Can an Ontario court order retroactive child support going back more than three years?
Yes — an Ontario court can order retroactive child support beyond the usual three-year guideline when the paying parent’s conduct justifies it. In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Justice did exactly that, applying the principles from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and Michel v. Graydon to award support reaching back further than three years because of the payor’s blameworthy behaviour.
In Odigie v. Egharevba, 2026 ONSC 3024 (CanLII), the court worked through a cluster of contested issues — jurisdiction, paternity, the amount and duration of support, and how to make sure any award could actually be collected. Each issue is worth understanding on its own.
Does Ontario have jurisdiction when one parent lives abroad?
Ontario can take jurisdiction over a child support application even when the other parent lives in a different country. The court here confirmed jurisdiction on two independent grounds: first, the out-of-province parent had attorned — meaning they voluntarily participated in the Ontario proceeding by filing answers and bringing motions, which is treated as accepting the court’s authority. Second, the court applied the Van Breda factors to find a real and substantial connection to Ontario.
The court also noted practical enforcement problems that would arise under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 if the case were transferred to Ireland. Because the Irish forum was not clearly more appropriate, Ontario kept the case.
How reliable is DNA paternity testing in Ontario family court?
DNA evidence is treated as highly reliable when the testing follows a proper chain of custody and is conducted by a qualified lab. Here, a joint litigation expert report from Bureau Veritas showed a statistical probability of paternity exceeding 99.99999 percent. The court accepted that result without hesitation.
The paying parent attempted to walk back an earlier acceptance of the DNA evidence, but the court found that move to be an abuse of process. Once a party has relied on or accepted expert evidence in litigation, trying to resile from it at a later stage — without any genuine new basis — will not be permitted. If you have questions about how evidence is handled in family proceedings, our Ontario employment law lawyers can point you toward the right family law resources, but paternity disputes of this kind are resolved firmly on the science when the chain of custody is intact.
When will a court go beyond three years for retroactive child support?
The three-year “soft ceiling” on retroactive support is not an absolute rule — it is a starting point that can be extended when the payor acted in a blameworthy way. Courts look at four factors set out in D.B.S.: the reason for the delay in seeking support, the payor’s conduct, the child’s circumstances, and any hardship a retroactive award might cause.
In this case, the court found the payor’s conduct tipped the balance toward a longer retroactive period. The decision also considered disability and serious illness as relevant circumstances. Income was imputed under Ontario Regulation 391/97, meaning the court assigned an income figure to the payor rather than accepting a lower reported income at face value. Separate termination dates were set for each child depending on their individual circumstances.
What is a Mareva order and can it be used to secure child support?
A Mareva order — also called a preservation order — freezes or restricts a person’s assets to prevent them from being moved or hidden before a judgment can be enforced. Ontario courts have authority under the Family Law Act (sections 34(1)(k) and 40) to grant preservation orders and to place a charge on property as security for support payments.
The court here found a real risk that assets could be dissipated, pointing to a history of non-payment and a property located in Brampton. It continued the preservation order and granted a charge on that property to secure the support obligation. If you are dealing with a payor who owns real estate in the area, our Brampton employment law team can help you understand how property-based enforcement intersects with your broader legal situation.
How does a court impute income for child support purposes?
Imputing income means the court assigns an income to a payor that is higher than what they actually reported, based on what they could reasonably be earning. Ontario Regulation 391/97 under the Child Support Guidelines sets out the circumstances where imputation is appropriate — for example, where the payor is intentionally under-employed, has unreported income, or has not provided full financial disclosure.
Once income is imputed, the Federal Child Support Guidelines tables are applied to that figure to calculate the monthly amount owing. This prevents a payor from reducing their support obligation simply by earning less than they are capable of earning.
Practical takeaways for parents seeking child support
- Don’t wait to bring your application. The longer you delay, the harder it becomes to recover retroactive support — even though blameworthy conduct by the payor can extend the look-back period, courts still weigh the delay.
- Preserve evidence of the payor’s assets early. If you suspect a payor may move or hide property, ask your lawyer about a preservation order before assets disappear.
- Joint expert reports carry real weight. If paternity or another technical issue is in dispute, a jointly appointed expert is difficult to challenge later — for either side.
- Imputed income is a real tool. If the payor claims low income but owns property or has unexplained expenses, courts can and do assign a higher income figure.
- Participation in Ontario proceedings = consent to Ontario jurisdiction. If the other parent files any response or brings any motion in Ontario, they have likely given up the right to argue the case belongs elsewhere.
- Post-judgment security matters. Winning a support order is only half the battle — ask about charges on property or other enforcement mechanisms at the same time as the order is made.
If you are navigating a child support dispute — whether it involves retroactive claims, a payor living abroad, or concerns about asset preservation — UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from their Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. Reach out to our Ontario family and employment law team to discuss your situation.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
There is no absolute time limit, but courts generally start from a three-year look-back period. That period can be extended when the payor behaved in a blameworthy way, such as hiding income or repeatedly avoiding their obligations.
Yes. Under the Family Law Act, an Ontario court can grant a preservation order and place a charge on real property owned by the payor. This is most likely when there is a history of non-payment and a real risk the payor will move or hide assets.
If a payor fails to disclose their income or appears to be under-employed, the court can impute income — assigning an income figure based on what the payor could reasonably earn — and calculate support from that number instead of reported earnings.