He Hid his Raises; this is What it Cost Him

If you are the parent who receives child support, here is a question that keeps a lot of people awake at night. What happens if your ex stops sending you their tax returns? What if their income climbs steadily for years and they simply choose not to tell you?

A recent decision from the BC Supreme Court, Ketterer v. Altena, 2026 BCSC 965, gives a clear answer. Hiding your income does not make a support obligation go away. Actually, it makes the bill much bigger. The logic is that courts have an interest in seeing appropriate child support paid. To ensure this, when someone hides their income, generally the court will want to deter this behaviour.

In Ketter the parents separated in 2011. They had two children and shared parenting on a four-day rotation. In 2012 they attended mediation and reached an agreement. The father would pay $435 per month, a figure calculated on the basis that he earned $50,000 annually. The agreement also required both parents to exchange income documents every year, beginning in 2013.

That document exchange never actually happened.

The father continued paying the same $435 for more than a decade. On the surface, that appears responsible. But his income did not remain at $50,000. By 2017 he was earning $88,018. By 2021 he was again above $80,000, and he stayed there. He incorporated a company, and his earnings climbed considerably.

He never informed his former partner, and he never increased his payments. The court concluded this silence was deliberate. The judge determined that the father understood his income had risen and stayed quiet precisely because silence benefited his own finances.

Then the father did something that seriously damaged his own case. In 2024 he unilaterally reduced his payments to $198. Later, he stopped paying altogether. So he was perfectly willing to lower support based on his own calculations, yet he never once raised it when he earned more. This dichotomy was keenly observed by the judge. It showed the father knew support was supposed to change as circumstance changed.

When the mother eventually retained a lawyer and requested the financial records, the father delayed repeatedly. It took two court applications and about six months to get basic tax returns from him. The judge called this conduct blameworthy.

So what did the court ultimately decide?

The mother requested retroactive support reaching all the way back to 2014, a claim worth $81,373. The judge did not award the full amount or the full period. Instead, the court applied the framework from a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case called D.B.S., together with a more recent decision, Michel v. Graydon.

The general rule is that you can usually only reach back three years from the date you formally raise the issue. However, there is a significant exception. Where the paying parent engages in blameworthy conduct, which includes non-disclosure of income, the court may reach back further, because a parent should never profit from staying silent.

The judge selected January 2021 as the starting point. Why that date? Because that is precisely when the father's income jumped and remained elevated, and he deliberately chose to say nothing. The final award was $41,457.

There is one additional piece worth understanding. The older child had already turned 19 and was no longer a "child" under the legislation when the application was filed. Ordinarily that creates a jurisdiction problem. But because the mother had filed an earlier application years before, and an earlier disclosure order existed, the court could still award support for that child.

So what should you take away from all of this?

First, the duty to share income is real. The judge quoted a famous line that calls non-disclosure as "the cancer of family law litigation." Courts treat it seriously.

Second, child support belongs to the child. A parent cannot bargain it away, and old agreements do not freeze support permanently when income changes.

Third, avoid self-help remedies. Cutting or stopping payments unilaterally, the way the father did here, can backfires.

If you are receiving support and you suspect your former partner is earning more, you do not have to speculate. You possess a right to demand disclosure. If they refuse, the court can compel it, and the resulting delay can cost them.

If you are paying support and your income has changed, the safest path is honesty. Disclose the numbers, adjust the payments, and obtain advice before you act.

Every family file is different, and this article is general information, not legal advice tailored to your situation. But the message from Ketterer is one I want every separated parent to absorb. Hiding from your support obligation rarely succeeds, and it frequently costs more in the end.

If you are concerned about retroactive support, either as the person who might owe it or the person who is owed it, we can help you understand exactly where you stand. Reach out for a no-charge consultation and let's discuss your options.