A recent decision from the Superior Court of Justice in Sault Ste. Marie has reinforced the absolute necessity of financial honesty in family law proceedings1. In a ruling released on November 19, 2025, Justice Varpio determined that a local mother had committed fraud by failing to disclose significant earnings from her self-employed business. The court emphasized that the legal process relies on trust and transparency, specifically noting that family law is not a game of chance where income can be hidden in undisclosed accounts.
The case of Francis v. Ventura-Francis centered on the breakdown of a marriage that spanned nearly two decades. Reginald William Francis and Patricia Joy Ventura-Francis were married in February 2002 and separated in January 2020. Together they share four children who range in age from twelve to nineteen years old. At the time of the hearing, the eldest child was enrolled in a three-year program at Sault College, while the three younger children were attending middle or high school.
The financial conflict in this case arose from the disparity in how the two parents earned their livings. The father’s income was straightforward and easily verifiable through standard T-4 employment slips. In contrast, the mother worked as a self-employed massage therapist. The family had previously lived in Alberta, but following their move to Ontario, the mother had to close her practice there and rebuild her client base and business operations from the ground up in Sault Ste. Marie. This self-employment status became the focal point of a years-long dispute regarding how much money was actually available for child support.
Litigation between the parties began in 2021, covering a wide range of issues typical of a marital breakdown, including parenting time, decision-making authority for the children, and the equalization of net family property. However, the calculation of the mother’s income proved to be the most contentious hurdle. During the early stages of litigation, the mother disclosed an annual income of approximately $14,000. This figure was challenged by the father, who hired an accountant in 2022 to conduct an independent analysis of her earnings.
The accountant’s analysis suggested that the mother’s actual income was closer to $37,000 per year. Following this report, the mother agreed to the higher figure. Consequently, during a settlement conference presided over by Justice Gareau on July 10, 2023, the parties reached an agreement. They consented to an order that imputed the mother’s income at $35,000 annually for the purpose of calculating child support obligations and arrears. With that baseline established, the parties attempted to move forward to resolve the remaining issues.
Despite the agreement on income, the parents were unable to resolve the ongoing child support arrangements. They agreed to proceed to a binding Judicial Dispute Resolution process, which was scheduled to take place on October 31, 2023. This is a process designed to help parties settle their differences without a full trial. However, just before this process was set to begin, the situation changed dramatically due to the arrival of new financial documents.
The father received a package of financial disclosure from the mother that included business records he claimed he had never seen before. These records raised immediate concerns about the accuracy of the income figure that had been agreed upon just months earlier. Due to the complexity of the new information, the binding dispute resolution process was postponed to January 2024 to allow the father time to review the materials. The process eventually fell apart completely when the mother withdrew her consent, citing issues regarding the source of the banking information.
The matter escalated to a case conference in January 2024 before Justice Rasaiah, who ordered the mother to produce specific financial documents. These included bank statements from RBC and TD Bank, as well as transaction ledgers and income statements for her sole proprietorship. Upon reviewing the production, the father suspected that the RBC records were incomplete. He subsequently sought and obtained directions to get the records directly from the financial institutions to ensure he had a complete picture of the mother’s finances.
When the full scope of the bank statements was analyzed, the results were significant. The records revealed that substantial sums of money had been deposited into the mother’s accounts that had not been reported in her previous financial disclosures or reflected in the agreed-upon imputed income of $35,000. Specifically, the bank statements showed unreported totals of approximately $39,323 in 2022 and $40,175 in 2023. These amounts were in addition to the revenue that had already been accounted for in the ledgers provided during the litigation.
The father argued that these discrepancies proved the mother was earning significantly more than she had led the court and him to believe. He pointed to her lifestyle as further evidence, noting that she had taken vacations and purchased a new vehicle. He argued that such expenditures were inconsistent with the lifestyle of someone raising four children on an annual income of $35,000. Based on the bank deposits, he calculated her true income to be roughly $104,000 per year. This calculation included a “gross up,” a mathematical adjustment often used when a party pays no taxes, to reflect what that take-home amount would equal in pre-tax dollars.
The father brought a motion under the Family Law Rules requesting that the previous order made by Justice Gareau be changed. He relied on a specific rule that allows the court to set aside an order if it was obtained by fraud, mistake, or a lack of notice. He argued that the mother’s failure to disclose the additional income amounted to fraud, as the undisclosed amount was more than double the income she had been imputed. He sought a recalculation of child support arrears, reimbursement for legal costs thrown away due to the delays, and a new finding of income.
In her defense, the mother maintained that she had made all appropriate financial disclosures and had no intention of misleading anyone. She argued that the funds identified by the father could be attributed to various other sources, such as Canada Pension Plan payments. However, the court found that the sheer volume of undisclosed funds made this explanation insufficient to account for the discrepancy.
Justice Varpio’s analysis of the situation was stern regarding the obligations of self-employed individuals in family court. The judge noted that when a person runs their own business, the opposing party must be able to trust the disclosure provided. Without that trust, the system would collapse into a never-ending cycle of forensic examinations to determine a simple income figure.
The court referenced established legal precedents defining fraud in civil matters. To prove fraud, a party must show that a false representation was made knowingly or recklessly, without belief in its truth, and with the intent that the other party would rely on it. Justice Varpio agreed with the father’s submission that the mother’s lack of disclosure met this high threshold. The judge stated that even if the mother was not aware of the exact dollar figure of her income down to the penny, she certainly had to know that her actual earnings greatly exceeded the $35,000 used for the court order.
In a memorable passage of the ruling, Justice Varpio wrote that family law is not a shell game where income is to be hidden in accounts or withheld from view. The decision emphasized that the legal process is a serious undertaking requiring attention and forthright honesty. This honesty is essential to ensure that parties are properly compensated and, most importantly, that children have adequate lifestyles in both of their parents’ homes.
The judge accepted that the mother had failed to disclose approximately $75,000 in income over two years. Consequently, the court set aside the relevant portions of the previous 2023 order. Justice Varpio ruled to impute the mother’s income on a final basis by adding the undisclosed amounts to the previously agreed baseline. This resulted in an income finding of $74,323 for 2022 and $75,175 for 2023. For 2024, the court averaged these two amounts to set an income of $74,749 unless disclosure suggested otherwise.
However, the court did not agree with every argument presented by the father. Specifically, the judge rejected the request to “gross up” the mother’s income to the $104,000 figure the father had proposed. The father had argued this was necessary to account for income tax allegedly not paid. Justice Varpio ruled that there was no evidence presented to suggest the mother was exempt from paying taxes, such as having Indigenous status, nor was there conclusive proof regarding her tax compliance. The judge noted that if the mother was spending money owed to the Canada Revenue Agency, that was a matter between her and the tax authorities, not the family court.
The court also addressed a payment of roughly $8,300 the father had made regarding Section 7 special expenses. The father claimed he had forgiven this amount previously due to the mother’s alleged low income and wanted it repaid. The judge found the materials did not adequately explain why that payment was made originally and refused to order its repayment without a clear explanation.
To prevent similar disputes in the future, Justice Varpio implemented a strict disclosure regime. The order requires the mother to provide the father with a copy of all deposits made into her bank accounts by June 30th of every year. This will allow the father to verify her income annually without needing to resort to further litigation.
The decision concluded with directions for the parties to submit new calculations for child support arrears based on the corrected income figures. The lawyers were given fifteen days to provide these calculations and thirty days to make submissions regarding legal costs. The judge indicated a willingness to hear submissions from the mother regarding the father’s claim for approximately $16,800 in costs thrown away during the failed dispute resolution attempts.
This ruling serves as a potent reminder to self-employed litigants in the Sault Ste. Marie district and beyond. The complexity of business accounting does not excuse a failure to provide a full and frank financial picture. When significant sums of money go unreported, the court has the authority to reopen settled matters, find fraud, and impute income to ensure fairness for the children involved.
