A man who owes the mother of his child tens of thousands of dollars in child support has been ordered to spend 15 days in jail, according to a recent B.C. court decision. The province’s Director of Maintenance Enforcement initiated a so-called committal hearing earlier this year, a court proceeding that the judge in the case described as “a last chance to avoid imprisonment” for non-payment of child support. The man, whose name is shielded by a publication ban that is in place to protect the identity of his child, owed a total of $37,312.54 at the time of the hearing. Judge Micah Rankin handed down his decision earlier this month, finding the man had failed to convince the court he was facing a “change in circumstances” that rendered him unable to pay, or that it would be a “grave injustice” to order time behind bars. “There are troubling aspects of Mr. M.’s conduct in the proceedings, his testimony in court, and inconsistencies in the evidence that raise significant concerns about his credibility,” Rankin wrote. The agreement The court heard the child’s mother, referred to as “Ms. C.,” and father were never legally spouses and that the man was not involved in the child’s life. “Since their daughter’s birth, all parenting responsibilities have fallen to Ms. C,” the decision said. Still, in October of 2024 the father entered into a legal agreement to pay $2,500 per month in child support going forward in addition to paying $16,429 in “arrears,” the court heard. The document said he had an annual income of $297,700, the judgment noted. By November of 2025, the father owed nearly $50,000 and he agreed to pay $7,500 per month—pursuant to a court order that also said he would “be imprisoned for three days each time he failed to make a required payment,” according to the decision. The man made two payments but had not made any more by the time the committal hearing ultimately got underway in March of this year and had not made any more by the time the hearing adjourned in June. “Ms. C. testified that raising her daughter has been difficult financially. She stated that Mr. M. had promised to provide financial support but that obtaining support from him had been ‘nothing but a struggle.’ She said she had accumulated significant debt and that her quality of life had declined as a result,” Rankin’s decision said. Spending questioned One of the man’s bank accounts, according to records reviewed by the court, had a balance of over $52,000 as of Dec. 31, 2025. However, the man argued he was unable to access those funds because “they belonged to his numbered company and because he did not have exclusive control over the account or authority to use the funds for personal purposes,” according to the decision. The man’s claim that the bank account was a business account and that spending had to be authorized by its corporate directors was rejected by the judge—in part because payments made from that account in early 2026 included thousands in “discretionary personal expenditures with no obvious connection to the business activities of a construction company.” Among the transactions highlighted were payments to an online gambling platform, purchases at Sunglass Hut, plane tickets, spending at nightclubs, and a $642 tab from Cactus Club. “There is no evidence that these expenditures were authorized by the directors or incurred for legitimate business purposes,” the decision said, adding that the evidence was consistent with the man using the money in the account for “whatever purposes he chose.” ‘Merely a sham’ Rankin noted that there was evidence the structure of the man’s company was changed in late-2025, but questioned the motivation behind the restructuring. “The timing of the change in the corporate structure is itself suspicious and gives rise to the inference that it was merely a sham restructuring intended to create a pretext for an inability to make payments,” the judge’s decision said. “I have concluded that the change in directors was little more than a flimsy attempt to hide behind the corporate veil.” The bank account in question was “depleted of all remaining funds” before the committal hearing began, the judgement said. Additional arguments the man presented supporting the claim of a change in circumstances—including that his income had been significantly reduced, and that he was experiencing medical and mental health issues—were also rejected by the judge. A grave injustice? Given the circumstances, Rankin found ordering imprisonment would not constitute a grave injustice. “Mr. M. has actively avoided making the support payments required of him. This has included advancing the pretext that he lost control over the financial activities of his company, despite banking records that plainly contradict that assertion,” the decision said. “Mr. M. used funds from his company for leisure activities such as online gambling, which could instead have been used to support his child. He also apparently depleted his business bank account of its remaining funds, which again could have been used to satisfy at least some of the outstanding arrears.” The judge determined the man had missed a total of five payments, and ordered him to spend 15 days in a provincial jail. However, if the father pays what he owes he will be released immediately.
