How have the courts treated evidence that the respondent was addicted to drugs in the context of child support claims?

The trial judge accepted the affidavit of the legal assistant to counsel for the respondent as evidence that the respondent was addicted to drugs, including cocaine. In my view, it was an error to do so: better evidence was required. However, even if one were to accept that the respondent is a drug addict, his addiction is not a defence to a support claim. When one first consumes illicit drugs, one must be taken to know that addiction can result: addiction is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, as is the resultant loss of income or employment. To the extent that drug addiction is properly viewed as an involuntary illness, the initial drug use is voluntary and, therefore, it is intentional. It is wrong in law (and contrary to public policy) that a parent be exempted from his or her child support obligation because of drug addiction. As was said by Eberhard J. in another context, “He may someday have better ability to pay and there is no reason why the arrears should not be there waiting for him”: see Courchesne v. Courchesne, [2004] O.J. No. 442 (S.C.J.) at para. 13.