Shared Parenting Arrangements
the mar riage. Section of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, unl ike section , provides
no judicial discretion in the as sessment of child support.
Section of the Guidelines can not be invoked by a respondent with respect to children
of a previous marriage, where insufficient evidence is adduced to establish a prima facie
case that the applicant stood in t he place of a parent to those children.
Section of the Federal Child Support Guidelines may be applied where each of the
parents provides a home for one or more of their dependent children, even though one
of the children is an adult attending u niversity in respect of whom “neither parent has
cu st od y.” Section of the Guidelines w ill not be satisfied, however, where the evidence is
insufficient to establish that t he adult child is a “child of the marriage” with in the meaning
of the Divorce Act. Pursuant to section ()(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a
trial judge may be justified in dev iating from the applicable table amount because one of the
children is over the age of provincial majority a nd is not totally dependent on either parent.
Pursuant to section (.) of the Divorce Act, a court may order the differential between the
two table amounts to be paid for only ten months of the year, so as to mainta in conformity
with the ten months’ pattern establi shed by the divorce judgment.
ere have been cases wherein a court has increased t he normally applicable amount
payable in cases of split custody under sect ion of the Federal Child Support Guidelines,
because the child would be requi red to live frugally in one parental household, while enjoy-
ing a luxurious li festyle in the other parental hous ehold. Deviation from t he amount nor-
mally payable under section is usua lly encountered in extraordina ry cases, where there
are grossly disparate li festyles. In the absence of a finding of undue hard ship, however,
section of the Guidelines provides no residual discret ion to the court to deviate from the
differential between the t wo table amounts, as articulated in that section. A sign ificant
disparity in t he lifestyles in the two households may be addressed, however, by an order for
spousal supp ort or a variation order for i ncreased spousal s upport. Although there may be
little difference from an economic sta ndpoint between split custody under section of the
Guidelines and shared custody u nder section of the Guidelines, the broad discret ion con-
ferred on the court by section is not mirrored in t he provisions of section , in the absence
of an intermingli ng of split and shared custody arrangements involving the same fam ily.
Holman v Bignell,  OJ No (SCJ).
Wright v Wr ight,  BCJ No (SC); Kavanagh v Kavanagh,  NJ No (SC).
Auckland v McKnight,  SJ No (QB).
Khoee-Solomone scu v Solomonescu,  OJ No (Gen Div); see also Sut cliffe v Sutcliffe, 
AJ No (QB); Davis v Davis,  BCJ No (SC) (application of s of Federal Child Support
Guidelines in circu mstances involvin g split custody over summer month s when adult child not away at
university); Kavanagh v Kavanagh,  NJ No (SC); Bauer v Noonan,  SJ No (QB).
Tanner v Simpson,  NWTJ No (SC).
Richardson v Rich ardson,  OJ No (Gen Div); see also Alexander v Alexander,  OJ No
Waller v Waller,  OJ No (Gen Div); compare Ellis v Ellis,  PEIJ No (TD); Section B,
below in this chap ter.
Scharf v Schar f,  OJ No (Gen Div); see also Snyder v Snyder,  NBJ No (QB); Farmer v
Conway,  NSJ No (TD).
Plante v Plante,  AJ No (QB); Inglis v Birkbeck,  SJ No (QB).
Horner v Horner,  OJ No (CA); KO v CO,  SJ No (QB).
Aschenbrenner v Aschenbrenner,  BCJ No (SC).