BACKGROUND
The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father were married in 2009 and had three children. They separated in 2023 but continued to live in the same house thereafter. While the Mother was a homemaker, she was paid an approximate $30,000 salary by the Father, who was self-employed and the sole shareholder of a landscaping company.
The Applicant Mother brought a motion for child and spousal support, to impute the Respondent Father’s income to $315,000 per year, and to dispense with his consent for the listing/sale of their jointly owned home.
ISSUES
- What was the Respondent Father’s income for support purposes?
- What amount of child support is appropriate, payable from the Respondent Father to the Applicant Mother, where they still reside in the same home?
- Should the Respondent Father’s consent to the listing/sale of the matrimonial home be dispensed with?
ANALYSIS
Determination of Applicant Father’s Income as a Self-Employed Person
The Respondent Father claimed he earned around $183,000 in income. At a Case Conference, he was ordered to provide a business valuation and income report within 60 days, which he did not do.
The Court commented that every litigant who owns or operates a business has an immediate obligation to consider a valuation of the business and assess how they will do so. This obligation arises when the spouses separate. While this does not expressly require a Certified Business Valuator to prepare a report, it does require more than simple financial disclosure. The Court drew an adverse inference agaisnt the Father for not complying with the Court Order to produce a business and income valuation report.
Without the aid of such a report, the Court analysed the Father’s expenses in his Financial Statement, which exceeded his income by around $40,000. As there was no corresponding increase in his debts to explain same, the Court imputed the Father’s income at $274,000, which included the $30,000 he paid as a salary to the Mother.
Determination of Child Support while Both Parties Living in Same House
The Respondent Father paid the mortgage, gas, electricity and water bills. He also paid for the internet, cell phones, groceries, as well as dental, clothing and certain extracurricular expenses for the children. However, there were inconsistencies with the total amount of expenses he claimed to pay, and those he listed on his Financial Statement.
The Court looked to caselaw and highlighted common themes running through same. They noted that living under the same roof may complicate child support, but it is not to be a predominant consideration. Moreover, that the Court should assess support without reference to conjoint living circumstances. Once a quantum of support is determined, the Court may then adjust it to account for shared living costs or benefits. A Court can also allocate household and child related payments between the parties.
As such, the Court ruled that the Father should continue to pay for the carrying costs of the home, as well as a flat monthly fee for section 7 expenses. The Mother’s entitlement to spousal support had been previously established, and the Father was to pay her around $4,300 monthly in support. The Court directed that the Mother pay for groceries, household supplies, transport, dental and health costs, as well as school fees and clothing for the children out of her spousal support.
It is important to note that the Court acknowledged that the above allocation is not strictly compliant with the Child Support Guidelines (“CSGs”) or the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”). However, the Court stated they are making such an arrangement as it ensures the children are supported, which is in line with the CSGs and the amount is consistent with the mid-range of the SSAG.
Dispensing with the Respondent Father’s Consent in the Listing/Sale of the Matrimonial Home
The parties agreed to sell the matrimonial home over a year prior to separation. The Respondent Father had insisted it be listed at a higher price than was recommended by a realtor. The Respondent Father had refused to accept any of the 4 offers to purchase the home made from July to September 2025. He believed the house was worth more than was reflected in the offers to purchase.
The Court stated that there was nothing malicious about the Mother seeking the sale of the house, and that they would not comment on the state of realty market. Moreover, the Father did not challenge the Mother’s evidence that he was not cooperating with recent efforts to sell the house (i.e. he removed the for-sale sign on the property). As such the Court ordered that his consent to the listing and sale of the house be dispensed with.
CONCLUSION
The Respondent Father was ordered to pay a list of household costs and $1,000 in section 7 expenses per month for child support, as well as $4,310 per month in spousal support. He was no longer required to pay the Applicant Mother a $30,000 salary from his company. The Mother was allowed to move forward with the listing and sale of the home, including accepting offers for purchase, without the Father’s consent.