An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Mississauga father to pay more than $78,000 in retroactive child support, finding that his claim of being a penniless “volunteer” at his brother’s grocery store was a fabrication (disguise for income) designed to hide his true income and avoid his financial obligations to his three children1. Justice Latimer of the Superior Court of Justice determined that Mohammad Altawil was, in fact, earning a steady, untaxed income, which the court imputed to be $70,000 annually. The decision, released September 9, 2025, described the father’s testimony as a “shifting landscape of answers” that was more “tactical than truthful.”
The case centered on the fundamental definition of income. As Justice Latimer noted in his opening, quoting Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” For Mr. Altawil, the money he received while working at his brother’s store was not income, but rather a combination of his volunteer efforts and separate financial support from his family. The court strongly disagreed, finding that “work is work, and work leads to income.”
The court heard that Mr. Altawil and the children’s mother, Eba Alibdah, were both originally from Saudi Arabia and married in 2010. Mr. Altawil had first come to Canada in 2007 as an engineering student at McMaster University. After their marriage, Ms. Alibdah also came to Canada on a student visa. Over the next several years, the family divided their time between Canada and Saudi Arabia. All three of their children were born in Canada. While living in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Altawil held jobs teaching at a college and working with a travel agency. This employment afforded the family a comfortable and at times luxurious lifestyle, including expensive European vacations in 2017 and 2018 where they stayed in “five-star hotels.” Ms. Alibdah testified that in 2018, Mr. Altawil began spending even more freely, allowing the family to purchase luxury items like Louis Vuitton and Burberry bags.
The couple separated on October 30, 2018. At that time, Ms. Alibdah was living with the children in Niagara Falls, while Mr. Altawil was living and working in Saudi Arabia. He initially continued to pay for their rent and provide money for other expenses. However, his circumstances changed dramatically after he came to Canada for a visit in 2019. He was arrested in relation to charges involving Ms. Alibdah, for which he was ultimately acquitted. As a condition of his bail, his passport was seized and he was ordered not to leave the country. Unable to return to Saudi Arabia, he lost his teaching position at the college. Since 2019, Mr. Altawil has not been legally permitted to work in Canada and is currently challenging a deportation order.
From that point forward, Mr. Altawil claimed he had no employment “in any way.” He testified that he lived with his brother, Abbas, in Mississauga and was entirely reliant on his family’s financial support. He stated he paid no rent, did not buy his own food, and borrowed a family member’s car when he needed to drive, never even having to pay for gas. He explained that it was common in his culture for family members to support one another, and just as he had supported younger relatives in the past, they were now paying him back.
A key part of his story involved another brother, Ali, who owns a grocery store in Mississauga. Evidence presented by Ms. Alibdah included social media posts and videos showing Mr. Altawil at the store, wearing store clothing, working behind the counter, and interacting with food bloggers during promotional events. Mr. Altawil insisted he was not an employee but a “volunteer” who helped with social media. He claimed he was never paid for this work. Any money he received, he testified, was part of the ongoing financial support from his family, including Ali, which he considered a loan that he intended to repay. He used this same explanation to account for his ability to buy expensive gifts for his children, such as a Moose Knuckle winter jacket and various electronic devices.
Justice Latimer found Mr. Altawil’s entire explanation to be unbelievable. In his reasons for judgment, the judge provided a detailed assessment of why he considered the father an “unsatisfactory witness.” A primary factor was Mr. Altawil’s consistent failure to provide complete and reliable information in his legally required Financial Statements. The judge found this warranted an “adverse inference” that he was not a credible source regarding his own finances. Furthermore, the judge noted that Mr. Altawil, an intelligent individual, seemed motivated to mask his income to avoid violating immigration laws.
A particularly damning piece of evidence was a set of “loan agreements” Mr. Altawil created and filed with the court in June 2025, just before the trial. He had prepared and signed them himself in an attempt to document the supposed loans from his family. No one else had signed the documents. Justice Latimer concluded bluntly, “I find he has prepared and filed false documents in an attempt to corroborate his testimony that his money comes from personal loans.” The judge also found his testimony during cross-examination to be evasive and unfocused, noting he would often deflect direct questions about his finances by falling back on his standard answer that all money came from family loans.
Based on the evidence, Justice Latimer found as a fact that Mr. Altawil had been working regular hours at his brother’s grocery store since at least January 2021. The judge concluded that the funds he received were being deliberately channeled through family members to “obscure what is happening – Dad is working and receiving income.”
Having made this finding, the court turned to the difficult task of quantifying that income. Under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a court can impute, or assign, an income to a parent when it finds that income has been diverted or when the parent has failed to provide proper financial information. Based on Mr. Altawil’s ability to house, feed, and clothe himself in Mississauga, as well as make various purchases for his children, the court determined that a reasonable income to impute was $70,000 per year. The judge specified this was a “grossed-up” amount, meaning it was higher than a typical salary to account for the fact that Mr. Altawil was not paying any income tax.
Using this figure, the court ordered Mr. Altawil to pay retroactive child support for the period from January 2021 to August 2025, totaling $78,232. He was also ordered to begin paying ongoing monthly child support of $1,397 starting in September 2025.
The court did not, however, grant Ms. Alibdah’s request for spousal support. The judge also imputed an income to the mother, setting it at $40,000 per year. Justice Latimer noted that Ms. Alibdah, who is forty-two, had “deliberately chosen the life of a perpetual student in Canada to maintain government benefits for her family.” She had enrolled in a variety of college programs, from baking to addiction services, and as a result was qualified to work in many fields but was currently underemployed. Given the relatively small gap between their imputed incomes and Mr. Altawil’s precarious immigration status, the judge decided to prioritize the child support order and found that no spousal support was justified in the circumstances.
Read about other family law cases here.
