Hannah McIntyre v. Yohannis Tucker, 2026 ONSC 849

Court File No. FC-18-00002201-0000

Citation: 2026 ONSC 849

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

B E T W E E N:

HANNAH MCINTYRE

Applicant

-and-

YOHANNIS TUCKER

E X C E R P T O F P R O C E E D I N G S : R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. ROGER

on January 28, 2026, at OTTAWA, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Respondent

G. Walker Counsel for the Applicant

Yohannis Tucker Respondent, Self-represented

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Entered on Page

Reasons for Decision 1

Transcript Ordered: February 2, 2026

Sent for Judicial Review: February 5, 2026

[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim

and is not a transcription error.

(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026

R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N

ROGER, J. (Orally):

A five-day trial was conducted in this matter and concluded last week. The issues are limited to parenting time and child support-related topics.

Decision-making responsibility was settled in

November 2025 when the parties agreed to joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say after mediation. The parties also agreed to therapy for the children. Their

agreement or portions thereof will be incorporated

in my order to facilitate an all-inclusive

document for the parties.

The Applicant and Respondent were in a

relationship starting in 2015. They separated

about June 2018. They have two children, Z, who is nine years old and Q, who is eight years old. Both reside primarily with the Applicant mother. As well, the Applicant mother has four other

25 children. These children are seven months, three

and a half, six, and 13 years old. All these children reside primarily with the Applicant mother.

₃₀ After their separation, the parties managed initially with an informal parenting arrangement. In November 2018, they agreed that the children's

parenting time with the Respondent father would be every second weekend. However, late in 2020, the mother relocated herself and the children to the Kingston/Brockville area and in December 2020, she

settled in Smiths Falls. Because of this

relocation, the parties agreed that the children's parenting time with their father would occur every weekend. This has been the status quo since 2021. In January 2025, the mother moved back to the

Ottawa region and resides in Richmond with the

children who attend Richmond Public School.

The mother seeks to return parenting time to alternating weekend with the father. She argues

that every weekend is difficult for the children.

The father seeks three consecutive weekends with

the children, and during final submissions indicated that he would agree to consecutive weekends.

The father is self-employed, working for Swift Delivery. He also operates a business of selling shipping pallets. The Applicant seeks to impute all the Respondent’s business expenses, arguing

25 that they are all improper or unsupported by his

disclosure. She argues that the Respondent’s gross income should be used for purposes of calculating child support.

₃₀ Parenting time

Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act is

applicable. The best interests of the children is the governing factor, and the primary consideration and other factors listed in that section shall also be considered when deciding

these issues.

While the Applicant mother makes many allegations that the father improperly cares for the children, these allegations are not accepted because they

are contradicted by the facts. For example, the

parties have made too many unnecessary complaints to the various Children's Aid Society and no evidence was presented during this trial that any of these complaints was accepted by the applicable

Children's Aid Society. Many of the mother's

complaints are minor concerns or her opinion of

how the father should be parenting their daughters rather than facts relating to improper care.

Moreover, many of her allegations of improper care

rely on statements that she attributes to their

children, saying that the girls complain and do not appreciate their time with their father. The mother says that “nothing horrific” happens, but alleges that the children come home unhappy after

25 their visits with their father. This is

contradicted by the father and, more importantly, by the reports of the Office of the Children's lawyer.

₃₀ The children were interviewed by a clinician of the Office of the Children's Lawyer in January 2022 and in October 2023. The reports of the OCL

do not support the mother's many concerns. These reports confirm that both parents have made too many unsubstantiated allegations against the other. These reports refer to too much parental

conflict, particularly early on after the parties’

separation.

However, the OCL reports indicate that the

children appreciate their time with their father.

These reports do not raise concerns about the

father's care. Rather, they support a move towards equal parenting time. The mother disagreed with the OCL report saying that it is not what she hears from her daughters. However, I

find that these allegations mirror the too many

unsubstantiated complaints made by the mother to

the Children's Aid Society. In these OCL reports, the girls indicate that they enjoy their parenting time with their father, and no concern is raised

about his level of care.

A further example of an important contradiction of the mother's many allegations is that in July, August, and October 2023, when the mother was last

25 interviewed by the OCL, the mother reported that

if she moves to Ottawa, she will want the father to have the children in his care 50% of the time. At trial, the mother agreed that she said this, yet she could not explain why she had said it.

₃₀ This negatively impacts the mother's credibility

and contradicts her stated concerns about the father and his level of care.

Although the OCL reports are dated, they confirm that both parents look after the children's physical, emotional, and psychological safety,

security, and well-being. The parties agree that

both parents have a relationship with the children and both parents agree that it is in the children's best interests that both parents continue to have a meaningful relationship with

their children. Both parents love the children,

and the mother admitted that their daughters love the Respondent father. Both parents wish to care for their daughters, and both are able to do so.

I agree with the Respondent mother that every

weekend has been difficult for the children, and I

agree that parenting time with their father every weekend is not in the children's best interest.

However, this parenting regime arose because the

mother moved out of the city. In that regard, I

do not accept that the mother moved out of Ottawa because of fears related to the Respondent father. These allegations are contradicted by a report of the Ottawa Police Service of April 2020. The

25 mother had difficulty explaining that report. It

appears more probable that her stated concerns at the time about her safety related not to the Respondent, but to friends of her then boyfriend.

₃₀ However, now that the Applicant mother has moved back closer to Ottawa, this longstanding parenting regime must nonetheless be changed because every

weekend with the father is not in the children's best interests. Every weekend prevents the daughters from spending quality time with their mother, their siblings, and the mother's extended

family. It prevents any weekend activities with

the mother. This is not in the children's best interests.

The father was violent once with the mother.

However, this dates back many years with no

evidence of recent family violence. Similarly, although the father once used physical discipline, this is also historical in nature.

The mother is Jewish. Although her stated

interest in her faith is a new development, it is

important that the children's cultural, religious and spiritual upbringing be fostered. Every weekend with their father also prevents the

fostering of their Jewish heritage.

Considering all the factors listed at section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, what is in the best interests of the children, considering all of

25 the evidence, is to limit the father's parenting

time during the school year to two consecutive weekends, and to increase the father's parenting time to alternating weeks during the summer. This will preserve most of the longstanding status quo

₃₀ yet will allow the children more quality time with

their mother during the school year. This will facilitate their activities with their mother,

including attending Jewish events. I do not agree to the three consecutive weekends sought by the Respondent father because I consider that this would prevent the children from having sufficient

quality time with their mother. Two consecutive

weekends with their father followed by one weekend with the mother strikes an appropriate balance in the circumstances.

During the summer, driving time to school for the

father is not a factor and a shared parenting regime is in the best interests of the children. Both parents are capable parents, and the Respondent father has demonstrated a viable plan

for the summer that is in the children's best

interests. Such a summer schedule will allow the

children time with the father's family and will further socialize them through summer camps. As well, this reflects the mother's stated intention

as expressed to the OCL in 2023 should she return

to Ottawa, which I find reflects well her appreciation of what is really in the children's best interests. The girls are now older, are used to spending considerable time with their father,

25 and are ready for this summer schedule of 50-50 parenting time.

The parents have recently shown that they are able to cooperate for what is in the best interests of

₃₀ their children. I encourage both parents to

continue to cooperate and to build on the trust that they are slowly developing.

On the topic of cooperation, for the moment, considering the evidence, extracurricular activities shall occur on the parenting time of

the parent who scheduled that activity. The

parties may of course agree differently, and may of course bring the children to extracurricular activities scheduled by the other parent during their parenting time if they consider this to be

in the best interests of the children but I leave

this to the parents to decide and agree to as they deem appropriate on consent. If they do not agree, then activities scheduled by the other parent may not intrude on their respective

parenting time. With time, it may become apparent

which of the children's activity should be further

fostered and the parents may agree and act accordingly, but I leave that to their judgment.

In the order, I have allocated comparable

parenting time for Christmas to each of the parents, irrespective of their religion and I have allocated other holidays, mindful of the importance of preserving the girls’ religious and

25 cultural heritage.

Child Support

The Federal Child Support Guidelines are

₃₀ applicable, particularly section 19. As indicated in Gray v. Rossi, 2024 ONSC 6993, the onus is on the self-employed party to clearly demonstrate his

or her business-related expenses. Templeton v. Nuttall, 2018 ONSC 815, at paragraph 63, is also helpful. It provides that expenses appropriate for income tax purposes may be imputed back into a

parent's income for child support purposes under

section 19(1)(g) if an expense or a portion of an expense does not result in a fair representation of the actual disposable income available to that party for personal expenses and child support. In

determining what is unreasonable, the court

balances the business necessity of the expense against the alternative of using those monies for child support.

Applying the above, I do not agree that the

circumstances and evidence in this case result in

all the Respondent's expenses being imputed back into his income. The Respondent failed to disclose all his financial information, however he

did disclose some helpful information and imputing

all expenses back into his income would be unfair and not reflective of his income available for personal expenses and child support.

25 Considering the Respondent's financial disclosure,

including his statements of business and professional activities, as well as the evidence, the following expenses are imputed back into his income.

2019 was not in dispute because the parties agree that amounts owing were paid in 2019, such that

nothing is owing for that year.

For 2020 and following, utilities, meals, business use of home expenses, rent, public service,

interest and bank charges, capital cost allowance,

and some unsupported or undocumented portion of his motor vehicle expenses were found to be unreasonable and were imputed back into his income.

In 2020, none of the Respondent’s income tax expenses were found to be reasonable, and his income for child support purposes for that year is as per his gross income of $64,899. Using the

appropriate child support table, counsel seemed to

have used the 2025 table, child support ought to

have been $989.02 per month or $11,868.24 for that year. Nothing was paid for child support during 2020 such that $11,868.24 is owing in child

support for 2020.

In 2021, meals, rent, public service, and personal residence were added back to his income. His rent expense would have been incurred in any event and

25 the Respondent could not explain the personal

service expense. As a result, his income in 2021 for child support purposes is $99,132.12. This results in child support of $1,460.56 per month for that year or $17,526.72. $5,120 was paid for

₃₀ child support for that year, such that $12,406.72

is owing for child support for 2021.

In 2022, I imputed back into the Respondent’s income is expenses for meals and entertainment, rent, business use of home expenses and $5,286 for motor vehicle expenses for which he could not

provide any supporting document. His income for

2022 was therefore $82,493.46. This results in child support of $1,247.20 per month or $14,966.40 for that year, leaving a balance owing of $909.40, considering that $14,057 was paid for child

support in 2022.

In 2023, the cost of goods sold was imputed back as the Respondent could not explain what it was or could not provide backup document in support of

that expense. Meals and entertainment were

imputed back as were $5,000 of interest and bank

charges, which were not necessary for his business. Utilities, capital cost allowance apparently relating to the business use of his

apartment were also imputed back into his income

as were his business use of home expenses. This results in 2023 income of $90,879.10, and child support of $1,361.02 per month. $16,332.24 in child support for that year minus the amount paid

25 of $15,125, results in arrears of child support for 2023 of $1,207.24.

In 2024, meals and entertainment were imputed back into his income as were $1,000 of interest and

₃₀ bank charges because there is no evidence that

these were necessary for his business. Utilities, capital cost allowance, and business use of home

expenses were also imputed, again, as these are not necessary for his business and not reflective of his income available for child support purposes. The Respondent claimed $59,202.85 for

motor vehicle expenses for 2024. Included in that

amount were $37,906 for fuel and oil, but the Respondent could only justify $19,628 of that amount, leaving $18,278.47 unexplained.

$18,278.47 was therefore imputed back for motor

vehicle expenses, and $2,605.23 was imputed back

for management fees because the Respondent could not explain or justify that expense.

This results in income for 2024 of $96,696.02 and

of $1,399.09 for monthly child support.

Subtracting child support paid for that year of

$12,513 results in child support arrears for 2024 of $4,666.56.

Note that Exhibit 41 or the document found at Case

Center A2669 outlines what was paid in child support.

Nothing was produced by the Respondent for 2025.

25 However, the Respondent admitted that he likely

earned between $130,000 and $150,000 in 2025. He still delivers for Swift as a self-employed contractor, and still operates his pallet resale business. Consequently, for 2025, I averaged his

₃₀ 2023 and 2024 income and imputed $93,787.56 as his

income for child support for that year.

Averaging his 2023, 2024, and 2025 income, I also imputed $93,787.56 for 2026.

Using the applicable table, child support for 2025

is $1,395.61 per month. Subtracting what was paid

for child support in 2025 of $13,973 leaves

$2,774.32 as arrears of child support for 2025.

Using the 2025 table, 2026 child support on the

same income is $1,426.34 per month, starting on

January 1, 2026.

Consequently, arrears of child support payable by the Respondent father to the Applicant mother from

their separation up to December 31, 2025, total

$33,832.48, calculated as described above and

particularized as follows. Adding $261.34 for the unpaid portion for January 2026 brings the total owing by the Respondent to the Applicant to the

end of January 2026 to $34,093.82:

Starting on January 1, 2026, monthly child support

₃₀ of $1,426.34 is payable by the Respondent father to the Applicant mother.

The Respondent father objected to enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office, however, this is available at the request of the Applicant, who can always decide to opt out if she wishes.

Additional provisions to restrict mobility are not necessary as mobility is sufficiently protected by statute and I make no additional order in that regard.

I have not made any provision for the reimbursement of arrears, as the Family Responsibility Office will look after this, but this can be discussed and addressed if the parties

agree.

On the topic of costs, the Applicant's full indemnity costs apparently exceed $152,000, and the Applicant seeks cost of $135,000 in her

written submission. The Respondent is self-

represented and states that his costs for this trial exceed $32,000. The Respondent argues that considering the divided success, there should be no costs or, alternatively that any costs awarded

25 against him should be significantly reduced to

reflect the divided result, proportionality and fairness.

The Applicant argues that despite the divided

₃₀ success, this trial was required to deal with the child support issues.

The successful party is presumed to be entitled to costs. Here, the Applicant was more successful on child support issues and the Respondent was more successful on parenting issues. When success is

divided, as is the case here, the court may

apportion costs as appropriate.

This was a simple trial. The issues were limited

to child support and parenting issues and these

issues were simple. It should not have taken five

days to try this matter. Both parties were not sufficiently prepared. As a result, time was spent during this trial waiting for questions and waiting for answers. Both sides contributed to

this and to the delays that resulted. However, I

agree that although the Respondent was cooperative

during this trial, he did not disclose his financial information as fully and as quickly as he was ordered nor as fully as would have been

helpful to understand his financial affairs. His

financial disclosure was not timely and was ongoing even during this trial. This is not acceptable. However, to seek that all of the Respondent's expenses for purposes of his income

25 tax statements be imputed back into his income and

to refuse to negotiate before all possible disclosure was made was also not a helpful approach on the part of the Applicant.

₃₀ No offer is relevant because none of the parties obtained a better result than his or her offer. However, the Applicant is closer to her position

on child support issues.

Considering the divided success, I might have ordered that there be no costs. However, in the

circumstances of this case, this is not reasonable

because of the Respondent’s inadequate and late financial disclosure. A small amount of costs should be ordered to repeat and enforce the message that timely and complete financial

disclosure is extremely important in family cases.

A reasonable amount of full indemnity costs for a trial of this low-level complexity should generally not have exceeded the range of about

$45,000 all-inclusive. Sufficiently prepared,

less than half of that time should have been more

than sufficient to deal with child support-related issues. Factoring the divided success, despite the defective financial disclosure, partial

indemnity is the appropriate scale of costs, and I

limit these further because the Respondent had to incur costs of his own to be successful on the parenting issues.

25 Consequently, considering the above and the other

factors outlined at rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, I find that the all-inclusive amount of

$7,000 is a reasonable and proportionate amount of costs to order the Respondent to pay to the

₃₀ Applicant