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

• Author: Julien D. Payne, Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 379-390



 

LOW AND HIGH INCOME EARNERS;

ANNUAL INCOME OVER $150,000

A. LOWINCOME EARNERS

e provincial or territorial tables under the Federal Child Suppor t Guidelines have a min-

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 termi nated. In these circumst ances,

however, a court may direct the non-custodial parent to provide the custod ial parent or the

provincia l maintenance enforcement of‌f‌i ce with f‌inancial statements at designated interva ls.

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, income

from employment or earning capacity, and any other source from which a person receives

gains or benef‌its, together with, in certain circumst ances, 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 reality that everyone requires a certain a mount 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, [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.); Adamson v. Adamson, [] B.C.J. No.  (C.A.);

Smith v. Smith, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.) (a court is not entitled to t ake the parent’s new spouse’s in-

come into account); Mabbett v. Mabbe tt, [] N.S.J. No.  (S.C.); Larkin v. Jamieson, [] P.E.I.J. No.

 (S.C.); R.B.K. v. A.M.K., [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.); compare Uto v. Szemok, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.).

 Oliver v. Oliver, [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.); istle v. ompson, [] N.J. No.  (S.C.) (prospective and

retroactive va riation with partia l remission of arrears); P.M. v. D.J.T., [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); Gershon

v. Shu lson, [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 Oliver v. Oliver, [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.); P.M. v. D.J.T., [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); Gershon v. Shulson,

[] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 Dietz v. Dietz, [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).