Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Separation Agreements’

Wednesday’s Video Clip: Top 5 questions about spousal support in Ontario, Canada


Wednesday’s Video Clip: Top 5 questions about spousal support in Ontario, Canada

In this video we review some of the more common questions about spousal support in Ontario, including:

1) What is spousal support?

Spousal support — which is sometimes called “alimony” — is money paid from one spouse to the other after the dissolution of the relationship. The obligation to pay spousal support is a legal one, and may arise either from a marriage, or from a common-law relationship.

2) What is the legal basis for obtaining spousal support?

The obligation for one spouse to pay spousal support to the other does not arise automatically from the fact that the parties had a relationship together (whether formally married or common law). Rather, the spouse who is claiming spousal support must prove an entitlement to it.

A court may order spousal support, and will set an amount and duration based on various factors that exist between the parties. The jurisdiction for a court to award spousal support comes from either the federal Divorce Act (as part of a divorce order), or from the Ontario Family Law Act.

3) What factors dictate the duration and amount of spousal support?

The determination of how much support a spouse should receive, and for how long, is a complex equation. In making a spousal support order courts consider several factors, including:

• the length of the entire relationship (including time living together before marriage);

• the financial circumstances of each spouse, both during the relationship and
after separation;

• the functions performed by each spouse during the relationship;

• the financial repercussions or detrimental financial effect on one or both spouses of caring for each other or for any children of the relationship; and

• each spouse’s ability to support him or herself.

In some cases one spouse may have suffered a financial loss or disadvantage as result of joint career and lifestyle decisions made during the marriage or relationship (for example the decision to move the family so that a spouse can take a new job, or that the mother will give up her career to stay home and raise the children). A disadvantaged spouse will be entitled to support to compensate him or her for that setback.

There may also be a limit on the duration of the support that one spouse receives from the other, as means of encouraging the recipient spouse to achieve post-separation financial independence as quickly as possible. Alternatively, the order may contain a built-in review mechanism.

Note that there are certain tax consequences relating to spousal support — both from the payor’s and the recipient’s perspective. In short — and provided it is paid pursuant to either a written separation agreement or a court order — it is considered “taxable income” in the hands of the spouse who receives it, and is deductible from the taxable income of the spouse who pays it. These tax ramifications are taken into account when determining the amount of support.

4) How does the spouse’s behaviour affect spousal support entitlement?

Generally speaking, the entitlement to spousal support is not dependent on the spouse’s pre- or post-separation behaviour, morality, or ethical conduct. In other words, a spouse who is otherwise entitled to spousal support after the dissolution of a marriage will not become disentitled because he or she was violent, or because it is later discovered that he or she had an extra-marital affair during the marriage.
Having said that, a court’s determination of the amount and duration of spousal support will hinge upon each party providing forthright, comprehensive financial disclosure to each other. If in making the determination the court feels that one spouse has withheld financial information (e.g. has failed to disclose a source of significant income), the court may impute income to the spouse and award the other spouse his or her support accordingly.

5) What happens if there is a change in circumstances?

As indicated above, the notion of one spouse receiving spousal support from the other is rooted in several concepts and principles, including:

1) the financial disadvantage or dependence that relationship gave rise to must be redressed post-separation; and

2) the ability of the paying spouse to fund the spousal support award must be taken into account.

The amount or duration of spousal support may have to be adjusted if there is significant change in the financial circumstances of either party. This change must be significant, and must not have been foreseen when the separation agreement or the court-ordered spousal support award was made.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Should Pacemaker Evidence Be Used to Catch Cheaters?

Should Pacemaker Evidence Be Used to Catch Cheaters?

I have written several times before about some of the more novel uses of the information that can be gleaned from social media, for example the use in Family Law of evidence taken from Facebook. Some of our previous posts include: Facebook as a Source of Evidence In Family Law: Part 1Facebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 2; and  Facebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 3.

The legal issue behind this kind of information-gathering, is whether collecting information in this manner is unduly intrusive into a person’s privacy.

A U.S. case reported by the American Bar Association that caught my attention recently takes the privacy question it even further: It involved the use of evidence taken from a man’s pacemaker, used to support a charge of criminal fraud and arson against him. It seems the data from his heartbeat-regulating device – which was collected from him by way of a search warrant – did not support his claim that his house had burned down. Evidently the man’s heart-rate on the night in question did not correspond with his description of events, including his scramble to collect his personal belongings and get out of the home. He was ultimately charged with arson and insurance fraud.

As the American Bar Association article pointed out, this Ohio decision is contentious because it can be seen as having “eroded” the privacy rights that an individual has in his or her health information. In Canada, the government’s ability to collect and use private information is strictly governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and this includes the right and duties in relation to collecting information for the prosecution of crime.

Although the U.S. decision has no sway in Canada, it occurred to me that if it did, the information from personal health devices like a pacemaker might eventually be exploited in Family Law cases as well.  I started to think about the limits of this kind of information, and how it might apply to divorce cases.

For example, it could be called up in support of the adultery-based grounds for divorce under the federal Divorce Act, by bolstering other evidence that a spouse who claimed to have been “working late” on a given evening was – judging by an unusually elevated heartbeat – actually engaged in an extra-marital affair. (Although I guess it might depend on how truly exciting the person’s work is!)

For now, this is the stuff of science fiction; it’s probably a long way off, before these kinds of biometrics are used as evidence in litigation generally, much less in Family Law cases. And they give rise to many privacy concerns that are assiduously safeguarded by Canadian public policy in the form of legislation.

What are your thoughts on whether evidence of this nature should be used?

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Appeal Court Affirms No Claim for Emotional Harm Arising from Birth of Unwanted Child

Appeal Court Affirms No Claim for Emotional Harm Arising from Birth of Unwanted Child

An unusual case arising from a man’s lawsuit over a baby he didn’t want has now been heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

As I reported here, the facts involved a man and woman who had a brief romantic fling in 2014, lasting less than two months. After going on a few dates, they had unprotected sex on several occasions. Although it was not strictly proven before the court, the man recalled his understanding, from various things the woman said, that she was taking birth control pills and did not intend to conceive a child.

But a few weeks after their short relationship ended, the man, in his early 40s, found out that the woman, in her early 30s, was pregnant. She went on to give birth, at which time it was confirmed that the man was the father.

The man, who was a budding doctor, sued the woman in civil court for over $4 million, claiming her fraudulent misrepresentation had deprived him of the choice of when and with whom to share the responsibility of parenthood. The court framed his cause of action in these words:

Although it was not presented in this way, the claim can be viewed as a tort claim for involuntary parenthood made by one parent against the other. It is clear that the alleged damages do not relate to a physical or recognized psychiatric illness. In essence, the damages consist of the [man’s] emotional upset, broken dreams, possible disruption to his lifestyle and career, and a potential reduction in future earnings, all of which are said to flow from the birth of a child he did not want. Although the claim is not for the direct costs associated with raising the child, all of the damages claimed by the [man] are the result of consequences flowing from the unwanted birth of a child, albeit unwanted only by the father.

(And it’s important to note that the man was suing for emotional harm of the non-pathological variety only; he was not suing for physical harm or for monetary damages, such as for any undesired child support obligations he may have. On that latter point, a separate Family Law suit, disputing his obligation to pay child support based on the woman’s alleged fraud and deceit, was also underway and would be heard separately).

The lower court, in striking out the man’s claim, held that his allegations disclosed no reasonable, legally-recognized cause of action, because a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation – which is a tort in Canadian law – was aimed at compensating the man for any financial damages, not emotional ones. In other words, the man was trying to claim for the types of damages that were simply not actionable through a fraud claim.

In its recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed, adding that the woman’s alleged lie as to her being on birth control – even if it was proved that she told it – was not enough to form the basis of the man’s claim for emotional injury. Plus, any harm the man suffered was not tantamount to a “personal injury” in the traditional legal sense.

Do you think the original decision – now affirmed on appeal – was correctly decided? What are your thoughts?

For the full text of the decision, see:

PP v DD, 2017 ONCA 180 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

 

 

Wednesday’s Video Clip: How are child payments taxed?


Wednesday’s Video Clip: How are child payments taxed?

In this video we discuss the tax consequences of child support.

Parents who receive child support payments under an agreement or court order made after April 30, 1997, do not have to include those payments in their taxable income. Parents who make these payments cannot deduct the payments from their taxable income.

This tax rule does not apply to continuing support paid under agreements or court orders made before May 1, 1997. The old rule still applies until the agreement or order is changed. Under the old rule, parents receiving support must pay tax on the amount received, and parents paying support can deduct the payments from their taxable income.

The new tax rule means that more of the support money received by the parent with custody is available to spend on the children. It also means that parents paying child support under an agreement or court order made after April 30, 1997, will have less after-tax income than parents paying the same amount according to an agreement or order made under the old tax rule. Courts take this into account when making new support orders.

Parents who have a support arrangement under the old tax rule may agree that they want the new tax rule to apply. They can do this if they both sign a form called “Election for Child Support Payments (T1157)”, that says they want the amount of support to stay the same but the new tax rule to apply.

You can get this form from any tax services office. Or you can call the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) at 1-800-959-2221 and ask to have a copy mailed to you, or download a copy from their website.

If one parent wants to change to the new tax rule, but the other does not, the parent who wants the change must apply to court to change the existing child support order or agreement. Parents thinking of doing this should be aware that when the court makes a new child support order or changes an existing order or agreement, it must apply the Child Support Guidelines.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Husband’s Hidden Bedroom Cam Nets Wife $15,000 in Damages for Privacy Invasion

Husband’s Hidden Bedroom Cam Nets Wife $15,000 in Damages for Privacy Invasion

I have written previously about a relatively new cause of action in Canada called “intrusion into seclusion.” It is essentially a privacy-based tort claim that a person can assert by establishing damages from an unauthorized intrusion into his or her private affairs by someone else.

Recently, this new type of tort has been successfully claimed in the Family Law context by a wife against her estranged husband, in a case called Patel v Sheth.

The couple had been married for about 3 years when they separated for the first time, with the wife moving out of the matrimonial home. Shortly after they made an effort to reconcile, but matters became increasingly acrimonious and they separated for a final time about 8 months later.

At one point during their reconciliation attempt, when the wife was taking steps to gradually move back into the home, the husband surreptitiously installed a video camera in the bedroom, hiding it in a BMW keychain placed on an armoire. The camera faced the bathroom.   Given its placement, the camera would have caught the wife in the act of getting undressed.

The wife found the camera in the bedroom after their final separation, when she was moving furniture around.

As part of their later divorce proceedings, the wife added a $50,000 claim in damages against the husband, for his having intruded on and breached her privacy by installing the hidden camera in such a highly personal area of the home.   She asserted that she was offended and embarrassed.

In explanation, the husband claimed he installed the camera ostensibly for his own protection, since at one point the wife had falsely accused him of assault. Claiming that he never downloaded any of the images it may have recorded, he asserted that the wife suffered no damages.

In considering this scenario, the court concluded that even though the cameras did not capture any explicit images, the potential to do so was real. The privacy intrusion took place in the context of a domestic relationship, and in the court’s view it was also an “extremely aggravating” factor that the husband had initially lied about the camera under oath during discovery, and even tried to blame the wife.  (He later admitted to that lie at trial).

Furthermore, the husband’s explanation for installing the camera made no sense: If he was concerned about further assault allegations being levelled at him, there were many other rooms in the house where physical violence could conceivably take place. Yet he did not bother to plant hidden cameras anywhere but the bedroom.

The court ultimately held that the wife was entitled to damages of $15,000, observing that although she was shocked and embarrassed, there was no medical evidence filed to support any significant effect on her health. The court also held that this was not a case for additional punitive damages to be awarded.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Patel v Sheth, 2016 ONSC 6964 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Vexatious Litigant Won’t Take “No” for An Answer

Vexatious Litigant Won’t Take “No” for An Answer

Sometimes you hear about Family litigants for whom their dispute against the former spouse has taken on a life of its own, and who will not stop until they have literally exhausted every possible legal and procedural avenue.   The case of Nassr v. Vermette seems to be a great illustration of this scenario.

The former couple had commenced their family litigation in 2009, after which time the husband brought numerous questionable and downright meritless applications and motions. In 2011, pursuant to an order of the court, he was declared a “vexatious litigant” – which means that he was prohibited from commencing or continuing any further proceedings.

About four years later the husband decided he wanted to have that “vexatious litigant” designation set aside. But the court flatly rejected his application, and made an order that declared the designation anew. For greater certainty, the wording made it abundantly clear that he was expressly prohibited from instituting any new legal proceedings, and was prevented from continuing any proceeding previously instituted by him, unless he obtained the court’s permission.

Yet the husband tried to launch another appeal, and duly asked the court for permission to proceed. Although the court granted him an audience, it found that he simply did not meet the test for being allowed to proceed, under s. 140 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, and found there was no merit to his appeal anyway. Section 140 deems the court’s decision to be final, so the husband was blocked from appealing the court’s refusal of his application for leave.

In other words, the husband’s road was formally at an end. Or so only it seemed.

The husband tried to appeal yet again, this time focusing on an earlier judgment that had been made dealing with custody, access, and child support. The wife brought a motion to have that appeal attempt dismissed, and she was successful.

In making its ruling, the court emphasized that since the husband had been declared a vexatious litigant, this meant he had no further right to appeal or take any other step. That designation had been validly made by an earlier court, and – under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act – could not be appealed.

The court also rejected the husband’s last-ditch argument, to the effect that the Rules of Civil Procedure should be bent for him.   Under one of its provisions, the court was entitled at any time to decide that compliance with a rule could be dispensed with. The husband claimed he should be given the benefit of the doubt so that his appeal could go forward notwithstanding the prohibition in section 140 of the Act.

The court didn’t buy it. The provision the husband had in mind applied only to the Rules, not to the test for obtaining leave in section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is entirely different legislation. The court went ahead and quashed the husband’s appeal.

Not to be deterred, the husband didn’t stop there: He applied for leave to appeal from that Appeal Court decision as well. That application was made to the Supreme Court of Canada, but it was dismissed with costs.

Game over.

For the full text of the decisions, see:

Vermette v. Nassr, 2016 ONCA 658 (CanLII)

Jason Donald Nassr v. Laurie Ann Vermette, 2017 CanLII 5363 (SCC)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Wednesday’s Video Clip: Finding A Lawyer


Wednesday’s Video Clip: Finding A Lawyer

In this video we discuss the various ways people can find a lawyer to help them, including:

Community Legal Clinics

Community legal clinics provide legal services to low-income people in areas such as housing, employment insurance, income support, immigration, human rights, and workers’ compensation. Some clinics also provide assistance with wills, powers of attorney, and education law. To find the community legal clinic nearest you, visit the Legal Aid Ontario web site or call Legal Aid Ontario.

Law Office of Russell I Alexander, Family Lawyers

This law firm focuses exclusively on family law. Russell I Alexander offers pre-separation legal advice and helps clients who are going through a separation and/or a divorce. This office assists clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. Their lawyers negotiate settlements for their clients, and if a fair and reasonable settlement cannot be achieved they prepare and argue motions and trials.
866-647-6335.

www.russellalexander.com

Law Society of Upper Canada

Offers information on finding and working with a lawyer, web site:
www.lsuc.on.ca

Legal Advice for Victims of Domestic Violence

Legal Aid Ontario can provide authorization for a two-hour consultation with a family law lawyer through a form called “Advice Lawyer Family Violence Authorization”.

Community legal clinics, student legal aid societies, and women’s shelters should have these forms to give to abused women. Contact the women’s shelter in your community or call Legal Aid Ontario for the phone number and location of the legal clinic or student legal aid society nearest you.

Legal Aid Ontario

1-800-668-8258 (bilingual)

www.legalaid.on.ca

Office of the Children’s Lawyer

Provides court-appointed legal representation for children up to 18 years of age, call:
416-314-8000 (bilingual – accepts collect calls)

Advocacy Centre for the Elderly

Provides legal advice and information to low-income seniors 60 years of age and older on issues such as elder abuse, home care, nursing homes and homes for the aged, and powers of attorney; phone and web site:
416-598-2656

www.advocacycentreelderly.org

ARCH Disability Law Centre

Provides legal information to people with disabilities, and some representation in precedent-setting cases involving disability issues. ARCH has an accessible library of materials on disability-related issues that is open to the public; phone and web site:
1-866-482-2724

www.archdisabilitylaw.ca

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Provides support, treatment, and education for people with mental health and addiction problems and their families. Publications on youth and addiction, and information on drug and alcohol policies in Ontario schools are available through their web site:
1-800-463-6273 (bilingual)

www.camh.net/index.html

CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario)

Provides clear language legal education and information materials for low-income and disadvantaged people in Ontario. CLEO’s materials address issues in many areas of law, including family, domestic violence, social assistance, housing, and immigration and refugee law. Most materials are also available in French. All print publications are free and can be viewed online.

416-408-4420 (accepts collect calls)

www.cleo.on.ca

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Delays, Extensions, Adjournments and Excuses – How Not to Conduct Your Family Litigation

Delays, Extensions, Adjournments and Excuses – How Not to Conduct Your Family Litigation

A few weeks ago, I reported on a case called Schwilgin v. Szivy. I recounted the court’s stern response to a litigant – in this case, the husband – who had been obdurate in failing to comply with numerous prior court orders.

“Part 2” of this story reveals the court’s reaction to that same husband’s repeated delays in moving their divorce and custody issues along. Since the husband was self-represented, it all becomes a good lesson on “how not to conduct your own Family litigation”.

The couple had separated in 2002 and had two children.   Starting around 2010 they commenced what turned out to be rather lengthy legal process around custody and child support.

After a series of prior court decisions in the case, the husband wanted to appeal one particular order that related to (among other things) denying his requested variation of child support, and relieving him of the obligation to pay $75,000 he owed in child support arrears since 2006.

But what followed was a series of blunders and delays on the husband’s part. First, he filed his Notice of Appeal in the wrong court.   When the error was brought to his attention by opposing counsel, he went ahead anyway. But not only did the court refuse to hear him, it refused to transfer the matter to the proper court, and simply quashed the husband’s appeal outright.

By now, the husband was too late to file in the proper court venue.   He asked the court for an extension of the filing deadline claiming that, being a layperson, he simply made a procedural mistake in choosing the wrong court. The court didn’t buy it. The extension was turned down.

Having frittered away his right to appeal automatically, he now needed the court’s permission to take further steps toward an appeal.   But in yet another motion he failed to persuade the court that he had met the relevant test. More importantly, the court explained that the husband’s many poorly-justified delays in the past “weigh[ed] very heavily against” granting the time extension.

Which brings us to the latest ruling.

A full 13 months after the dismissal of his earlier motion for an extension, the husband brought yet another motion to have that order reviewed.

However, even though this was the 11th hour the husband was not cured of his shenanigans: After the hearing date was set, he contacted the court staff to ask for an adjournment. His reason? He was unable to find a lawyer, and unable “to defend himself due to illness” and a lack of funds.   This was contrary to earlier information stating that he had duty counsel lined up, which claim the court also found to be suspect.

The Appeal Court flatly turned down the husband’s latest request for an adjournment.   After reviewing his materials, it concluded that:

  • He had failed to provide current medical or other evidence in proper form to justify having the court grant the order;
  • He had not proven that he had legal aid lined up, as he claimed; and
  • There was no acceptable explanation for the husband’s 13-month delay in asking for a review.

Although he is quickly running out of legal options – and likely testing the courts’ collective patience – I suspect this will not be the husband’s “last kick at the can”.

For the full text of the decisions, see:

Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2017 ONCA 78 (CanLII)

The decision appealed from is:

Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2015 ONCA 816 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Recent Child Abduction Case – Just One of Many

Recent Child Abduction Case – Just One of Many

You may have read in the newspapers recently about latest development in a custody battle over a 9-year-old girl that has resulted in the mother being arrested and charged with her abduction. It seems that rather than return the girl to her father on December 1 as required, the mother opted to essentially “run and hide”, taking the girl with her in violation of a custody order. After an Amber Alert prompted tips from the public, police found the mother and daughter living in Hamilton.

The child’s father, Mohamed Abdel-Motaleb, is in Canada from Egypt on a visitor’s visa and is seeking custody here after not knowing the daughter’s whereabouts for over a year. He claimed that without his consent, the mother secreted the daughter from Egypt – travelling part of the route by camel – in order to make their way to Canada where her parents live.

The parents have a history of high conflict over the child, and through their lawyers have levelled accusations against each other. The mother’s family and friends have stood by her in support, believing that she was motived by a desire to protect her daughter and avoid a court battle with the father, whom she claimed to fear. The abduction for which she is formally charged took place only one day before a scheduled court date in their ongoing custody dispute.

Canadian courts universally frown on such self-help measures in child custody disputes, even where the abducting parent has the child’s best interests at heart. Sentences can also be stiff: In the most recent decision out of Alberta, a father who had plead guilty to abducting his 7-year-old son and removing him to Lebanon contrary to a custody order was sentenced to 12 months incarceration including 45 days spent in jail after being arrested.

In that case, the abduction had been premeditated, with the father having planned to sell his home and dispose of all his affairs in Canada in anticipation of moving to Lebanon with the boy. He even created a website explaining his reasons for abducting the child.

In response to the father’s unilateral actions, the mother had been forced to fly to Lebanon to try to find her son. This involved her leaving her home and job, spending her savings, max-ing out her credit cards, and withdrawing from her RRSP. While in Lebanon she visited more than 30 different schools to try to find him, and once she did, she was ordered by the court to post a US$50,000 bond in return for getting access.

In imposing sentence, the court considered an earlier B.C. decision in which the accused father spent a total of three years being incarcerated for abducting his own child, in that case through violent means and involving a car chase which endangered not only the child, but the public as well.

As with these Alberta and B.C. cases, the Ontario courts see many similar scenarios. And whle it’s admittedly vital that courts condemn such self-help solutions, and reinforce respect and compliance with legal process and custody orders, it’s not hard to feel compassion for the situation both parents themselves in.

What are your thoughts on child abduction cases like these? Are the penalties too stiff? Too lenient?

For the full text of the decision, see:

R. v. M.E., 2016 ABPC 250 (CanLII)
R. v. C.M.N, 2002 BCCA 76 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Wednesday’s Video Clip: How Base Child Support is Calculated


Wednesday’s Video Clip: How Base Child Support is Calculated

In this video we discuss how the Child Support Table in the Guidelines sets out the amounts of support to be paid, depending on the “gross income” of the paying parent and the number of children that the support order covers. Gross income means before taxes and most other deductions. The amounts to be paid are based on the average amounts of money that parents at various income levels spend to raise a child.

In simple cases, the table alone will determine how much money will be paid. In more complicated cases, the table is used as the starting point. There is a different table for each province and territory.

If both parents live in Ontario, the Ontario table applies. Also, if the paying parent lives outside of Canada and the parent with custody lives in Ontario, the Ontario table applies. But if the paying parent lives in another province or territory, the table for that province or territory is the one that applies.

You can get a copy of the Child Support Table for Ontario by phoning 1-888-373-2222.

Or you can visit the Department of Justice Canada’s web site at www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup and click on “Simplified Federal Child Support Tables” to find the table for each province and territory.

The table sets out the amount of support that must be paid at different income levels from $8,000 to $150,000, depending on the number of children. A base amount is given for every $1,000 increase in income, along with a way to calculate amounts in between.

There is also a Simplified Table where you can look up the paying parent’s income to the nearest $100, without having to do any calculations.

Sometimes, a judge does not accept a parent’s statement of income. Instead the judge uses an amount of income that is reasonable based on things such as the parent’s work history, past income, and education. The judge will then apply the table to that income.

A judge might do this if the parent:

• fails to provide the required income information

• is deliberately unemployed or under employed, or

• is self-employed or working “under the table”, and there is reason to believe they do not report all of their income

Before the Guidelines came into effect, judges had more flexibility in deciding the amount of support. Now, in simple cases, judges must order the amount shown in the table. Judges can order different amounts, but only in special cases. And they must use the table amount as a guide.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com