A Father Earning $100,000 a Year Forces His Sons to Pay Him Rent at 14 and Borrows $15,500 From Them: Superior Court Condemns

A father earning over $100,000 a year demands monthly payments from his sons starting at age 14, borrows $15,500 from them under false pretenses, then withholds their bicycles, computers and winter clothing as leverage. The judge declares she has never seen such a case.

A Case the Judge Had Never Seen Before

In the opening lines of her judgment, Justice Claude Dallaire is unequivocal: after many years on the bench, she declares she has never seen a case like this one. A father with custody of his three minor children, receiving child support from their mother, who nevertheless demands that his sons pay him a monthly sum — starting at age 14.

That is not all. This same father writes his children's résumés, helps distribute them, and encourages them to work part-time during the school year and full-time in the summer — despite the fact that both boys face significant learning difficulties. He then borrows thousands of dollars from his 14-year-old son, implying that the money will be invested for his future. Instead, he uses it to pay his own debts and everyday expenses.

At the time these events took place, the father was earning an annual income of over $100,000.

The Facts: A Troubling Timeline

February 2022 — The Children Move in With Their Father

In early 2022, X and Z leave their mother's home to live with their father and his partner G. By mid-June, Y joins them. The child support the father was paying the mother continues to be collected by the Support Payment Office — the parents arrange reimbursements between themselves.

From the moment the boys move in with their father, his partner takes charge: on the first of every month, she contacts the children to collect their monthly "rent," much like a landlord collecting from tenants.

Age 14 — The Start of the Payments

The rule is simple and documented: as soon as a boy turns 14, his father demands $100 a month. At 15, $200. At 16 — for X, who reached that age in April 2024 — $300 a month.

The father does not inform the mother of this arrangement. He collects child support on one side and his sons' payments on the other. In total, X paid his father $5,700. Y paid $1,900. Total: $7,600.

These messages, entered into evidence before the court, were enough for the judge to set aside the father's claim that his children paid "voluntarily" and wanted to "help."

January 2023 — The First Loan

On January 10, 2023, the father asks his son X — who is 14 years old (born April 2008) — if he can borrow $7,000. X agrees. He makes seven transfers of $1,000 to his father, drawn from savings he had set aside to one day purchase a restaurant franchise. The father offers $30 in monthly interest. He commits to repaying "when he has the money."

In February and March 2024, the father borrows again. First, $1,500 for a suspended ceiling in X's basement bedroom — which in reality is used to finish three ceilings in his home. Then a second loan of $7,000 under the same terms. Total borrowed from his minor son: $15,500.

In his testimony, the father acknowledges having implied to X that the funds would be invested — in RESPs or other savings vehicles. The evidence shows they were instead used to pay personal debts and household expenses. According to X, part of the money may even have gone toward his father's legal fees in the child protective services file.

October 2024 — Child Protective Services, Then Return to the Mother

In August 2022, the Director of Youth Protection (DPJ) intervened in this family's life. For two years, proceedings unfolded at the Court of Quebec. The court found that the father's partner systematically made highly denigrating remarks about the children's mother in front of them, and that a no-contact order was necessary.

On October 27, 2024, X flees the paternal home following a family dispute. On October 31, the Court of Quebec urgently places both boys with their mother. On November 7, Z joins them.

It is at this point that the mother learns of the monthly payments, the loans, and the multiple expenses billed back to the children. When the boys try to retrieve their belongings, the father refuses to return them until certain "debts" are settled — including the Bell Fibe bill for high-speed internet.

What the Father Charged on Top of the Monthly Payments

Au-delà des montants mensuels de pension, le père et sa conjointe facturaient aux garçons une série de dépenses supplémentaires, réclamées par virement bancaire distinct :

• Bell Fibe high-speed internet: $720 per child in 2023, then $800 in 2024, while the partner's minor son, present every other week, paid only $400
• Installation of wall outlets for computers — leasehold improvements to the father's home
• Clothing labelled as "extras" — including a North Face jacket and work pants
• Spray and Wash laundry stain remover — presented by the father as a "lesson" for the son who dirtied his shirts
• Mixed nuts, Costco CheezBalls, eggs and milk
• Passport renewals — for a southern vacation that never materialized
• Half of X's driving course — which the father had offered to share with the mother, collected her half, then billed back to his son
• X's cell phone and monthly plan fees

The Father's Position: A Series of Explanations That Don't Hold Up

At trial, the father offered multiple justifications. He stated that at the same age, he paid his own way. He said his sons were "old enough to help," that his partner was on sick leave and that he had to "tap into his line of credit" to make ends meet. He described the amounts collected as a "voluntary contribution" to extraordinary expenses.

For the CheezBalls and Spray and Wash, he framed these charges as "lessons" in financial responsibility. For the high-speed internet, he explained that his partner had worked out the cost with the children, who had agreed. For the loans, he claimed to have paid reasonable interest at 5%.

The judge accepted none of these explanations. The documentary evidence — bank statements, text messages, children's account records — contradicted the father's version on nearly every point. The judge notes that the messages entered into evidence "would have been worth reviewing before taking the stand."

The Condemnations: What the Court Ordered

Justice Dallaire orders the father to repay directly to the children — by bank transfer, as he did for the loans — all amounts improperly collected:

• $5,700 to X — reimbursement of monthly payments made, with legal interest and additional indemnity (art. 1619 C.C.Q.)
• $1,900 to Y — same basis
• $1,520 to X — reimbursement of internet charges billed
• $720 to Y — same basis
• $661 to X — reimbursement of his share of the driving course
• $350 to X — outstanding balance on Loan 2
• $660 to X — additional interest on the loans (loan 1: $60 · loan 2: $120 · ceiling loan: $480)
• $3,399.81 to the mother — costs provision for the re-opening of inquiry

The court also orders the immediate return of all personal belongings not yet given back to the children: bicycles, scooters, basketball hoop. The principal amounts of the loans were repaid by the father between May and July 2025, after the sale of his home — just a few months after the children left.

A Telling Detail: The Sale of the House

The judge notes a fact that does not go unnoticed: just a few months after the children left, the father — who no longer had access to their income — quickly listed his house for sale. The deed was signed before a notary in June 2025.

It was those sale proceeds that allowed him to repay the loans to his son. The judge draws a clear inference: the children were contributing, in part, to maintaining their father's lifestyle and paying for the home he was legally obligated to provide them.

What This Judgment Tells All Parents

Justice Dallaire closes her reasons with an explicit message addressed to all parents — not just this father:

A parent who wishes to have a teenager's income factored into the child support calculation must go before a judge. They cannot take the law into their own hands by directly collecting payments from their children's earnings. The line between financial education and exploitation is thin — and this judgment draws it clearly.

The court also reminds that a child's learning difficulties are a significant factor. Forcing a teenager with learning challenges to work part-time during the school year — to fund an adult's everyday expenses — is not only illegal, but contrary to the best interests of the child.