is a tough threshold to meet. e test for undue hardship requires t hat the hardship be
severe and un reasonable. Furt hermore, the use of the word “may” in section () of the
Guidelines clearly demonstrates that any deviation from the Guidelines amount is discre-
tionary, even if the court finds u ndue hardship and a lower standard of living in the obligor’s
household. Althoug h there is lit tle judicial guidance on when this residual discretion will
be exercised, it is inappropriate to exercise it where the parent alleging undue hardsh ip has
wilfu lly refused to pay child support. e presumptive rule under section of the Fed eral
Child Support Guide lines should not be displaced in the absence of specific a nd cogent
evidence why the applicable table amount would cause an “undue hardship.” Section of
the Guidelines is only avai lable where excessively hard livi ng conditions or severe financial
consequences would result from the payment of the Guidelines amount. A court should
refuse to find undue hardship where a parent can reasonably reduce his or her expen ses and
thereby al leviate ha rdship. In the absence of the circum stances that constitute “undue
hardship” under section of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a cour t has no residual
discretion to lower the applicable table amount of child support under the Guidelines. If
a parent has difficult y paying the table amount of child support bec ause of other financial
commitments that fall short of const ituting “undue hardship” within t he meaning of sec-
tion of the Guidelines, that parent must rearrange his or her fin ancial commitments; the
child suppor t obligation ta kes priority. In most cases wherein the undue hardship provi-
sions of the Guidelines are met by the obligor, there is only a reduction in the amount of
support; the child support obligation is rarely ex tinguished, alt hough circumstances may
arise where t his is the appropriate d isposition. One way to rationalize the amou nt of child
support to be paid when a paying parent demonstrates undue hardship is by reference to
how much that parent would be required to pay for one family consisting of the tota l num-
ber of children for which he or she is legally responsible. Upon being satisfied that undue
hardship is made out, the court considers what the basic obligation would be if t he children
were all in one family a nd then apportions that amount amongst each of the children. But
to be fair to everyone, additional factors, such as d ifferences in the cost of living and the
receiving parent’s actual costs of liv ing, may need to be taken into account.
Hanmore v Hanmore,  AJ No (CA); Kimmerly v Henschel, ABQB ; Van Gool v Van
Gool,  BCJ No (CA); LCT v RK BCCA ; Campbell v Campbell, MBQB ; Turner v
Yerx a,  NBJ No (QB); Locke v Goulding, N LCA ; Pretty v Pretty, NSSC ; Locke v
Bramwell, NSSC ; Corbett v McEachren, NSSC ; Cole v Jerome, NWTSC ; Harvey
v Sturk, ONSC ; Racett e v Gamauf,  PEIJ No (TD); Barber v Barber, SKQB .
Corbett v McEachren, NSSC , citing LCT v RK, BCCA , para ; see als o Reid v Faubert,
CWT v KAT, ABQB ; X(RL) v X(JF),  BCJ No (SC); LCT v RK, BCCA ; Skorulski
v Zupan, MBQB ; Locke v Gou lding, NLCA ; Murphy v Bert, NSSC ; Swain v
Montanaro, ONSC ; Barber v Barber, SKQB .
RDO v CJO,  BCJ No (SC).
Hanmore v Hanmore,  AJ No (CA); Scott v Scott,  BCJ No (SC); Locke v Goulding,
NLCA ; Tut ty v Tut ty,  NSJ No (SC).
Ellis v Ellis,  NSJ No (CA).
Badry v Badry,  BCJ No (SC); Locke v Gould ing, NLCA ; SM v RP,  QJ No (CS).
MacEachern v Hardy, NSSC ; Ritchie v Solonick,  YJ No (SC).
Alfaro v Alfaro,  AJ No (QB); Tut ty v Tutt y,  NSJ No (SC); Larkin v Jamieson, 
PEIJ No (SC).
Cole v Jerome, NWTSC at paras –, Shaner J, citing Bumpu s v Benoit, PESCTD .