Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and timing for retroactive recalculation of child support obligations.

• Methodology for calculating retroactive and prospective child support based on actual and imputed income.

• Consideration of whether income should be imputed to the payor for certain years due to underemployment or intentional reduction of income.

• Assessment of the payor’s claims of undue hardship and eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit.

• Determination of the appropriate monthly amount for repayment of arrears and ongoing support.

• Limitations on the court’s authority to vary orders predating the most recent final order.

Facts of the case

Jeremy David Watkins and Margaret Hazel Collins are the parents of a child born in 2009. In August 2016, a final court order set Mr. Watkins’ child support at $327 per month, based on an income of $39,000, and required him to provide annual income disclosure for recalculation purposes. Mr. Watkins failed to provide these disclosures, leading the administrative recalculation clerk to increase his income by 10% each year by default. In October 2024, Mr. Watkins applied to vary his child support, seeking a reduction back to the summer of 2022 when he left the fishing industry and his income dropped significantly. Ms. Collins responded by seeking a retroactive recalculation back to 2016, based on his actual income, which she alleged was higher than previously reported.

The court reviewed income records provided by both parties, including tax returns and payment records, and considered the impact of Mr. Watkins’ career change, his mental health conditions, and his subsequent employment history. The court also addressed, but did not adjudicate, claims relating to undue hardship, the Disability Tax Credit, and a request to change the child’s surname, due to procedural deficiencies.

Legal issues and reasoning

The central legal issues included how far back child support should be recalculated, the appropriate method for calculating support, whether income should be imputed to Mr. Watkins for certain years, and the appropriate monthly amount for both retroactive and prospective support. The court determined that it could not vary orders predating the August 2016 final order, and that retroactive recalculation should begin in September 2016. For the years 2016 to 2022, support was calculated based on Mr. Watkins’ actual income. For 2023 and 2024, the court found that, while Mr. Watkins was no longer able to work in the fishing industry, he was capable of working full-time at minimum wage, and imputed income accordingly. The court found evidence that Mr. Watkins had intentionally reduced his income to avoid support obligations, including quitting jobs when his wages were garnished.

The court rejected Mr. Watkins’ claim that the Disability Tax Credit was protected from seizure for support arrears, finding no statutory or case law basis for such protection. The court also found that Mr. Watkins did not perfect his claim for undue hardship, and that Ms. Collins did not perfect her application for a change of the child’s surname.

Outcome

The court ordered that child support be retroactively recalculated from September 2016, resulting in arrears of $12,784 as of August 31, 2025. Mr. Watkins was ordered to pay this amount at a rate of $200 per month, commencing at the end of September 2025. Prospective child support was set at $242 per month, based on Mr. Watkins’ 2025 income, to be paid monthly going forward. The successful party is Margaret Hazel Collins, in whose favor the monetary award of $12,784 in retroactive child support arrears was granted, along with ongoing monthly support. No additional costs or damages were awarded, and both parties were self-represented.