In Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Petersoo, 2025 ONCJ 569, Justice Stanley Sherr delivers a compelling and instructive decision on the enforcement of child support arrears under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.
The court ordered a payor to pay $85,382 in child support arrears and ongoing payments, with imprisonment imposed for non-compliance. The payor failed to demonstrate valid reasons for non-payment, despite owning significant assets, and was given time to sell or refinance property to meet obligations. The case underscores the importance of full financial disclosure, the limits of judicial tolerance for non-compliance and the delicate balance courts must strike between enforcement and fairness.
Factual background
The respondent, Tonu Elmar Petersoo, was subject to a child support order issued by Justice James Diamond in 2020, requiring monthly payments of $4,051 in table support and $3,100 for s. 7 expenses, based on an imputed annual income of $250,000. Petersoo did not appeal the order nor did he bring a motion to change it.
By October 2025, arrears had ballooned to $85,382. The director of the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), acting for the benefit of the support recipient, initiated a default hearing seeking enforcement through incarceration unless payment was made.
Petersoo, self-represented, stated he did not dispute the amount of arrears owing but proposed a reduced payment plan of $1,000 per month, with one-day incarceration per missed payment. He cited physical and mental health issues, diminished income and lack of professional assistance as barriers to compliance.
Legal framework
Justice Sherr methodically reviewed the statutory scheme governing default hearings under s. 41 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act and Rule 30 of the Family Law Rules. The director prepares a statement of arrears. The payor files a financial statement and, if so inclined, a default dispute. The court may hear oral testimony, direct the production of other relevant documentation and add parties to the default proceedings. The payor bears the onus to establish an inability to pay due to valid reasons. The court may order payment, security, reporting or incarceration unless satisfied that the payor is unable to pay for valid reasons. Importantly, imprisonment does not discharge arrears.
The jurisprudence cited reinforces that valid reasons must be beyond the payor’s control and must not stem from neglect, avoidance or failure to prioritize support obligations. At a default hearing, the payor must show an inability to pay due to valid reasons. A valid reason is an event over which the payor has no control which renders the payor totally without assets or income with which to meet his or her obligations, such as disabling illness or involuntary unemployment.
The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive, records of income and expenses, from which the director and the court can draw conclusions regarding the payor’s financial circumstances. This includes the obligation to present information in a user-friendly fashion.
The court will usually draw an adverse inference against a payor for their failure to comply with their disclosure obligations as provided for in s. 21 of the guidelines. This principle also applies where the person’s employment income is derived from a corporation that he or she fully controls.
Analysis and findings
Justice Sherr found that Petersoo failed to establish a valid inability to pay. The payor’s evidence was found to be significantly deficient. He failed to file a financial statement or provide any documentation of his income, expenses, assets, or debts. He did not comply with the financial disclosure order and has not filed business or corporate tax returns since 2020.
No records were produced regarding his corporation’s revenues or expenses, nor were bank statements submitted as required. He offered no supporting documentation to substantiate his claim of reduced income and failed to provide medical evidence of a knee injury that he was ordered to produce. The court drew adverse inferences from his failure to file a financial statement, comply with disclosure orders or provide corroborating documentation.
Critically, Petersoo disclosed ownership of two properties — one in Toronto and one in Peterborough — with estimated combined equity of approximately $700,000. He had made no attempt to sell or refinance either property. The court concluded that he had the ability to pay both the arrears and ongoing support by Feb. 27, 2026.
Justice Sherr applied the factors from FRO v. Hennessy, 2022 ONSC 2594. He noted that Petersoo had neglected his financial responsibility to the children for the past 18 months, had prioritized his own financial interests over those of the children and had the ability to pay the arrears through refinancing or sale of property but chose not to do so. The payor had breached both the financial disclosure order and the temporary default order.
Other enforcement methods had failed, and a committal term was necessary to compel compliance. The court also observed that Petersoo had not provided transparent or timely disclosure about his significant assets and had deflected responsibility by blaming prior legal counsel.
Justice Sherr emphasized the interests of the children and the support recipient, citing Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, which links unpaid support to child and female poverty. The court reiterated that judicial enforcement must not contribute to hardship by failing to uphold valid and subsisting orders.
The default order
The court issued a final default order with firm but measured terms. Petersoo was ordered to pay $85,382 in arrears and all monthly support accrued from Nov. 1, 2025, by Feb. 27, 2026. Failure to comply would result in incarceration for 140 days or until payment was made. Once arrears were paid, Petersoo would be required to resume monthly payments of $7,151, with three-day incarceration per missed payment. The total incarceration period under the order was capped at 180 days.
Justice Sherr emphasized that incarceration is a last resort and must be predicated on a finding that the payor has the ability to comply. The order was crafted to maximize enforcement while avoiding unjust punishment.
Conclusion
Ontario (Director, FRO) v. Petersoo is a robust reaffirmation of the principle that support obligations must be enforced with vigour and fairness. It reminds counsel that default hearings are not mere procedural formalities but substantive inquiries into ability, effort and prioritization.
For payors, the message is clear: compliance is not optional and failure to act may result in incarceration. For recipients and their counsel, the decision affirms that the court will protect the integrity of support orders and the well-being of children.
Justice Sherr’s decision is a valuable precedent for navigating the complexities of default enforcement and balancing the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved.
Written by Alison Boyce, this was originally published on the Law360 Canada website. Alison is the Practice Lead of the Family Law team and can be reached at 613-566-2081 or at alison.boyce@mannlawyers.com.
