No announcement yet.

Recent Case: retro cs, financial disclosure & imputed income

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Recent Case: retro cs, financial disclosure & imputed income

    This is an excellent recent decision that covers a lot of things. I am going to recap it but I suggest reading it for the analysis behind the reasons for the order.

    Parties were never married and had two children now 21 and 17. They split in 2010 and failed to agree on support. The mother had no financial info and was scared to go to court due to limited funds. Father agreed to pay the condo fees on their townhouse as support. He failed to do so and the fees were added to the mortgage and mom was unable to make the payments and sold to avoid foreclosure. This was after she rented a room to different family members to pay the bills.

    In 2013, mom again asked dad to update support as she knew he wasn’t paying enough when he was paying. Dad agreed to pay $500 a month at that point and still paid irregularly and mom and kids had to ask for money. When first kid went to university, dad offered to pay $250 to her and $250 to mom. Again he failed to pay regular payments.

    Mom finally filed in court in 2022 and after two interim orders they went to trial. Mom requested back support to 2013 and dad claimed he only owed retro to when the claim started in 2022.

    Turns out, dad’s income was about $50,000 to start but then tripled at points and he was paying support amounts based on about $40,000. His actually support amounts were around $1,400 for the most part. He had paid only $43,000 in the twelve years of owing.

    The judge goes into retro awards at length in the decision talking about effective notice and formal notice. Also discusses blameworthy conduct and refusal to disclose income for support purposes. The judge also discusses difficulties on the recipient’s part to bring the matter to court, namely that financial constraints on the recipient’s part to bring a matter to court does not negate the responsibility of the paying parent to disclose income and pay proper support. The judge also used the imputation of income to determine dad’s actual income for ongoing support and did reference Drygala v Pauli which I have noted numerous times is the case law on imputing income. (There are a number of cases referenced in this decision that are worth looking at).

    Mom won the case, support went back to 2013 or 11 years ago (technically 9 years from court filing) and was determined based on actual and imputed incomes. Mom also won costs.

    Bottom line: support is owed based on your income regardless of whether there is an order or a court filing. Don’t withhold information and don’t pretend you didn’t know any better. This guy is now on the hook for about $200,000 with court costs included all because he didn’t want to pay.

  • #2
    This is great, thanks for the recap, Rockscan! I've booked marked it to read through when I have some time.


    • #3
      Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
      This is great, thanks for the recap, Rockscan! I've booked marked it to read through when I have some time.
      It is a really good read with A LOT of analysis of the law. This judge was good with his decision lay out.


      Our Divorce Forums
      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.