OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada stressed the importance of full financial disclosure by those responsible for child support in dismissing an appeal from a man who had seriously defaulted on his obligations.

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada stressed the importance of full financial disclosure by those responsible for child support in dismissing an appeal from a man who had seriously defaulted on his obligations.

In its unanimous verdict on Friday, the Supreme Court said Felice Colucci was hooked for $ 170,000 in support payments despite claims the amount should be much lower.

Colucci and wife Lina divorced in 1996 after 13 years of marriage, and the mother took on custody of two daughters, who were then eight and six years old.

The father had to pay $ 115 per week child support, but two years later he applied for a cut because his income had fallen. However, he did not provide any financial information to document the circumstances and the parties did not reach a new agreement.

The father’s maintenance obligations ended in 2012 when the daughters completed post-secondary education and found employment.

But from 1998 onwards, he made little or no voluntary support payments and only limited funds were collected through enforcement. In addition, the father’s whereabouts were unknown as the amount owed grew.

Through 2016, the man’s livelihood arrears with interest were around $ 170,000.

At that point, he retrospectively filed for child support cuts, saying he moved to the US from 2000 to 2005 and made about $ 25,000 annually before going to Italy to care for his mother.

However, he provided few financial records to support his case.

Still, a judge reduced the arrears to $ 41,642 due to the father’s lower income and the new state child benefit guidelines introduced shortly after the divorce.

The Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the decision and sentenced the father to pay the full amount owed, after which he appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the child benefit system depends on adequate, accurate and timely financial disclosure by debtors.

“Disclosure, put simply, is the linchpin of fair child support and appropriate legal testing must encourage timely provision of the necessary information,” wrote Judge Sheilah Martin on behalf of the court.

It is the payer who knows and controls the information necessary to calculate the appropriate amount of support, she wrote. It would therefore be “illogical, unfair and contrary to the best interests of the child” to hold the beneficiary solely responsible for monitoring the payer’s compliance with his or her maintenance obligation.

“Full and open disclosure is also a prerequisite for negotiating in good faith,” wrote Martin. “Without it, the parties cannot be on an equal footing to make informed decisions and to settle child support disputes out of court.”

Relying on these principles, Martin established a framework for determining a payer’s request for a retrospective reduction in funding due to a material change in circumstances.

Regarding the Colucci case, she concluded that the revised federal guidelines were a notable change, but the father’s lack of communication and disclosure made his application a failure.

The father “showed no willingness to support the children who were in need because of the non-fulfillment of his obligations,” wrote Martin.

She found that Lina Colucci had to bear the financial burden of raising and maintaining the children on her own and that the daughters took on significant debts for their education due to the lack of support from their father.

“His behavior is evidence of bad faith efforts to evade the enforcement of a court order.”

The higher court also found that the father had not proven that he would not be able to pay now or in the future, even with a flexible payment plan.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published on June 4, 2021.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press