Markham Child Support Lawyer. Guideline Support, Section 7 Expenses & FRO Enforcement

Home › Family Law › Markham Child Support Lawyer

Child support in Ontario is calculated, not improvised. The Federal Child Support Guidelines fix a presumptive table amount from the payor's income and the number of children, then layer special expenses, shared-parenting adjustments and hardship rules on top, and since October 1, 2025, an updated set of federal tables applies to Ontario matters. For Markham parents, married or unmarried, every contested support issue is decided in one building: the Newmarket Unified Family Court at 50 Eagle St. W., where a single court handles support, parenting, property and divorce together. Kazandji Law builds and defends child support cases at every stage, setting the number, testing the income behind it, claiming special expenses, and enforcing or answering enforcement through Ontario's Family Responsibility Office.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

The Number That Starts Everything: The Table Amount

Section 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines sets the presumptive rule: child support is the amount shown in the applicable table for the payor's annual income and the number of children, using the table for the province where the payor habitually resides, the Ontario table for a parent living in Markham, plus any amount for section 7 special expenses. Judges are not free to improvise: under s. 15.1(3) of the Divorce Act, child support orders must be made in accordance with the applicable guidelines, and departures are confined to narrow lanes such as special provisions that directly or indirectly benefit the child (s. 15.1(5), with reasons required) or consent orders that make reasonable arrangements for the child's support (s. 15.1(7) and (8)).

Who the money is for is defined just as precisely. A child of the marriage under s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act is a child who is under the age of majority and has not withdrawn from parental charge, or who is at or over the age of majority but unable to withdraw because of illness, disability or other cause. Section 2(2) extends the definition to step-relationships: a child for whom a spouse stands in the place of a parent is included, which is why step-parents can owe support. Whether the claim travels inside a Markham divorce or stands alone, the same tables control.

The October 1, 2025 tables. The federal tables were updated for the first time since 2017, rebuilt on 2023 tax rules, and came into force on October 1, 2025; Ontario has confirmed the new amounts apply to Ontario child support matters from that date. Notices of Calculation and Recalculation issued by the province's online Child Support Service on or after October 1, 2025 use the 2025 table, but pre-existing orders are not automatically rewritten, so updating an older order takes a recalculation or a motion to change. You will find no dollar figures on this page, deliberately: the only reliable sources for a current table amount are the federal government's 2025 look-up tool and the Ontario table itself, applied to a properly determined income. For the province-wide framework, see our Ontario child support practice page.

What the Payor Really Earns: Income Under the Guidelines

Most Markham support fights are not about the table, they are about the income that gets run through it. The Guidelines contain a complete income code. Annual income starts from the sources under the Total income heading of the T1 income tax return (s. 16), adjusted under Schedule III; the parties may also agree on an income figure in writing where it is reasonable against the disclosure the Guidelines require (s. 15).

The statute then equips the court for real-world earnings:

• Patterns and fluctuations (s. 17). The court may look at the last three years of income and fix a fair and reasonable amount where earnings fluctuate, follow a pattern, or include non-recurring gains or losses, the everyday reality for commission earners, realtors, contractors and bonus-heavy employees across Markham.
• Business owners (s. 18). Where a parent is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation, the court may add all or part of the corporation's pre-tax income, including that of related corporations, or an amount commensurate with the services the parent provides; salaries or benefits paid to non-arm's-length people are added back unless shown to be reasonable. Leaving earnings inside the company does not shelter them from the table.

Disclosure is the engine (s. 21). A parent whose income must be established has to produce three years of personal tax returns with every notice of assessment and reassessment, a recent pay statement or an employer's letter, financial statements for any business, partnership, corporation or trust together with a breakdown of payments to non-arm's-length parties, and statements for EI, social assistance, pension, workers' compensation and disability income. The response clock is 30 days for a parent resident in Canada or the United States (60 days elsewhere). For Markham's self-employed, incorporated and professional parents, this package, not the table, is where cases are won and lost.

Imputed Income: When Courts Fill In the Blanks

Section 19(1) lets the court impute income it considers appropriate in nine enumerated circumstances, including where a parent:

• is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, unless that is required by a child's needs or by reasonable educational or health needs;
• is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax, or lives in a country with significantly lower tax rates;
• appears to have diverted income, or fails to make reasonable use of property that could generate income;
• has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
• unreasonably deducts expenses from income, and s. 19(2) confirms that deductibility for income tax purposes is not determinative of reasonableness;
• derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources taxed at lower rates, or is a beneficiary under a trust.

The sanctions provisions carry real teeth. If disclosure is refused, the other parent can have the application set down for a hearing or move for judgment, with costs available on a full-recovery basis (s. 22); the court may draw an adverse inference and impute income in the amount it considers appropriate (s. 23); and it may strike pleadings or make a contempt finding where a court order for disclosure is breached (s. 24).

Section 7 Special & Extraordinary Expenses

The table amount is meant to cover the ordinary costs of raising children; section 7 adds a second stream for six defined categories. Two mechanical rules do most of the work: qualifying expenses are shared in proportion to the parents' incomes after deducting the child's own contribution (s. 7(2)), and subsidies, benefits and tax credits or deductions relating to the expense are netted out first (s. 7(3)). For school and extracurricular costs, a two-part definition of extraordinary applies (s. 7(1.1)): expenses the requesting parent cannot reasonably cover given their income and any support received or, failing that, expenses the court considers extraordinary having regard to their amount and nature, the number of activities, any special needs and talents, and the family's overall spending pattern.

Section 7 category	Typical proof we assemble
Child care required by the recipient's employment, illness, disability or education	Provider contracts, receipts, work or study schedules
The child's share of medical and dental insurance premiums	Benefits booklets and payroll statements isolating the child's portion of the premium
Health expenses exceeding insurance reimbursement by at least $100 per year, orthodontics, counselling, physiotherapy, prescriptions, glasses	Treatment plans, invoices and insurer statements showing the uninsured shortfall
Extraordinary primary or secondary school expenses	Program and tutoring invoices, plus evidence tying the program to the child's needs
Post-secondary education expenses	Tuition and residence statements, alongside the child's own resources, loans, grants, scholarships and earnings
Extraordinary extracurricular expenses	Registration and equipment invoices, schedules and the history of the activity

Section 7 litigation is budget litigation: necessity, reasonableness and arithmetic. Precise income disclosure on both sides matters twice over, because it also fixes each parent's proportionate share of every approved expense.

Shared and Split Parenting Time: The 40% Question

Where each parent exercises not less than 40% of parenting time over the course of a year, s. 9 changes the analysis. The single table amount is no longer automatic; the court must instead consider (a) the table amounts for each parent, (b) the increased costs of shared parenting arrangements, and (c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and of each child.

Two myths do real damage in Markham negotiations. First, crossing 40% does not create an automatic set-off, the two table amounts are a reference point, not a formula the court is bound to apply. Second, shared time does not automatically end support: because each household's means stay in the analysis, support commonly still flows to the lower-income home even on an equal schedule. Counting parenting time is itself contested terrain, the Guidelines set the 40% threshold but leave the counting to the evidence, so contemporaneous calendars, school pick-up records and messaging histories matter.

Split arrangements are different: where each parent has the majority of parenting time, more than 60%, with at least one of the children, s. 8 fixes support by setting off the two table amounts against each other. And the schedule itself is fought on the parenting side of the file: see our Markham child custody and parenting time page for the decision-making and parenting-time framework.

High Income, Undue Hardship & Departures

Above $150,000 of annual payor income, s. 4 gives the court discretion: where a strict table extrapolation would be inappropriate at that level, the amount on the income above the threshold can be fixed to fit the children's actual circumstances, a discretionary zone where evidence and advocacy, not arithmetic, decide the outcome. The Guidelines pair that with s. 21(4): once a payor's income is established above $150,000, disclosure obligations reach the recipient as well, because both households' means enter the analysis.

Undue hardship under s. 10 is a deliberately steep two-step. Step one: the claiming parent must fit within an enumerated circumstance, unusually high debts from supporting the family, unusually high costs of exercising parenting time (the long-distance schedule is the classic), or other legal duties to support children or dependants. Step two is the gate: the claim must be denied if the claimant's household would still enjoy a higher standard of living than the other household, measured on the Schedule II comparison (s. 10(3)); where hardship is found, the court must record its reasons (s. 10(6)). Most claims die at step two, pleading hardship without running the household comparison first is a costly mistake.

Consent departures remain possible where an order or agreement contains special provisions benefiting the child or reasonable alternative arrangements for support (Divorce Act s. 15.1(5), (7) and (8)), but the court, not the parties, remains the final gatekeeper of adequacy.

Adult Children: University, Illness & Disability

Support does not switch off on a birthday. A child at or over the age of majority remains a child of the marriage while they remain under parental charge and are unable to withdraw from it, or to obtain the necessaries of life, by reason of illness, disability or other cause (Divorce Act s. 2(1)). The statute never uses the word education, but courts have treated full-time post-secondary studies as an other cause, which is why support routinely continues through college and university programs.

For adult children, s. 3(2) offers two routes: the table amount or, where the court considers that approach inappropriate, an amount fixed on the child's condition, means, needs and other circumstances and each parent's ability to contribute. That is the doorway through which the child's own resources, earnings, student loans, scholarships, and living arrangements enter the analysis. Annual disclosure obligations keep running (s. 25), and Ontario's Family Responsibility Office is explicit that support does not automatically end when a child turns 18: enforcement continues until a terminating event both parents confirm to FRO in writing, or a court order ends the obligation. Build the end-point into your agreement with precision, vague clauses about finishing school generate enforcement disputes years later.

Back Support: Retroactive Claims

Historic under-payment can be corrected. In D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada set the framework that still governs retroactive child support: the court weighs the reason for the recipient's delay in seeking support, the payor's conduct, concealing income increases is the paradigm of blameworthy conduct, the child's past and present circumstances, and any hardship a retroactive award would cause. Under the Divorce Act, an original application for retroactive support requires that the beneficiary still be a child of the marriage when the application is made.

The Court went further in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, a unanimous decision holding that, under provincial family legislation (British Columbia's in that case), courts may vary a child support order retroactively even after the child has become an adult and the order has expired. Child support is the right of the child, the Court confirmed, and parents cannot bargain it away; the D.B.S. factors were applied in that provincial context, where the payor had understated income for years. For Ontario families, the decision stands as the Supreme Court's confirmation that historical under-payment can be corrected under provincial statutes even for grown children, how it applies to a specific Ontario file is a question for advice, not a website.

These cases are won on paper: the annual disclosure exchange under s. 25 and Ontario's anniversary rule create the record from which under-payment is proven, or answered.

Changing Support: Recalculation, Motions & the Online Service

Support follows income, and the law builds in change. Section 14 of the Guidelines defines what counts as a change of circumstances: for table-based orders, any change that would produce a different table amount; for other orders, a change in the condition, means, needs or circumstances of either parent or of any child entitled to support. Section 17(4) of the Divorce Act applies the same threshold to variation applications.

Markham parents have three lanes:

1. Ontario's online Child Support Service. Table support can be set up or recalculated online without any court attendance. The other parent has 25 calendar days to respond to the mailed notice, failing which the ministry may recalculate based on the applicant's information alone; notices issued on or after October 1, 2025 use the 2025 tables (service line: 1-866-656-7753).
2. Consent changes. An updated written agreement, or a consent motion to change filed with the required financial disclosure, refiled and re-registered where FRO enforcement should continue.
3. A contested motion to change (the Form 15 suite) at the Newmarket Unified Family Court, where Dispute Resolution Officer conferences give support variations a structured settlement ramp before a judge decides.

The wrong move is self-help. Unilaterally reducing payments creates arrears that FRO will enforce; if your income has dropped, act promptly, arrears accumulate under the existing order until it is changed.

When Payments Stop Arriving: FRO Enforcement

Ontario support orders do not rely on goodwill. Every support order made by an Ontario court is automatically filed with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) together with a support deduction order authorizing deduction at source from wages and other income; payments flow through FRO to the recipient, usually within one to two business days of receipt, and paying the recipient directly instead can attract a $100 account-adjustment charge. FRO operates under Ontario's Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 and the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, and it enforces child support and spousal support alike, at no cost to recipients.

When an account falls behind, the ladder climbs quickly:

1. Garnishment of bank accounts, up to 100% of a sole account, up to 50% of a joint account, with a 30-day window for a co-holder to dispute;
2. Federal interception of income tax and HST refunds (up to 100%) and of EI, CPP, OAS and similar benefits (up to 50%);
3. Credit bureau reporting once payments are 60 or more days behind, the record remains for six years;
4. Driver's licence suspension, avoidable by paying the arrears, negotiating a voluntary arrears payment schedule, or obtaining a court refraining order before the notice deadline expires;
5. Federal licence and passport suspension, passports, pilot and maritime licences;
6. Liens registered against personal property and writs of seizure and sale filed with the sheriff against land;
7. Reporting to professional and occupational organizations after three months of non-payment, on 30 days' notice;
8. Seizure of lottery winnings over $1,000;
9. Default hearings before a judge, who can impose payment schedules, change enforcement terms, or order up to 180 days in jail; where income is sheltered through another person, third-party default orders are available.

A $400 administrative fee can be charged for enforcement action. Two limits matter just as much: FRO cannot change a support amount, only a court or the online recalculation service can, and FRO does not deal with parenting-time issues at all. Payors in difficulty should engage early: a voluntary arrears schedule or a refraining-order motion brought in time keeps licences alive while a motion to change is heard. Private written agreements are enforceable through FRO only after they are filed with the court with a Form 26B affidavit and then registered with FRO.

Unmarried Parents in Markham: Same Tables, Different Statute

Child support in Ontario has nothing to do with marital status. For parents who were never married, the claim proceeds under Part III of Ontario's Family Law Act, applying Ontario's Child Support Guidelines (O. Reg. 391/97), a provincial regulation that mirrors the federal scheme: the same table logic, the same section 7 categories, the same shared-parenting and hardship architecture, and the same October 2025 table update applied to Ontario matters. The forum is identical too: unmarried Markham parents file in the same Newmarket Unified Family Court as divorcing spouses, complete the same financial disclosure, and end up with orders enforced by the same FRO machinery. Where parentage itself is disputed, that issue is resolved first, then the Guidelines take over. Questions about a non-biological parent's obligations under provincial law are fact-specific: get advice before assuming an obligation exists, or does not.

Child Support at Newmarket's Unified Family Court

There is no family courthouse in Markham itself. Every York Region family case, support, parenting, property and divorce, is heard at the Newmarket Family Court Branch of the Superior Court of Justice, 50 Eagle St. W., Newmarket: a Unified Family Court, meaning one court and one judge pool handle the entire file rather than splitting it across two levels of court. The family court office can be reached at 905-853-4809.

• Financial disclosure runs on the Form 13 financial statement for support claims, paired with Form 13A, though claims limited to the table amount are exempt from financial statements.
• The Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) at the courthouse offers free information, referral coordinators and Legal Aid duty counsel for eligible parents.
• Court-connected mediation is free on-site on court dates and available off-site on a sliding scale, many support disputes resolve there.
• Filing is online for most family documents, and table-amount setups and recalculations can bypass the courthouse entirely through the online Child Support Service.
• Dispute Resolution Officer conferences at Newmarket give motions to change a settlement-focused first hearing.

Kazandji Law appears for Markham parents at Newmarket and runs the file from our Thornhill office minutes away, for the full local family practice, start at our Markham family lawyer hub.

Three Ways to Set Support in Markham, and the Paper That Moves Each One

Ontario recognizes three routes to a child support obligation: an online setup through the provincial Child Support Service, a written agreement, or a court order. Which one fits depends on how contested the income picture is.

• The online service. Straightforward table cases, an employed payor with clean T1 income, can be set up or recalculated administratively, with the 2025 tables applied to notices issued on or after October 1, 2025, and no Newmarket attendance at all.
• A written agreement. Parents can settle support by contract, but the deal only gains FRO enforcement once it is filed with the court with a Form 26B affidavit and registered with FRO. And agreements that trade away the children's entitlement do not bind the court, child support is the right of the child, not of the parents.
• A court order. Contested income, section 7 disputes, imputation and hardship claims go to the Newmarket Unified Family Court: application, financial disclosure, case conference, then motion or trial if settlement fails. The Mandatory Information Program applies to support applications, and support orders issue together with support deduction orders for source deduction.

Whichever route applies, the working file looks the same: three years of tax returns and notices of assessment, pay statements or corporate financial statements, a section 7 budget with receipts, and a parenting-time calendar wherever the 40% threshold is in play. Bring those to a first consultation and the conversation starts with strategy instead of paperwork.

Why Kazandji Law for Markham Child Support

• Income-first litigation. Guideline cases turn on ss. 16 to 19 income analysis and s. 21 disclosure. We build, and dismantle, income cases for employees, professionals, realtors and incorporated business owners.
• Four GTA offices. Toronto headquarters at 180 John St., Unit 320; a Thornhill office at 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310, minutes from Markham and serving all of York Region; plus North York and Oakville locations.
• Both sides of enforcement. We act for recipients pursuing arrears through FRO and for payors seeking refraining orders, voluntary schedules and realistic variations.
• Free, direct consultations. Review our case successes, then call 647-588-3234.

Markham Child Support FAQ

Wondering about the actual monthly figure? Our guide to child support for one kid in Ontario explains how the table amount is read, including the updated federal tables in effect since October 1, 2025.

This page is general legal information about child support in Ontario for Markham and York Region families, it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Statutes, regulations, guideline tables and government programs change; section references and program details reflect sources reviewed in July 2026. For advice on your own situation, speak with a family lawyer. Kazandji Law, 180 John St., Unit 320, Toronto, free consultations: 647-588-3234.