In cases of child or spousal support predating the start of proceedings, a party must specifically include a claim for retroactive relief in their pleading. This conclusion is based on considerations of certainty, fairness to the payor, and administration of justice. Allowing retroactive claims without specific pleading disrupts the balance between certainty and flexibility, undermines procedural fairness, and creates administrative challenges. The standard form Family Law Application should be amended to include separate headings for retroactive child and spousal support claims. If a litigant fails to plead for retroactive support, they should seek consent to amend their pleading early in the proceeding or request leave to amend before trial.

In the case of Kerr v. Baranow, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of retroactive spousal support, emphasizing the nuances that distinguish it from child support. The term "retroactive" in this context refers to a claim for support for periods predating the commencement of legal proceedings. The court referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, which established that the initiation of court proceedings for spousal support usually determines the commencement date for the support order, barring any specific reasons for a different date.

These claims pertain to support for periods predating the commencement date of the legal pleading in which support is claimed or from the date the legal pleading was commenced to the date that the payor started paying child support. The court expounded upon the Supreme Court of Canada's position on these matters, as laid out in the case D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra..

The blog post provides a detailed examination of the court case Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500, which involved issues of divorce, child support, and spousal support. It explores various aspects such as the grounds for divorce, retroactive support claims, residential situation of the child, and assessment of parties' incomes.

This case also looks at: Imputing pre-tax corporate income, intentional un/under-employment