One-Parent Families Lose Even if They Win—and Most are Headed by Women

Systemic prejudice occurs when the individual actions of a system, while appearing fair and reasonable, effectively disadvantage a particular group within the system. Retroactive child support variation or cancellation of arrears are examples of systemic prejudice because they disproportionally affect one-parent families (OPFs) headed by women.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 1,836,828 OPFs in Canada on July 1, 2024, up from 1,771,398 (+3.7%) on the same date in 2021. One-parent families are predominately female. According to Stats Canada (2021 census), 81.2% of one-parent families are headed by women. This translates to 1,491,504 OPFs headed by women.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of retroactive variation in  D.B.S. v S.R.G, 2006 SCC 37 (D.B.S). In that case, the presumption was that retroactive variation was limited to three years. There are no such restrictions on cancellation of arrears, or on delinquent payors attempting to vary beyond the three-year period. This means a payor can run up huge arrears, shift the entire day to day economic burden of raising a child to the recipient, and then later force the recipient to defend the child’s right to support.

A case in point is G.A.Q. v. C.L.L., 2025 BCSC 2424. The parties never cohabitated. After the child’s birth, the parties entered into a Support Agreement (SA). The payor acknowledged parentage and agreed to pay $400 USD child support per month.

The payor, a U.S. service person, declined to provide any income information. He paid the SA support for two years but stopped when he left the military. He did not start making any payments again until the Family Maintenance Enforcement Agency (FMEA) caught up with him over a decade later, in 2019. At that point, he was motivated to make payments because he was applying for Permanent Resident status in Canada.

The court found that the payor had effectively resided in Canada since 2008, fathered two further children in Canada, and run up over $102,000 in child support arrears, interest, and penalties. He had not made any contribution to the child’s extra expenses. He was not legally entitled to work in Canada and had worked “under the table”.

FMEA initially pursued payment of arrears. However, they stopped when he advised them that he intended to apply to cancel arrears. It took more than five years—from October 2019 to May 2025—for the matter to proceed to trial.

Up until trial, the payor was represented by counsel but was self-represented at trial. The recipient was represented throughout the process. The matter was within the jurisdiction of the BC Supreme Court.

Prior to trial, the recipient made an application for security for costs in the amount of approximately $25,000. This application was rejected by an Associate Justice. The payor argued that he would not be able to post security for costs and would have to abandon his application. In her reasons from the Bench, the Associate Justice accepted this argument and said that placing such a burden on the payor would amount to a denial of access to justice. The Court prioritized the delinquent payor’s rights above those of the recipient and the child.

Approximately three weeks before trial, the self-representing payor made a number of applications including a demand for a paternity test. The recipient and the child agreed to the test to avoid delay of the trial. The recipient also subpoenaed the child to argue that there should be no ongoing support for the child because the child had no relationship with the payor. These additional last-minute applications and actions caused the recipient to incur even more legal fees than anticipated for trial.

The Court ultimately found in favour of ongoing support.

The Court rejected the cancellation of arrears application and varied child support to bring the amount payable consistent with the child support guidelines. The recipient had previously proposed fixing arrears at $50,000 as of May 2021. The Court’s decision was to fix arrears at $45,000 as of May 2021. The order represents a cancellation of $38,681.52 in arrears, interest, and the $4,000 in fees. Of particular note, the Court decided to waive interest on the arrears until May 2027.

Interest serves an important purpose in protecting the recipient. The buying power of a dollar is reduced over time by inflation. Interest counteracts the effect of inflation. By removing the interest, the payor received a significant hidden discount to the detriment of the recipient.

For example, according to the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator, what you could buy for a dollar in 2010 would now cost you $1.46. While the recipient may now be paid for her 2010 expenses relating to the child, the payment has lost 32% of its value.

Costs were not awarded in this case. The Court invited further submissions in relation to costs. Despite being generally successful in protecting the child’s right to support and confirming arrears, the recipient did not see the point of spending more money to obtain an award which may never be paid.

The judgment and the Justice’s exercise of discretion were sound and reasonable in the circumstances. However, the Claimant felt the outcome to be unjust. Throughout this period, the payor had the choice to pay support to contribute to the child’s expenses. The recipient never had the choice to stop meeting the child’s expenses.

OPFs start from a position of vulnerability. They have the children in their care and must meet their needs—often, to their own detriment. They are often economically limited by the demands of childcare. Women aged 15 years and older earned, on average, 88 cents for every dollar earned by men, up from 82 cents in 1997, according to Statistics Canada.

Child support is designed to redress the economic disadvantage of childcare. However, if support is not paid, the OPF is further disadvantaged. This disadvantage is exacerbated when the recipient is forced to pay for legal defence of a child support entitlement, especially a retroactive variation beyond the three-year window created in D.B.S.

Women and children are disproportionally affected by retroactive support variations. The court must adjudicate within the bounds of statute. It is the legislator’s job to address the systemic inequality created by the operation of the justice system. They could start by limiting the period of retroactivity and cancellation, severely limit interest forgiveness, require security for costs in all court levels, and update the child support guidelines annually based on inflation. Ultimately, they should shift the cost of variation to the payor because they are in the best position to ensure they meet their obligations to their children.