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

• Date: 27 July 2022
• Author: Julien D. Payne,Marilyn A. Payne

399

 

Low- and High-Income Earners;

Annual Income over $150,000

A. LOW-INCOME EARNERS

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).