Low- and High-Income Earners; Annual Income over $150,000

Date27 July 2022
AuthorJulien D. Payne,Marilyn A. Payne
 
Low- and High-Income Earners;
Annual Income over $150,000
e provincial or territorial tables under the Federal Child Support Guidelines have a min-
imum annual income or poverty threshold below which no xed amount of basic child support
is payable1 and any existing order should be terminated.2 In these circumstances, however, a
court may direct the obligor to provide the primary caregiving parent3 or the provincial main-
tenance enforcement oce4 with nancial statements at designated intervals.
Where a parent is relieved of the legal obligation to pay the basic amount of table support
because his or her income falls below the minimum threshold, a court may also reject any
claim to expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines even though “means”
under section 7(1) of the Guidelines is a broader concept than income earning capacity in that
“means” includes all of a person’s pecuniary resources, capital assets, income from employ-
ment or earning capacity, and any other source from which a person receives gains or benets,
together with, in certain circumstances, money that the person does not have in possession
but which is available to that person. e fact that the Guidelines do not prescribe a basic child
support payment for parents with income below the minimum threshold reects 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 child support can be compelled to
contribute to special or extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Guidelines.5
Sampson v Sampson, [] AJ No  (QB); Adamson v Adamson, [] BCJ No  (CA); Smithv
Smith, [] BCJ No  (SC) (a court is not entitled to take the parent’s new spouse’s income into
account); Mabbett v Mabbett, [] NSJ No  (SC); Larkin v Jamieson, [] PEIJ No  (SC); RBK v
AMK, [] SJ No  (QB); compare Uto v Szemok, [] BCJ No  (SC).
Oliver v Oliver, [] AJ No  (QB); istle v ompson, [] NJ No  (SC) (prospective and retro-
active variation with partial remission 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).
Cornelius v Andres, [] MJ 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