“In Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 39, the court stated:
While courts generally recognize a “first-family-first” principle (which provides that a payor’s obligations to the first family take priority over any subsequent obligations), inevitably new obligations to a second family may decrease a payor’s ability to pay support for a first family. [Emphasis Added]
As explained in Fisher, and also in Dean v. Dean, [2016] O.J. No. 3521 (Div. Ct.) at para. 83, an obligation to a second family must be considered in context. For example, was it a voluntary assumption of an obligation for a second family when the payor knows, or ought to have known, of his pre-existing obligation to his first family. Similarly the court should consider whether there is any evidence that the payor’s obligations to his first family will impoverish his second family.”