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

• Author: Julien D. Payne; Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 381-392



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 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).