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

AuthorJulien D. Payne; Marilyn A. Payne
Pages381-392

CHAPTER 9
LOW- AND HIGH-INCOME EARNERS;
ANNUAL INCOME OVER $150,000
A. LOW-INCOME EANES
e provincial or territorial tables under the Federal Child Support Guidelines have a min-
imum annual income or poverty threshold below which no f‌ixed amount of basic child
support is payable and any existing order should be terminated. In these circumstances,
however, a court may direct the non-custodial parent to provide the custodial parent or
the provincial maintenance enforcement of‌f‌ice with f‌inancial statements at designated
intervals.
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 pecuniary resources, capital assets, income
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 minimum
threshold ref‌lects the reality that everyone requires a certain amount of money simply to
survive. It would appear to be irrational 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).

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

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