Article content continued

Justice Sullivan’s determination of child support starts with an assessment of resources available to Joshua for his support. Justice Sullivan then considers all of Joshua’s reasonable expenses, including a modest sum payable to the mother on account of living expenses. In the result, Joshua’s needs exceeded his resources by $12,420 annually. Justice Sullivan assigns responsibility for one-half of this shortfall to each parent, and ordered the father to pay the mother $518.41 per month.

The underpinning to Justice Sullivan’s analysis is found in his remarks that support for Joshua should be premised upon the parents sharing financial responsibility for Joshua equitably, after considering the Joshua’s contribution, including his receipt of ODSP.

While Justice Sullivan’s analysis offers helpful guidance in determining the amount of support payable for individuals similar to Joshua, the most important part of his decision is unquestionably the indefinite nature of child support payable for Joshua.

“This support order for Joshua will not have an end date,” Justice Sullivan noted. “(Support) will be determined based on Joshua’s ongoing needs which are indefinite.”

Joshua’s indefinite need for support from his parents and the consequent indefinite nature of child support will have a significant impact on the future determination of child support and beyond. In particular, this decision potentially calls into question the adequacy of support an individual receives through ODSP. Further, it will likely spark a dialogue as to when, if ever, the state ought to assume full financial responsibility for an individual who is unable to support himself or herself.

Adam N. Black is a partner in the family law group at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto.

ablack@torkinmanes.com