Low- and high-income earners; annual income over $150,000

AuthorJulien D. Payne; Marilyn A. Payne
e provincial or territorial tables under the Federal Child Suppor t Guidelines have a mi n-
imum annual income or poverty t hreshold below which no f‌ixed amount of basic child
support is paya ble and any existing order should be terminated. In these circum stances,
however, a court may direct the non-custodial parent to provide the custod ial parent or
the provinci al mai ntenance enforc ement of‌f‌ice with f‌ina ncial statements at designated
interv als.
Where a parent is relieved of the legal obligation to pay the basic amount of table sup-
port because his or her income fal ls below the minimum threshold, a court may also reject
any claim to expenses u nder section  of the Federal Child Support Guidelines even though
“means” under section () of the Guidelines is a broader concept than income earning cap-
acity in that “means” includes all of a person’s pecuniar y resources, capital assets, i ncome
from employment or earning capacity, and any other source from which a person receives
gains or benef‌its, together with, in certain circumstances, money which the person does
not have in possession but which is available to that person. e fact that the Guideli nes do
not prescribe a basic child support payment for parents with income below the mini mum
threshold ref‌lects the realit y that everyone requires a certai n amount of money simply to
survive. It would appear to be irrationa l if a parent who is unable to pay the base level of
Sampson v Sampson, [] AJ No  (QB); Adamson v Adamson , [] BCJ No  (CA); Smithv
Smith, [] BCJ No  (SC) (a court is not entitled to t ake the parent’s new spouse’s income into
accou nt); Mabbett v Mabbett , [] NSJ No  (SC); Larkin v Jamie son, [] PEIJ No  (SC); RBK v
AMK, [] SJ No  (QB); compare Uto v Sze mok, [] BCJ No  (SC).
Oliver v Oliver, [] AJ No  (QB); istle v ompson, [] NJ No  (SC) (prospe ctive and retro-
active variat ion with partial rem ission of arrears); PM v DJT, [] OJ No  (SCJ); Gershon v Shulson,
[] SJ No  (QB).
Oliver v Oliver, [] AJ No  (QB); PM v DJT, [] OJ No  (SCJ); Gershon v Shulson, [] SJ No
 (QB).
Dietz v Dietz, [] SJ No  (QB).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT