Exceptions to the Child Support Guidelines - Revision history

Nate Russell: Clicklaw directory link edit

2024-08-24T01:12:33Z

Clicklaw directory link edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 24 August 2024
Line 76:		Line 76:
	#If a parent's time with the children is specified in an agreement or a court order as concluding at the start or end of the school day, that's when that parent's time concludes and the other parent’s time starts, and credit will be divided accordingly.		#If a parent's time with the children is specified in an agreement or a court order as concluding at the start or end of the school day, that's when that parent's time concludes and the other parent’s time starts, and credit will be divided accordingly.

	In the 2014 Supreme Court case of [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/g6rr2 C.M.B. v B.D.G.], the court recognized that there is no universal formula for counting the time that children spend with each parent when the court is required to determine whether parents share parenting time for the purposes of child support. Of course, as is the case with most issues involving children, each case will be decided based on its own unique circumstances.		In the 2014 Supreme Court case of [https://canlii.ca/t/g6rr2 C.M.B. v B.D.G.], the court recognized that there is no universal formula for counting the time that children spend with each parent when the court is required to determine whether parents share parenting time for the purposes of child support. Of course, as is the case with most issues involving children, each case will be decided based on its own unique circumstances.

	====Calculating the amount of child support====		====Calculating the amount of child support====
Line 88:		Line 88:
	<blockquote>Say that Parent A's obligation to Parent B for the support of the children is $1,000 per month, and that Parent B's obligation to Parent A for the support of the children is $250 per month. Parent A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between Parent A's obligation and Parent B's obligation, and Parent B would pay nothing.</blockquote>		<blockquote>Say that Parent A's obligation to Parent B for the support of the children is $1,000 per month, and that Parent B's obligation to Parent A for the support of the children is $250 per month. Parent A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between Parent A's obligation and Parent B's obligation, and Parent B would pay nothing.</blockquote>

	However, the court is also required to look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement, and may conclude that the simple set-off approach is unfair. In a 2005 case from the Supreme Court of Canada, [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf Contino v Leonelli-Contino], the court talked about increased costs and said that courts shouldn't just apply the off-set but carefully examine the parents' budgets and actual spending on their children to decide whether shared parenting time has resulted in increased costs to a parent. The court said that these increased expenses should then be divided between the parents in proportion to their respective incomes.		However, the court is also required to look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement, and may conclude that the simple set-off approach is unfair. In a 2005 case from the Supreme Court of Canada, [https://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf Contino v Leonelli-Contino], the court talked about increased costs and said that courts shouldn't just apply the off-set but carefully examine the parents' budgets and actual spending on their children to decide whether shared parenting time has resulted in increased costs to a parent. The court said that these increased expenses should then be divided between the parents in proportion to their respective incomes.

	Finally, the court is also required to look at the "conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances" of each parent and the children. This gives the court a broad discretion to consider the resources and needs of the parents and the children. This might result in the income of a parent’s new partner being taken into account as part of the "means" of that parent, whether the parent is the payor or the recipient.		Finally, the court is also required to look at the "conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances" of each parent and the children. This gives the court a broad discretion to consider the resources and needs of the parents and the children. This might result in the income of a parent’s new partner being taken into account as part of the "means" of that parent, whether the parent is the payor or the recipient.

	Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general, the set-off approach is used. It's straightforward and easy to calculate, and makes sense to most people. The set-off approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2016 case of [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w B.P.E. v A.E.]		Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general, the set-off approach is used. It's straightforward and easy to calculate, and makes sense to most people. The set-off approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2016 case of [https://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w B.P.E. v A.E.]

	=== Income tax and child tax benefits===		=== Income tax and child tax benefits===
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court can make an award of child support that is different, usually less, than would be required by the Guidelines tables where a person would suffer ''undue hardship'' if the Guidelines table amount of child support were paid.		Under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court can make an award of child support that is different, usually less, than would be required by the Guidelines tables where a person would suffer ''undue hardship'' if the Guidelines table amount of child support were paid.

	It's important to know that simply claiming that paying or receiving the table amount causes you hardship won't be enough to justify a child support order that is lower or higher than the Guidelines table amount. The hardship caused by payment or receipt of the table amount must be an ''undue'' hardship. According to [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1f0r2 Van Gool v Van Gool ], a 1998 case from the Court of Appeal, "undue" means ''exceptional'', ''excessive'' or ''disproportionate''. In the 1999 Supreme Court case of [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1d1px Chong v Chong], the court held that establishing undue hardship requires proof of a "high threshold" of hardship, and that problems like a lower standard of living or financial obligations for a new family are not sufficient.		It's important to know that simply claiming that paying or receiving the table amount causes you hardship won't be enough to justify a child support order that is lower or higher than the Guidelines table amount. The hardship caused by payment or receipt of the table amount must be an ''undue'' hardship. According to [https://canlii.ca/t/1f0r2 Van Gool v Van Gool ], a 1998 case from the Court of Appeal, "undue" means ''exceptional'', ''excessive'' or ''disproportionate''. In the 1999 Supreme Court case of [https://canlii.ca/t/1d1px Chong v Chong], the court held that establishing undue hardship requires proof of a "high threshold" of hardship, and that problems like a lower standard of living or financial obligations for a new family are not sufficient.

	Section 10 of the Guidelines provides a list of circumstances that may cause undue hardship:		Section 10 of the Guidelines provides a list of circumstances that may cause undue hardship:
Line 171:		Line 171:
	* ''[[Family Law Act]]''		* ''[[Family Law Act]]''
	* ''[[Divorce Act]]''		* ''[[Divorce Act]]''
	* [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/80mh Child Support Guidelines]		* [https://canlii.ca/t/80mh Child Support Guidelines]

	===Links===		===Links===
			* [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/divorce/family-justice/who-can-help/recalculate-child-support-csrs Adjust your child support using the Child Support Recalculation Service (CSRS)] from the BC Ministry of Attorney General
	* [https://~~www~~.~~clicklaw~~.bc.ca/~~resource~~/~~4982~~ Adjust your child support using the Child Support Recalculation Service (CSRS)]		* [https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/child-support/ Child Support] from Dial-a-Law by the People's Law School
	* [~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw.bc~~.ca/~~resource~~/~~1235~~ Dial-A-Law ~~Script "Child Support"]~~		* [https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/finances-support/child-spousal-support Child & spousal support] from Legal Aid BC
	* [~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw~~.bc.ca/~~resource~~/~~1618 Legal Aid BC's Family Law website's information page "~~Child & spousal support"]		* [https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/finances-support/child-spousal-support/child-support Child support] from Legal Aid BC
	** Under "Child support"

	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[JP Boyd]], 24 August 2022}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[JP Boyd]], 24 August 2022}}

Nate Russell: From staging Aug 2022

2022-11-22T20:30:17Z

From staging Aug 2022

Show changes

Nate Russell: From staging July 2022

2022-07-05T22:54:58Z

From staging July 2022

Show changes

Jpboyd: /* Split custody and shared custody */

2021-03-06T21:20:45Z

Split custody and shared custody

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 6 March 2021
Line 46:		Line 46:

	<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Important changes'''</span> <br />		<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Important changes'''</span> <br />
	~~As a result of~~ the changes to the ''Divorce Act'', the language used in the Child Support Guidelines has also changed. "Split custody" is now known as ''split parenting time'' and "shared custody" is now known as ''shared parenting time''.		Under the changes to the ''Divorce Act'' that took effect on 1 March 2021, "custody" is now known as ''decision-making responsibility'' and "access" is now known as ''parenting time'', for people who are or used to be married to each other, or as ''contact'' for other people. As a result of these changes, the language used in the Child Support Guidelines has also changed. "Split custody" is now known as ''split parenting time'' and "shared custody" is now known as ''shared parenting time''.

	===Split custody===		===Split custody===

Jpboyd: /* Links */

2021-03-06T21:19:53Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 6 March 2021
Line 174:		Line 174:
	** Under "Child support", see "What are the child support guidelines and how do they work?"		** Under "Child support", see "What are the child support guidelines and how do they work?"

	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[~~Bill Murphy-Dyson \| William Murphy-Dyson]] and [[Inga Phillips~~]], ~~June 14~~, ~~2019~~}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[JP Boyd]], March 6, 2021}}

	{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox\|type=chapters}}		{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox\|type=chapters}}

Jpboyd: /* Split custody and shared custody */

2021-03-06T21:19:21Z

Split custody and shared custody

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 6 March 2021
Line 44:		Line 44:

	The fundamental purpose of child support is to help cover some of the expenses paid by the parent or guardian who has the children most of the time, on the assumption that the person who has the children most of the time will bear a greater share of the direct and indirect <span class="noglossary">costs</span> associated with raising the children. Where parents have split custody (each parent has the primary residence of one or more children) or shared custody (the parents share the children's time equally or near-equally), these <span class="noglossary">costs</span> are presumed to be shared more equally. As a result, the Guidelines make an exception to the normal rules.		The fundamental purpose of child support is to help cover some of the expenses paid by the parent or guardian who has the children most of the time, on the assumption that the person who has the children most of the time will bear a greater share of the direct and indirect <span class="noglossary">costs</span> associated with raising the children. Where parents have split custody (each parent has the primary residence of one or more children) or shared custody (the parents share the children's time equally or near-equally), these <span class="noglossary">costs</span> are presumed to be shared more equally. As a result, the Guidelines make an exception to the normal rules.

			<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Important changes'''</span> <br />
			As a result of the changes to the ''Divorce Act'', the language used in the Child Support Guidelines has also changed. "Split custody" is now known as ''split parenting time'' and "shared custody" is now known as ''shared parenting time''.

	===Split custody===		===Split custody===

Jpboyd at 21:19, 6 March 2021

2021-03-06T21:19:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 6 March 2021
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* where undue hardship is claimed, and		* where undue hardship is claimed, and
	* where other arrangements have been made for the direct or indirect benefit of the children.		* where other arrangements have been made for the direct or indirect benefit of the children.

			<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Important changes'''</span> <br />
			Look for explanations under this heading to read about recent changes to family law affecting the information provided in this section.

	==Payors with incomes higher than $150,000==		==Payors with incomes higher than $150,000==

Nate Russell at 21:47, 31 July 2019

2019-07-31T21:47:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 31 July 2019
Line 164:		Line 164:
	===Links===		===Links===

	* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1235 ~~Canadian Bar Association BC Branch:~~ Script ~~on child support~~]		* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1235 Dial-A-Law Script "Child Support"]
	* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/~~1666~~ Legal Services Society's Family Law website: What the child support guidelines ~~are~~ and how they work]		* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1618 Legal Services Society's Family Law website's information page "Child & spousal support"]
	* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1618 Legal Services Society's Family Law website: Child support]		** Under "Child support", see "What are the child support guidelines and how do they work?"


	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Bill Murphy-Dyson \| William Murphy-Dyson]] and [[Inga Phillips]], June 14, 2019}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Bill Murphy-Dyson \| William Murphy-Dyson]] and [[Inga Phillips]], June 14, 2019}}

Nate Russell: /* Calculating support */

2019-07-04T01:19:47Z

Calculating support

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:19, 4 July 2019
Line 80:		Line 80:
	Once the 40% threshold issue has been dealt with, the court must then decide how much child support ought to be paid, based on section 9 of the Guidelines. The intention is to reduce any difference in the living standards between the two homes in which the children live after their parents’ separation.		Once the 40% threshold issue has been dealt with, the court must then decide how much child support ought to be paid, based on section 9 of the Guidelines. The intention is to reduce any difference in the living standards between the two homes in which the children live after their parents’ separation.

	The analysis starts by ~~looking at~~ each parent's income, finding each parent's support obligation amount under the Guidelines (section 9(a)), then ''offsetting'' the two to come ~~out~~ with a figure that one parent (the higher earning one most likely) owes the other. If Byron would pay $940 per month under the Guidelines, and Helen would pay $1,040 per month under the Guidelines, then the ''set-off'' amount is $200.		The analysis starts by determining each parent's income, finding each parent's support obligation amount under the applicable Guidelines tables (section 9(a)), then ''offsetting'' the two numbers to come up with a figure that one parent (the higher earning one most likely) owes the other. If Byron would pay $940 per month under the Guidelines, and Helen would pay $1,040 per month under the Guidelines, then the ''set-off'' amount is $200.

	The court will then look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement (section 9(b)).		The court will then look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement (section 9(b)).

	In the leading case on section 9, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada ~~said this with respect to~~ section 9(b):		In the leading case on section 9, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed which factors should be examined under section 9(b). A court will examine the budgets and actual child-related expenditures of both parents. It will then determine whether shared custody has resulted in increased costs globally. These increased expenses should then be apportioned between the parents in accordance with their respective incomes.

	~~<blockquote>~~		Finally, under section 9(c), a court will look at the evidence regarding the "conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances" of each parent and any child. Under section 9(c), the court has broad discretion to analyze the resources and needs of both parents, and the children. So, for example, one parent’s new partner’s income may be taken into account as part of an overall analysis of that parent’s household income, whether that parent is the payor or the recipient of child support.
	[52] What should the courts examine under this heading? Section 9(b) does not refer merely to the expenses assumed by the payor parent as a result of the increase in access time from less than 40 percent to more than 40 percent, as argued in this Court. This cannot be for at least two reasons.
	~~First~~, ~~it would be irreconcilable with the fact that some applications~~ under section 9 ~~are not meant to obtain a variation of a support order, but constitute a first order~~ (~~see Payne, at p. 261~~)~~. Second, as mentioned earlier, the Table amounts in the Guidelines do not assume that the payor parent pays for the housing~~, ~~food, or any other expense for the child. The Tables are based on the amount needed to provide a reasonable standard of living for~~ a single custodial parent (see ''Formula for the Table of Amounts Contained in the Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Technical Report'', at p. 2). This Court cannot be blind to this reality and must simply conclude that section 9(b) recognizes that the ''total cost'' of raising children in shared custody situations may be greater than in situations where there is sole custody: ''Slade v. Slade'', at para. 17; see also Colman, at pp. 71-74; Wensley, at pp. 83-85. Consequently, ''all'' of the payor parent’s costs should be considered under section 9(b). This does not mean that the payor parent is in effect spending more money on the child than they were before shared custody was accomplished. As I discuss later in these reasons, it means that the court will generally be called upon to examine the budgets and actual expenditures of both parents in addressing the needs of the children and to determine whether shared custody has in effect resulted in increased costs globally.
	~~Increased costs would normally result from duplication resulting from the fact that the child is effectively being given two homes.~~
	~~</blockquote>~~

	~~Finally, the~~ court will look at the evidence regarding the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each parent and ~~of the children (section 9(c)~~. Under section 9(c), the court has broad discretion to analyze the resources and needs of both parents, and the children. So, for example, a parent’s new partner’s income may be taken into account as part of an overall analysis of that parent’s household income, whether that parent is the payor or the recipient of child support.

	Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general the set-off calculation will be used. This approach was recently confirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of [http://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w ''B.P.E. v. A.E.''], 2016 BCCA 335, which gave deference to the set-off approach in a shared custody situation.		Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general the set-off calculation will be used. This approach was recently confirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of [http://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w ''B.P.E. v. A.E.''], 2016 BCCA 335, which gave deference to the set-off approach in a shared custody situation.

	~~:'''Example:'''~~
	:Say that parent A's obligation to parent B for the children in B's care is $1,000 per month, and that parent B's obligation to parent A for the children in A's care is $250 per month. A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between A's obligation and B's obligation, and B would pay nothing


	==== Income Tax and Child Tax Benefits====		==== Income Tax and Child Tax Benefits====

Nate Russell at 00:50, 4 July 2019

2019-07-04T00:50:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 4 July 2019
Line 20:		Line 20:
	The tables set out in the Child Support Guidelines only go up to an annual gross income of $150,000. For incomes over that amount, the Guidelines provide formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable.		The tables set out in the Child Support Guidelines only go up to an annual gross income of $150,000. For incomes over that amount, the Guidelines provide formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable.

	However, for payors with very high incomes, these formulas can result in extremely large child support payments, to the point where the payments might begin to exceed what could reasonably be necessary to meet a child's expenses. As a result, s. 4 of the Guidelines gives the court the flexibility to make an order for child support in an amount different than that generated by the formulas:		However, for payors with very high incomes, these formulas can result in extremely large child support payments, to the point where the payments might begin to exceed what could reasonably be necessary to meet a child's expenses. As a result, section 4 of the Guidelines gives the court the flexibility to make an order for child support in an amount different than that generated by the formulas:

	<blockquote><tt>Where the income of the spouse against whom a child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of a child support order is</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>Where the income of the spouse against whom a child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of a child support order is</tt></blockquote>
Line 29:		Line 29:
	<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><tt>(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.</tt></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>		<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><tt>(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.</tt></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

	Before departing from the Guidelines formulas under this section, the court must first determine that the formula amount would be inappropriate. If the court makes this finding, it then looks at the circumstances of the individual case and the factors set out in s. 4(b)(ii). While there is a very strong presumption that the Guidelines formulas are appropriate, this presumption can still be challenged, and the court will usually consider the following factors in making its decision:		Before departing from the Guidelines formulas under this section, the court must first determine that the formula amount would be inappropriate. If the court makes this finding, it then looks at the circumstances of the individual case and the factors set out in section 4(b)(ii). While there is a very strong presumption that the Guidelines formulas are appropriate, this presumption can still be challenged, and the court will usually consider the following factors in making its decision:

	*the financial circumstances of the parties and the actual circumstances of their children,		*the financial circumstances of the parties and the actual circumstances of their children,
Line 44:		Line 44:
	===Split custody===		===Split custody===

	Section 8 of the Guidelines applies to split custody situations. S. 8 states that:		Section 8 of the Guidelines applies to split custody situations. Section 8 states that:

	<blockquote><tt>8. Where each spouse has custody of one or more children, the amount of a child support order is the difference between the amount that each spouse would otherwise pay if a child support order were sought against each of the spouses.</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>8. Where each spouse has custody of one or more children, the amount of a child support order is the difference between the amount that each spouse would otherwise pay if a child support order were sought against each of the spouses.</tt></blockquote>
Line 57:		Line 57:
	===Shared custody===		===Shared custody===

	Section 9 of the Guidelines applies to shared custody situations. S.9 states that:		Section 9 of the Guidelines applies to shared custody situations. Section 9 states that:
	<blockquote><tt>9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into <span class="noglossary">account</span></tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into <span class="noglossary">account</span></tt></blockquote>
	<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;</tt></blockquote></blockquote>		<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
Line 78:		Line 78:
	====Calculating support====		====Calculating support====

	Once the 40% threshold issue has been dealt with, the court must then decide how much child support ought to be paid, based on s.9 of the Guidelines. The intention is to reduce any difference in the living standards between the two homes in which the children live after their parents’ separation.		Once the 40% threshold issue has been dealt with, the court must then decide how much child support ought to be paid, based on section 9 of the Guidelines. The intention is to reduce any difference in the living standards between the two homes in which the children live after their parents’ separation.

	The ~~starting point of the~~ analysis ~~is to look~~ at ~~the resulting child~~ support amount ~~by offsetting each parent’s obligation~~ under the Guidelines (s. 9(a)).		The analysis starts by looking at each parent's income, finding each parent's support obligation amount under the Guidelines (section 9(a)), then ''offsetting'' the two to come out with a figure that one parent (the higher earning one most likely) owes the other. If Byron would pay $940 per month under the Guidelines, and Helen would pay $1,040 per month under the Guidelines, then the ''set-off'' amount is $200.

	The court will then look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement (s.9 (b)).		The court will then look at the increased costs associated with a shared parenting arrangement (section 9(b)).

	In the leading case on s.9, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada said this with respect to s. 9(b):		In the leading case on section 9, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada said this with respect to section 9(b):

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	[52] What should the courts examine under this heading? Section 9(b) does not refer merely to the expenses assumed by the payor parent as a result of the increase in access time from less than 40 percent to more than 40 percent, as argued in this Court. This cannot be for at least two reasons.		[52] What should the courts examine under this heading? Section 9(b) does not refer merely to the expenses assumed by the payor parent as a result of the increase in access time from less than 40 percent to more than 40 percent, as argued in this Court. This cannot be for at least two reasons.
	First, it would be irreconcilable with the fact that some applications under s. 9 are not meant to obtain a variation of a support order, but constitute a first order (see Payne, at p. 261). Second, as mentioned earlier, the Table amounts in the Guidelines do not assume that the payor parent pays for the housing, food, or any other expense for the child. The Tables are based on the amount needed to provide a reasonable standard of living for a single custodial parent (see ''Formula for the Table of Amounts Contained in the Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Technical Report'', at p. 2). This Court cannot be blind to this reality and must simply conclude that s. 9(b) recognizes that the ''total cost'' of raising children in shared custody situations may be greater than in situations where there is sole custody: ''Slade v. Slade'', at para. 17; see also Colman, at pp. 71-74; Wensley, at pp. 83-85. Consequently, ''all'' of the payor parent’s costs should be considered under s. 9(b). This does not mean that the payor parent is in effect spending more money on the child than they were before shared custody was accomplished. As I discuss later in these reasons, it means that the court will generally be called upon to examine the budgets and actual expenditures of both parents in addressing the needs of the children and to determine whether shared custody has in effect resulted in increased costs globally.		First, it would be irreconcilable with the fact that some applications under section 9 are not meant to obtain a variation of a support order, but constitute a first order (see Payne, at p. 261). Second, as mentioned earlier, the Table amounts in the Guidelines do not assume that the payor parent pays for the housing, food, or any other expense for the child. The Tables are based on the amount needed to provide a reasonable standard of living for a single custodial parent (see ''Formula for the Table of Amounts Contained in the Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Technical Report'', at p. 2). This Court cannot be blind to this reality and must simply conclude that section 9(b) recognizes that the ''total cost'' of raising children in shared custody situations may be greater than in situations where there is sole custody: ''Slade v. Slade'', at para. 17; see also Colman, at pp. 71-74; Wensley, at pp. 83-85. Consequently, ''all'' of the payor parent’s costs should be considered under section 9(b). This does not mean that the payor parent is in effect spending more money on the child than they were before shared custody was accomplished. As I discuss later in these reasons, it means that the court will generally be called upon to examine the budgets and actual expenditures of both parents in addressing the needs of the children and to determine whether shared custody has in effect resulted in increased costs globally.
	Increased costs would normally result from duplication resulting from the fact that the child is effectively being given two homes.		Increased costs would normally result from duplication resulting from the fact that the child is effectively being given two homes.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	Finally, the court will look at the evidence regarding the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each parent and of the children (s. 9 (c). Under s.9 (c), the court has broad discretion to analyze the resources and needs of both parents, and the children. So, for example, a parent’s new partner’s income may be taken into account as part of an overall analysis of that parent’s household income, whether that parent is the payor or the recipient of child support.		Finally, the court will look at the evidence regarding the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each parent and of the children (section 9(c). Under section 9(c), the court has broad discretion to analyze the resources and needs of both parents, and the children. So, for example, a parent’s new partner’s income may be taken into account as part of an overall analysis of that parent’s household income, whether that parent is the payor or the recipient of child support.

	Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general the set-off calculation will be used. This approach was recently confirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of [http://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w ''B.P.E. v. A.E.''], 2016 BCCA 335, which gave deference to the set-off approach in a shared custody situation.		Although the court has developed a number of different formulas to calculate the amount of child support payable in shared parenting situations, in general the set-off calculation will be used. This approach was recently confirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of [http://canlii.ca/t/gsp1w ''B.P.E. v. A.E.''], 2016 BCCA 335, which gave deference to the set-off approach in a shared custody situation.
Line 99:		Line 99:
	:Say that parent A's obligation to parent B for the children in B's care is $1,000 per month, and that parent B's obligation to parent A for the children in A's care is $250 per month. A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between A's obligation and B's obligation, and B would pay nothing		:Say that parent A's obligation to parent B for the children in B's care is $1,000 per month, and that parent B's obligation to parent A for the children in A's care is $250 per month. A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between A's obligation and B's obligation, and B would pay nothing

	~~===~~
	==== Income Tax and Child Tax Benefits====		==== Income Tax and Child Tax Benefits====

Line 128:		Line 128:
	==Undue hardship==		==Undue hardship==

	Under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court can make an award of child support that is different (usually less) than would be required by the Guidelines tables where a person would suffer ''undue hardship'' if the Guidelines table amount of child support were paid.		Under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court can make an award of child support that is different (usually less) than would be required by the Guidelines tables where a person would suffer ''undue hardship'' if the Guidelines table amount of child support were paid.

	Merely claiming "hardship" will not be sufficient to justify a child support order that is lower than the Guidelines table amount. The hardship caused by payment of the table amount must be an undue hardship. According to ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1f0r2 Van Gool v. Van Gool ]'', 1998 CanLII 5650 (BCCA), a case of our Court of Appeal, ''undue'' means "exceptional, excessive or disproportionate." In the 1999 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1d1px Chong v. Chong]'',1999 CanLII 6246 (BCSC), the court held that establishing undue hardship requires a "high threshold" of hardship, and that problems like a lower standard of living or financial obligations for a new family are not sufficient.		Merely claiming "hardship" will not be sufficient to justify a child support order that is lower than the Guidelines table amount. The hardship caused by payment of the table amount must be an undue hardship. According to ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1f0r2 Van Gool v. Van Gool ]'', 1998 CanLII 5650 (BCCA), a case of our Court of Appeal, ''undue'' means "exceptional, excessive or disproportionate." In the 1999 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1d1px Chong v. Chong]'',1999 CanLII 6246 (BCSC), the court held that establishing undue hardship requires a "high threshold" of hardship, and that problems like a lower standard of living or financial obligations for a new family are not sufficient.
Line 144:		Line 144:
	<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(e) the spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability...</tt></blockquote></blockquote>		<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(e) the spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability...</tt></blockquote></blockquote>

	Note that this list is not exhaustive, meaning that the court may take other factors, in addition to those in the list, into <span class="noglossary">account</span> in deciding applications under s. 10. The test to prove that an order under the Guidelines would cause undue hardship involves two steps:		Note that this list is not exhaustive, meaning that the court may take other factors, in addition to those in the list, into <span class="noglossary">account</span> in deciding applications under section 10. The test to prove that an order under the Guidelines would cause undue hardship involves two steps:

	#under s. 10(3), the court must find that the household standard of living of the parent claiming undue hardship, calculated using the formulas described in Schedule II of the Guidelines, is lower than that of the other parent, and		#under section 10(3), the court must find that the household standard of living of the parent claiming undue hardship, calculated using the formulas described in Schedule II of the Guidelines, is lower than that of the other parent, and
	#the court must find that an award under the Guidelines would in fact cause undue hardship to the payor or the recipient under s. 10(1)		#the court must find that an award under the Guidelines would in fact cause undue hardship to the payor or the recipient under section 10(1)

	If you cannot prove a lower standard of living under step 1 above, do not bother going to step 2 because the hardship claim has already been lost.		If you cannot prove a lower standard of living under step 1 above, do not bother going to step 2 because the hardship claim has already been lost.