Jansen v. DiCecco: Court Awards $899,811 in Retroactive Child Support for Egregious Non-Compliance
In a recent Superior Court decision released April 9, 2025, Jansen v. DiCecco[i], Justice Sherr ordered a retroactive child support award of $899,811 against the father for the years 2003 to 2021.
This is significant both in the amount awarded and because retroactive support can typically only be claimed for 3 years prior to notice being given, absent exceptional circumstances. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada in Colucci v. Colucci provided a framework that should be applied for retroactive applications to increase child support:
- The recipient must establish a past material change in circumstances;
- Once established, there is a presumption in favour of the retroactive increase to the date of effective notice (when the subject is first broached), up to 3 years before formal notice is given by the recipient;
- If no effective notice was given, a retroactive increase from the date of formal notice; and
- The court has discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity up to 3 years prior to formal notice, where the result would be unfair.[ii]
In Jansen, the father’s behaviour was deemed egregious by the court. He had multiple children with various partners and had been in court proceedings with other ex-partners, in which his reported income was higher. He made an equalization payment to his first ex-wife of $61,700, and his second ex-wife $530,000. He was paying $4,000 to one ex-wife for combined child and spousal support monthly yet only paying the mother $1,000 per month in child support from the original court order of 2003 onwards. This was all while claiming his annual reported income was under $100,000. No explanations were ever provided by the father for his accumulation of wealth given his alleged low income, an adverse inference was drawn, and he was found to be an unreliable witness. [iii]
The effective notice date in this case was held to be July 1, 2009, when the mother first broached the subject with the father. Due to the first motion to change being brought in 2017 — albeit in the incorrect forum, the presumptive retroactive support start date was set three years prior, in 2014.[iv]
The court considered four factors in deviating so significantly from the standard 3-year notice period of 2014 back to 2003, from the Supreme Court of Canada in D.B.S. v. S.R.G.[v] First, the mother’s delay in attending court was both understandable and reasonable in the circumstances, given the behaviour of the father, his lack of disclosure, and her lack of knowledge of the magnitude of his misrepresentations.[vi] Second, the father’s conduct was clearly blameworthy, due to his consistent misrepresentations, failure to disclose assets and income, failure to advise of increases in income, and severe underpayment of support.[vii] Third, the condition of the child – the son lived in poverty with the mother due to the father’s lack of support.[viii] And finally, the father clearly suffered no hardship, as his assets had steadily grown over the years from the evidence which was available to the court. Failing to order retroactive support would cause the mother hardship.[ix]
Due to the father’s conduct, the retroactive support date was set back to 2003 as requested by the mother.[x] The mother and son were both severely disadvantaged by the father’s refusal to disclose any assets or information or update his support payments, and he was able to build up considerable net worth at their expense.
The court imputed an income to the father using a calculation based on his reported income and evidence available to support his increase in net worth. An average amount of income was determined for 2003-2005 and an additional $323,681 was added to the father’s reported income for 2006-2021.[xi]
While this is an extreme case involving a substantial retroactive support award over a longer period than typically seen, it highlights the importance of regular and accurate financial disclosure between parties with ongoing child support obligations. It also demonstrates that the court is prepared to award retroactive child support claims for a period well beyond the usual 3 years where blameworthy conduct is found.
[i] Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189
[ii] Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, para 114
[iv] Ibid, paras 63-67.
[v] D.B.S. v. S.R.G, 2006 SCC 37, paras 100-116
[ix] Ibid, paras 90-91.