Drygala factors must be considered. [9] If, however, there is no other evidence of income, minimum wage might be the only imputation available. [10]
Conclusion Re: Imputation
[ 66 ] I appreciate that the Respondent might, as he contends, have some physical challenges that would contraindicate certain types of work. However, not all jobs are physically demanding, as he admitted about selling real estate. The time period of the parties’ relationship is at least mostly subsequent to the Respondent’s hockey career in which he suffered the injuries. In the relationship, the evidence shows, he was practically the sole supporter of the family and was quite active in various pursuits. His protestations that he cannot work are not credible. He had the opportunity to provide better financial evidence, but did not do so. What there is has internal inconsistencies which the Respondent could not explain. He has not followed the law and rules about disclosure nor met his onus of showing what his income is for support purposes. On balance, the evidence suggests that he is earning more than he admits to.
[ 67 ] Given the law regarding imputation, the relevant evidence and the modest request by the Applicant, I order that income be imputed to the Respondent of $44,500 per year as requested by the Applicant.
Re: Brayden
[ 68 ] Brayden finished high school in 2016. Between high school and university he was playing hockey in the USA. The Respondent’s evidence was that this was with a view to obtaining a scholarship, which he did, and that the parties supported him through that. With the scholarship, he started in August, 2018 at the Miami University of Ohio, from where he graduated in 2022. In that time period, in the summers of 2019 and 2020, he lived with the Applicant in the Sudbury area.
Re: Maximum
[ 69 ] Max graduated from high school in Orillia in June, 2018. After that, he did not live with either parent very much. That summer, he lived and worked with a friend. He started at Humber College in the fall of 2018 and was in school there through the winter of 2024. Over that time, in the summer of 2020, he lived with the Applicant for about one month.
Re: Cole
[ 70 ] Cole graduated from grade 10 in Orillia in June, 2018. Over that summer, he lived with each parent, with a friend for a couple of months, and with his paternal grandmother at times. He then completed his high school in Sudbury commencing in September, 2018 where he lived with his mother at her parents’ residence until January, 2020 and then stayed briefly with friends before moving in with the Applicant at her boyfriend’s. He graduated from high school in 2020. That summer, he lived with a girlfriend for one week and with his paternal grandmother. The Respondent’s evidence was that Cole was not ready to go to college and, so, played two years of junior hockey, like his older brother Brayden, and got a scholarship to go to Sault College where he could further his education. Again, the Respondent said that the parties supported him financially through this.
Child Support – Base
[ 71 ] The Applicant provided a calculation for child support based on an imputed income of the Respondent of $44,500. It covered the span of July 1, 2018 to August 31, 2020 and was broken down by periods as to when she had one, two or three children living with her. The total was $12,221.
[ 72 ] The Respondent had not claimed child support for any time when a child might have been residing with him. He did not dispute (and even agreed) that one or more of the children were dependents over that time span, nor that they had lived with the Applicant at any time. He did not dispute her calculations, either.
[ 73 ] The Respondent’s position was that he owed no child support. He submitted that the payments that he made towards the Applicant’s van and the children’s cell phones counted towards child support and would amount to more than what he would owe for child support. There was an acknowledgement by Max that the Applicant had indeed paid his cell phone expenses for some time, but no indication of a monetary amount.
[ 74 ] There are, at least, two problems with the Respondent’s submission. One is that the child support is to be calculated according to the Child Support Guidelines which base it on income. Once the quantum is known, then these payments might arguably be applicable to the child support. However, secondly, there was no evidence in court as to what those payments amounted to.
[ 75 ] Consequently, I will accept the Applicant’s calculations.
Child Support – Section 7s
[ 76 ] The Applicant gave detailed evidence of the Section 7 expenses that she had paid for each of the boys for school and medical expenses, broken down by year for the years that she had claimed for between 2018 and 2024, supported by documentary evidence of the expenses and of their payment. These were summarized in chart form for submissions and allocated between the parties in proportion to their incomes. Accordingly, the amounts that she claimed to be owed to her by the Respondent were:
$12,042.93 for Brayden
$11,538.95 for Max
$1,768.78 for Cole
for a total of $25,350.66.
[ 77 ] The Applicant’s evidence of her having paid these expenses was not undermined by the Respondent in his cross-examination of her.
[ 78 ] Brayden’s evidence was that the Applicant and scholarships had paid for his university, and that the Respondent had paid nothing. In fact, Brayden said, the Respondent had not helped financially for many years. He recognized records shown to him which had been made exhibits in the Applicant’s testimony as ones generated by his school showing his school fees and what his mother had paid beyond his scholarship money.
[ 79 ] Max recalled that the Applicant had paid for his school, except that the Respondent had paid $50 or $100 on one occasion towards tuition. The Respondent had also paid for his cell phone, in an undisclosed amount, for some period of time. Max had also received some academic scholarships, some OSAP loans and grants and some COVID era benefits and had worked part-time during the school years. He recognized the records shown to him which had been entered as exhibits in the Applicant’s testimony as his Humber College account and her credit card being used for payments.
[ 80 ] Cole also recognized the records filed as exhibits in the Applicant’s evidence as expenses such as school athletic fees and sports equipment fees, education program fees, and prescription costs which were ones that the Applicant had paid for on his behalf. The Respondent explicitly took no issue with that. Cole did not know if the Respondent had paid any educational expenses for him but recalled that he had supplied some hockey sticks of undisclosed value.
[ 81 ] The Respondent’s position was that he owed no section 7 expenses. In explanation, he did not claim to have paid any of them, other than through the RESP which is discussed below. He focused on Max, saying that he had scholarship and bursary money, RESP money and his own income.
[ 82 ] Section 7 expenses are to be paid in proportion to the parents’ respective incomes. Max’s income is not relevant here, although it might have been under other circumstances. Also, the Applicant had explained and Max had acknowledged that the Applicant had paid expenses over and above what the scholarship covered. Finally, with respect to the RESP, the Respondent said that the money for it had come from his account and was, therefore, his contribution. He did not say when that contribution was made but the records filed show that the RESP had a balance of over $26,000 as of September 1, 2018, strongly suggesting that the account had been opened and contributions made to it prior to separation. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, the Respondent was the primary financial supporter of the family during the relationship. That the RESP might have been funded largely or solely by him during the relationship does not make it his to claim. It was the children’s asset.
[ 83 ] Consequently, I accept the Applicant’s evidence as to what she has paid in section 7 expenses for the boys post-separation and order that the Respondent pay to her the total of $25,530.66 in that regard.
SALE OF MATRIMONIAL HOME
[ 84 ] The Applicant submitted that the only way that she would be paid the equalization payment and child support arrears that she is owed is for the matrimonial home at 103A, Northshore Road, Whitefish, Ontario to be sold and to be vested in her name with her having exclusive possession of it for that purpose. This is because, it was alleged, the Respondent is an ungovernable litigant who does not follow court orders and could not be expected to pay to the Applicant what is ordered. In addition, enforcement would be difficult because the Respondent has been self-employed and has not disclosed any source of income that the Family Responsibility Office could collect from.
[ 85 ] The Respondent did not agree that the house should be vested in the Applicant’s name and sold, for several reasons. These included, for one, that the Applicant should not get any money. Another was that she should not have any control over what he is going to do with the house as she was not on title. The Respondent also spoke of the need for him to invest some money in fixing up the property to sell it.
[ 86 ] I agree that the matrimonial home should be vested in the name of the Applicant and that she should have exclusive possession of it for the purpose of its sale and payment from the net proceeds. The Respondent does not have a track record of following court orders or even of taking required steps in this litigation. He is unlikely to start now as he does not accept that he owes any money to the Applicant. Enforcement of either of the equalization or retroactive child support payments could be expected to be difficult, slow and costly, based on the history of this litigation and the above-noted lack of a known source of income to enforce support against. As for fixing the property up for sale, the Respondent’s evidence on June 10, 2024, was that that was nearly finished after which the property could be sold. I see no reason not to order the property to be sold, as the evidence showed that neither party was living in it and that both had wanted it to be sold. Also, as past efforts to have the property appraised or sold have not seen cooperation, it makes good sense to have one party be in charge of the sale. The shortcomings in the Respondent’s approach to this case strongly militate against his being given that responsibility.
pre-judgment interest
[ 87 ] The Applicant claimed pre-judgment interest in her Application and followed through in her closing submissions. Indeed, the Respondent’s Answer opposed all of her claims, but his Claim by Respondent also included a claim for pre-judgment interest. Clearly, it was recognized as a live issue.
[ 88 ] In Muraven v. Muraven [11] , the Ontario Court of Appeals stated that:
[16] As a general rule, a payor spouse is required to pay prejudgment interest on an equalization payment owing to the payee spouse. However, the applicable legislation makes clear that the granting or denial of prejudgment interest is discretionary: Courts of Justice Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 130 . There are exceptions to the general rule. Exceptions arise “where, for various reasons, the payor spouse cannot realize on the asset giving rise to the equalization payment until after the trial, does not have the use of it prior to trial, the asset generates no income, and the payor spouse has not delayed the case being brought to trial”: Burgess v. Burgess (1995) , 24 O.R. (3d) 547 (C.A.), at p. 552; Fielding v. Fielding , 2015 ONCA 901 , 129 O.R. (3d) 65, at para. 43 .
[ 89 ] In the present case, the exceptions were not explicitly addressed. However, the evidence was that the Respondent’s March, 2022 motion to allow the listing of the house for sale was dismissed. No details of this nor of the court’s reasons were divulged at trial. The Respondent’s subsequent listing of it in October, 2022 wihtout the Applicant’s consent, which listing subsequently was discontinued, was commented on negatively. Also, the Respondent’s evidence was that the boathouse, a large, important building on the property, had collapsed in the winter of 2019 and was rebuilt from the cribs up over several years to where it was nearly ready for sale in June, 2024. In these circumstances, I deny the Applicant’s claim for pre-judgment interest.
conclusion
[ 90 ] In conclusion, an order shall go as follows:
The date of separation is determined to be June 15, 2018.
The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant a net family property equalization of $228,407.82.
There shall be no spousal support payable from one party to the other either on a retroactive or ongoing basis.
An annual income of $44,500.00 is imputed to the Respondent.
The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $12,221 in retroactive base child support for the support of Brayden Crowder, born November 17, 1998, Maximum Crowder, born June 29, 2000, and Cole Crowder, born July 30, 2002.
The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $25,350.66 as his retroactive contribution to section 7 expenses for Brayden Crowder, born November 17, 1990, Maximum Crowder, born June 29, 2000 and Cole Crowder, born July 30, 2002.
Pursuant to section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act , the matrimonial home known municipally as 103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, ON P0M 3E0 shall be vested in the name of the Applicant.
Pursuant to section 23(b) of the Family Law Act , the Applicant shall be given sole carriage of selling the matrimonial home known municipally as 103A Northshore Road, Whitefish, ON P0M 3E0 and the property shall be sold forthwith. For greater clarity, the Applicant shall be allowed to select the real estate agent and the real estate lawyer to act on the closing and, with the agent’s advice, determine what the listing and sale price shall be. Pursuant to s. 21 of the Family Law Act , the Respondent’s consent concerning any aspect surrounding the listing for sale and the sale of the property, including the execution of any documents required to sell the home, shall be dispensed with.
The Applicant shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending the completion of the sale.
The mortgage in favour of the Respondent’s parents, Mary Crowder and Brian Crowder, registered on title shall be declared null and void and removed from title.
The Applicant shall file her costs submissions within 10 days. The Respondent’s submissions are due 10 days thereafter and any reply shall be filed 10 days after that. Submissions shall not exceed 5 pages double spaced plus attachments including Bills of Cost and Offers to Settle.
The Applicant shall be paid out of the net proceeds of sale:
$228,407.82 as a net family property equalization.
$12,221.00 for base child support.
$25,530.66 for section 7 expenses.
An amount to be determined for costs.
Any shortfall shall be a debt owed by the Respondent to the Applicant. Any remaining balance shall be paid to the Respondent.
[ 91 ] There shall be no pre-judgment interest.
Wilcox, J.
Released: February 5, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-22525
DATE: 2026/02/05
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: JENNIFER LYNN SCHARF Applicant – and – TROY STACEY CROWDER Applicant REASONS FOR DECISION Wilcox, J.
Released : February 5, 2026
[1] The minimum wage in Ontario as of October 1, 2023, was $16.55 per hour, which rounds down to $34,000 per year at 40 hours per week. It has since risen to $17.60 per hour as of October 1, 2025.
[2] Divorce Act , s. 26.1(3) and Family Law Act , s. 31
[3] , 61 OR (3d) 711
[4] Drygala v. Pauli at para. 28
[5] Drygala v. Pauli at paras. 25 and 29
[6] Drygala v. Pauli at paras. 43-45
[7] See for example, Homsi v. Zaya 2009 ONCA 322 , Lavie v. Lavie 2018 ONCA 10 and Kohli v. Thom 2025 ONCA 200 .
[8] Homsi v. Zaya 2009 ONCA 322 at para. 28 .
[9] Osanebi v. Osanebi 2023 ONSC 2546
[10] De Pintel v. Rodriguez 2024 ONSC 2844 at para. 17
[11] 2021 ONCA 657 , at para. 16