Undue hardship

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 296-328



   

UNDUE HARDSHIP1

A. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Section () of the Federal Child Support Guideline s providesthatacourtmay,ontheap-

plication of either spou se or former spouse,make a child s upport order in an a mount that

is dif‌ferent from one t hat would have been determined in accorda nce with sections  to , ,

oroftheGuidelinesifthecourtf‌indsthatthespouseorformerspousemakingtheappli-

cation,orachildinrespectofwhomtheapplicationismade,wouldsuf‌ferunduehardship

as a result of an order in an amount determined underthose sections. Undue hardship may,

therefore, be invoked as a jus tif‌ication for dev iating from the amount of chi ld support pre-

scribed by the appl icable provincia l or territoria l table, or in cas es involving ch ildren over

theageofmajorityundersection()(b)oftheGuidelines,orforthepurposeofqualifying

the application of se ction  of the Guidelines involv ing obligors with income over ,,

orundersectionoftheGuidelineswherebythesupportobligationowedtoachildofthe

marriagebyaspouseorformerspousewhostandsintheplaceofaparentmaybeaf‌fected

by a natural or adoptive parent’s chi ld support obligat ion, or to quali fy the applic ation of

section  of the Gu idelines in c ases of split cu stody where each spouse has the cust ody of

at least one child of t he marriage, or in cases of  percent access or shared custody over

aperiodofayearundersectionoftheGuidelines.

In deviating from the Guidelines that

wouldbeapplicablebutforunduehardship,thecourtmay,ontheapplicationofeither

spouse or former spouse, set child support at a h igher or lower level than would ot herwise

be payable. e samehigh threshold test of“undue hardship” applies whether the payor or

the payee invoke s section  of t he Guideli nesbut succe ssful appl ications by payees a re

 SeeGeneColeman,“Guidelines’UndueHardshipProducesConf‌lictingDecisions”(July)MoneySee Gene Coleman, “Guidel ines’ Undue Hardship Produces Conf‌l icting Decisions” (Ju ly ) Money

andFam.L.;Rick Harris,“Undue Hardship:SectionoftheChild Support Guidelines”ineLaw

SocietyofUpper Canada,Child Support Gui delines: Recent and Import ant Caselaw ( De cember ).

Middleton v. MacPherson,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.).

Scharf v. Scharf,[]O.J.No.(Gen. Div.).

Kerr v. Ker r,[]B.C.J. No. (stringenttest of undue hardshipnot satisf‌ied);compare Contino v.

Leonelli-Contino,[]S.C.R. ;see Chapter,SectionB().

Suian v. Suian,[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.).

Undue Hardship 

rare. Courts should be cautious when a f‌i nding of undue h ardship is b eing sought by t he

recipient spouse because of the potentia l for abuse and should not per mit section  to be

invokedbythepayeeasanindirectvehicleforthepaymentofspousalsupportorforim-

posing a child s upport obligation on other memb ers of the obligor’s household.Economic

hardship faced by the payee should be addressed by means of an application for spousal

support.ree potential issues arise pursuant to section  of the Federal Child Support

Guidelines whenunduehardshipispleaded,namely

(i) whether undue hardship exists;

(ii) whether a comparison of the standard of living in each household precludes the

exercise of judicial discretion; and

(iii) how the court should exercise its discretion.9

e fact that the s tandard of livi ng in the recipient household wi ll be lower than that enjoyed

in the obligor’s household i s not itself suf‌f‌icient to justi fy a f‌inding of undue ha rdship.

AclaimofunduehardshipundersectionoftheFederal Child Support Guid elines

should be included in t he pleadings or t hey should be amended to i nclude such a claim

before the court makes any such f‌inding. A judicial determination undersection  of the

Federal Child Support Guidelines presupposesaseriesofstepsbeingundertaken,including

a consideration of al l relevant evidence, f‌indings of fac t being made and t he application of

thecriteriasetoutinthatsection.esearefunctionsofatrialjudge,notofanappellate

court;intheirabsence,anappellatecourtshouldremitthematterforreconsiderationby

the trial court.

It is not possible to determine whether undue hard ship wil l exist if t he child support

orderislimitedtotheamountf‌ixedbytheGuidelines,withoutf‌irstknowingtheamountof

spousalsupport,ifany,tobeordered.Whilesection.()oftheDivorce Act requi res the

court to give pr iority to child support where there a re concurrent applic ations for spousa l

and child suppor t, consideration of a n application for incre ased child s upport based on

unduehardshipwithinthemeaningofsectionoftheFede ral Child Support Guidelines

must be deferred unti l the matter of spousal support ha s been determined. e amount of

spousal support to be paid and received must then be taken into account in comparing t he

standard of l iving of the respective hous eholds under Schedule II of the Federal Child Sup-

 Saby v. MacInt osh,[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.).

 Mid dleton v. MacPherson,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.);Sk idmore v. Skidmore,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);

Saby v. MacIntosh, ibid .;Jeans v. Jeans, []N.J. No.  (U.F.C.); Williams v. Williams,[]N.W.T.J.

No.(S.C.);Racette v. Gamauf, [] P.E.I.J. No.  (T.D.); O’Hara v. O’Hara, [] S.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 Ke hler v. Kehler,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.).

 Smith v. Smith,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.).

 Galliford v. Galliford,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);To ews v. To ews ,[] M.J.No.(Q.B.);Smith v.

Hookey,[]N.J.No. (U.F.C.);Laraque v. Allooloo, []N.W.T.J. No.  (S.C.) (application under

N.W.T. Child Support Guidelines); Ign acy v. Ignacy,[]O.J.No.(S.C.J.);Tice v. Tice,[]S.J.No.

(Q.B.).

 Branch v. Branch,[]N.B.J.No.(Q.B.);L .D. v. D.D.,[]N.J.No.(S.C.).

 Brandt v. Brandt,[]N.S.J.No.(C.A.)(trialjudgeinerrorinfailingtoconsiderfaxedaf‌f‌idavitof

parent resident abroad; support order se t aside by appellate court, rehear ing ordered).

 Galliford v. Galliford,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);Schmi d v. Smith,[] O.J. No.  (S.C. J.)(appl ica-

tion underOntario Family Law Act and Child Support Guidelines).

 CHILD SUPPORT GU IDELINES IN CANADA,  

port Guidelines for the purpose of determining whether the requirements of section ()

of the Guidelines h ave been satisf‌ied.

e undue hardship provisions of sec tion  of the Federal Child Support Guid elines

create a fairly n arrow judicial discret ion to deviate from the Guideline s. Undue hardship is

atoughthresholdtomeet.

 Furthermore, t he use of the word “may” in s ection () of the

Guidelines clea rly demonstrates t hat any deviation f rom the Guidelines amount is disc re-

tionary, evenif the court f‌inds unduehardship anda lowerstandard of living in theobligor’s

household. Alt hough there is lit tle judicial guidance on when this residu al discre tion wil l

be exercised, it i s inappropriate to exercise it where the parent a lleging undue hardsh ip has

wilfu lly refused to pay child support. e presumptive r ule under section  of the Fed eral

Child Support Guidelines shouldnotbedisplacedintheabsenceofspecif‌icandcogent

evidence why the applic able table amount would cause an “undue hard ship.” Section  of

theGuidelinesisonlyavailablewhereexcessivelyhardlivingconditionsorseveref‌inancial

consequences would res ult from the payment of t he Guidelines a mount. A court shou ld

refuse to f‌ind u ndue hardship w here a parent can reas onably reduce his or her ex penses

and thereby al leviate hardship. In the absenceof the circumstancesthat constitute“undue

hardship” u nder section  of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a court has no residual

discretion to lower the applicable table amou nt of child support under the Guidel ines. If a

parent has di f‌f‌iculty pay ing the table a mount of child suppor t because of ot her f‌inancia l

commitments that fall short of constituting “undue hardship” within the meaning of sec-

tion  of the Guideline s, that parent must rearrange h is or her f‌inancial comm itments; the

child suppor t obligation takes priority. In most cases wherein the undue hardship provi-

sions of the Guideli nes are met by the obl igor, there is only a reduction i n the amount of

support; the child support obl igation is rarely exting uished, although circ umstances may

arise where t his is the appropr iate disposit ion. Wheretheobligorhasalowincome,a

court may order a modest a mount of child support as a “symbolic” ge sture to rein force the

parental role, butsuchanordermaybedeemedunnecessaryinlightoftheattendantcir-

cumstances of theparticular case.

 Ibid.

 Van Gool v. Van Gool,[]B.C.J.No. (C.A.);Badry v. Badry,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);Ander-

son-Devine v. Anderson,[] M.J.No.(Q.B.);Turner v. Yerxa, []N.B.J. No.  (Q.B.);Goudie

v. Buchanan,[]N.J.No.(U.F.C.);Green v. Green,[]N.J.No. (U.F.C.);Raynor v. Raynor,

[]N.S .J. No.  (T.D.); Tutt y v. Tutt y,[]N.S.J.No.(S.C.);Mur phy v. Bert,[]N.S.J.No.

 (S.C.);Mor rone v. Morrone,[]O.J.No.(S.C.J.);Rac ette v. Gamauf, [] P.E.I.J. No. 

(T.D.);Bowman v. Ward,[] S.J. No.  (Q.B.); Hebert v. Klebeck,[]S.J.No.(Q.B.).

 X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.),[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.);R.D.O. v. C.J.O., [] B.C.J. No. (S.C.); Goudie v. Bu-

chanan, ibid.; Murphy v. Ber t, ibid.;Hebert v. Klebeck, ibid.;Swift v. Swift,[]O.J.No.(Gen. Div.);

Semeschuk v. Biletski,[]S.J.No. (Q.B.).

 R.D.O. v. C.J.O.,ibid.

 Hanmore v. Hanmore,[]A.J.No.(C.A.);Scott v. Scott,[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.);Tu tty v. Tut ty,

[] N .S.J. N o.  (S.C .).

 Ellis v. Ellis,[]N.S.J.No.(C.A.).

 Badry v. Badry,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);S.M. v. R.P.,[]Q.J.No.(C.S.).

 Ritchie v. Solonick,[] Y.J. No. (S.C.).

 Alfaro v. Alfaro,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.);Tutty v. Tut ty, [] N.S.J. No.  (S.C.); Larkin v. Jamieson,

[] P.E.I.J. No.  (S.C.).

 Dixon v. Fleming, [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

 Larkin v. Jamieson,[] P.E.I.J.No.(S.C.).