BACKGROUND:
The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father were married in May 2021 and separated in May 2024. They have one child, born in April 2023, who resides primarily with the Mother. Following the resolution of all parenting issues, the remaining matters for trial concerned retroactive child support, the determination of the Father’s income, childcare expenses, and costs.
In April 2025, the Father was ordered to pay temporary child support of $446 per month, based on his reported annual income of $48,153 for 2024. However, the Mother disputed his reported income for subsequent years and sought to impute an annual income of $58,000 commencing January 1, 2025.
The Father had experienced inconsistent employment since arriving in Canada in 2023. In 2025, he worked as a rideshare driver for Uber and Lyft before being deactivated from both platforms following passenger complaints. His reported income that year was $21,873. In 2026, he secured employment earning $25.48 per hour but was subsequently dismissed due to missed work, which he attributed to medical concerns. He thereafter obtained alternative employment at a reduced hourly rate of $21.00.
The Mother argued that the Father was intentionally underemployed, had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure, and had improperly deducted business expenses from his self-employment income. She also sought child support retroactive to the date of separation, while the Father maintained that his obligation should commence January 1, 2025.
ANALYSIS AND THE LAW:
Retroactive Child Support
The Court relied on D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, which identifies four considerations relevant to retroactive child support: delay by the recipient parent, blameworthy conduct by the payor, the child’s circumstances, and potential hardship arising from a retroactive award.
The Court emphasized four considerations relevant to determining whether retroactive child support should be awarded: the recipient parent’s delay in seeking support, any blameworthy conduct by the payor parent, the circumstances of the child, and any financial hardship that may result from a retroactive award.
Further, the Court emphasized that retroactive support generally commences from the date of effective notice, being when the recipient parent communicates an intention to seek or review child support.
As the Father acknowledged his obligation to financially support the child and began providing funds to the Mother in June 2024, the Court determined that child support would commence retroactively on June 1, 2024.
Imputation of Income and Intentional Underemployment
The Court considered whether income should be imputed to the Father pursuant to section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, specifically on the grounds of intentional underemployment, inadequate financial disclosure, and unreasonable deductions from income.
Relying on Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10, and Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), the Court confirmed that intentional underemployment does not require bad faith or an intention to avoid support obligations. Rather, the question is whether the payor is earning less than they are reasonably capable of earning, subject to justification based on childcare responsibilities or reasonable educational or health needs.
For 2025, the Court found that the Father was intentionally underemployed, as he accepted available rides less than half of the time and failed to work full-time hours without sufficient justification. His subsequent deactivation from the rideshare platforms also resulted from complaints concerning his own behaviour.
However, the Court reached a different conclusion for 2026. Although the Father lost his higher-paying employment due to missed shifts, he promptly secured alternative employment. The Court acknowledged the challenges faced by recent immigrants relying on temporary employment agencies and declined to find intentional underemployment for that year.
Financial Disclosure and Business Expenses
Relying on Abbas v. Albohamra, 2020 ONSC 591, the Court reiterated that full and frank financial disclosure is a fundamental obligation in family law proceedings and must be provided immediately, continuously, and without the necessity of a Court Order.
The Father had failed to provide complete taxation documents for 2025, despite earning self-employment income, and had only produced partial employment records for 2026. He also failed to provide medical documentation supporting his alleged inability to maintain higher-paying employment.
The Court further considered the Father’s deductions from his rideshare income. Relying on Richardson v. Richardson, 2013 ONCJ 599, the Court confirmed that a self-employed parent bears the onus of substantiating business expenses deducted from income for child support purposes.
Although the Father reported business income of $20,659.87 for 2025, his rideshare records and bank statements reflected gross earnings of $36,263.42. He provided no supporting documentation for his claimed expenses.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that income could be imputed to the Father for both 2025 and 2026 due to inadequate financial disclosure, and additionally for 2025 on the grounds of intentional underemployment and unreasonable expense deductions.
Determination of Imputed Income
In determining the appropriate income figures, the Court relied on Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 CanLII 26573 (ON CA), which requires consideration of the payor’s age, education, employment history, skills, health, and earning capacity.
For 2025, the Court calculated the Father’s earning capacity based on his average rideshare earnings of $32.21 per hour over 37.5 hours per week for 46 weeks. The Court declined to impute additional part-time rideshare income on top of full-time employment, finding that approach excessive.
The Court therefore imputed annual income of $55,600 for 2025.
For 2026, considering the Father’s employment history, actual earnings, periods of unemployment, and incomplete financial disclosure, the Court imputed annual income of $47,000.
Child Support Payments and Section 7 Expenses
The Court also considered whether the Father should receive credit for payments previously made directly to the Mother. Of the $2,190 in electronic transfers identified by the Father, the Court determined that $470 related to loan repayments. Accordingly, the remaining $1,720 was credited toward his outstanding child support obligations.
With respect to childcare expenses incurred in 2024, the Court determined that the Father’s proportionate share was 59.2%, based on the parties’ respective reported incomes. The Father was therefore ordered to reimburse the Mother $1,204.72 for childcare expenses pursuant to section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
CONCLUSION:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Father’s child support obligation commenced retroactively on June 1, 2024. The Court found that he was intentionally underemployed in 2025, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure in both 2025 and 2026, and failed to substantiate deductions from his self-employment income.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the Father to pay child support as follows:
- June 1 to December 31, 2024: $446 per month, based on reported annual income of $48,153.
- January 1 to December 31, 2025: $513 per month, based on imputed annual income of $55,600.
- Commencing January 1, 2026: $420 per month, based on imputed annual income of $47,000.
The Court further credited the Father $1,720 toward his outstanding child support obligations and ordered him to reimburse the Mother $1,204.72 for childcare expenses incurred in 2024. The Father was also directed to provide updated annual income disclosure by June 1 of each year commencing in 2027.
This decision reinforces the importance of full and frank financial disclosure in child support proceedings and confirms that income may be imputed where a payor parent is intentionally underemployed, fails to provide necessary financial information, or cannot substantiate business expense deductions. However, the determination of imputed income must remain grounded in the payor’s individual circumstances and realistic earning capacity.
Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services
When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.
Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:
- 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
- Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
- Efficient, structured process that respects counsel’s time and maintains client relationships
- Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices
Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.
Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.
Need Help Moving a Family Law Matter Forward?
Whether you are a lawyer seeking an experienced mediator or you are representing yourself and need legal advice, our family law team can help you understand the options and identify a practical next step.
How We Help
Mediation, negotiation, litigation, complex financial disputes, support, property division, and parenting matters. Virtual and in-person appointments are available throughout the GTA.