to invoke the section should be seeking support for the child in his or her care from the other
parent.8 Bilateral orders may be granted for child support where each parent has primary care
of one or more children of the marriage.9 Section 8 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines,
unlike section 9, provides no judicial discretion in the assessment of child support.10
Section 8 of the Guidelines cannot be invoked by a respondent with respect to children
of a previous marriage, where insucient evidence is adduced to establish a prima facie ca se
that the applicant stood in the place of a parent to those children.11
Section 8 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 university.12 Section 8 of the Guidelines will not be satised,
however, where the evidence is insucient to establish that the adult child is a “child of the
marriage” within the meaning of the Divorce Act.13 Pursuant to section 3(2)(b) of the Federal
Child Support Guidelines, a trial judge may be justied in deviating from the applicable table
amount because one of the children is over the age of provincial majority and is not totally
dependent on either parent.14 Pursuant to section 17(6.2) of the Divorce Act, a court may order
the dierential between the two table amounts to be paid for only ten months of the year, so
as to maintain conformity with the ten months’ pattern established by the divorce judgment.15
ere have been cases wherein a court has increased the normally applicable amount
payable in cases of split primary care of the children under section 8 of the Federal Child
Support Guidelines because a child would be required to live frugally in one parental house-
hold, while enjoying a luxurious lifestyle in the other parental household.16 Deviation from
the amount normally payable under section 8 is usually encountered in extraordinary cases,
where there are grossly disparate lifestyles.17 In the absence of a nding of undue hardship,
however, section 8 of the Guidelines provides no residual discretion to the court to deviate
from the dierential between the two table amounts, as articulated in that section.18 A signi-
cant disparity in the lifestyles in the two households may be addressed, however, by an order
for spousal support or a variation order for increased spousal suppor t.19 Although there may
be little dierence from an economic standpoint between split parenting time arrangements
under section 8 of the Guidelines and shared parenting time arrangements under section 9
Tanner v Simpson,  NWTJ No (SC).
Holman v Bignell,  OJ No (SCJ).
Wright v Wright,  BCJ No (SC); Kavanagh v Kavanagh,  NJ No (SC). And see
Pozzolo v Pozzolo, BCCA .
Auckland v McKnight,  SJ No (QB).
Khoee-Solomonescu v Solomonescu,  OJ No (Gen Div); see also Sutclie v Sutclie,  AJ
No (QB); Davis v Davis,  BC J No (SC); Kavanagh v Kavanagh,  NJ No (SC);
Bauer v Noonan,  SJ No (QB).
Tanner v Simpson,  NWTJ No (SC).
Richardson v Richardson,  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 chapter.
Scharf v Scharf,  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).