Ontario Civil


Allowing arrears to attract interest at rate of 10 per cent unfair to father

Parties had one child. Order required father to pay child support arrears of $49,650 adjusted retroactively from specified date adding $37,063 to arrears. Father was to pay ongoing child support of $611 per month based on imputed annual income of $66,131. Father was to pay 43 per cent of s. 7 expenses. Appeal was allowed in part. Application judge erred in failing to view dramatic decline in interest rates since 1995 combined with extensive passage of time during which arrears accumulated as amounting to exceptional and compelling circumstances to warrant change in post-judgment interest. Allowing arrears to continue to attract interest at rate of 10 per cent was unfair to father and would provide excessive return to mother. Amount of interest on arrears was set aside and replaced with average rate of post-judgment interest between 1995 and order under appeal. Father’s motion to introduce fresh evidence relating to income in form of CRA assessments was dismissed. Father gave no explanation of failure to produce income documentation at time of hearing and proposed evidence would not have affected result.

Crosbie v. Crosbie (July 26, 2012, Ont. C.A., Simmons, Juriansz, and Epstein JJ.A., File No. C54415) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 588 (8 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?