7,367
edits
Difference between revisions of "The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 22:15, 31 July 2019
, 22:15, 31 July 2019no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = spousalsupport}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge | {{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = spousalsupport}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge | ||
|ChapterEditors = [[David Dundee | |ChapterEditors = [[David Dundee]] and [[Gillian Oliver]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DOJbadge | {{DOJbadge | ||
| resourcetype = a detailed user's guide to | | resourcetype = a detailed user's guide to | ||
| link = the [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ | | link = the [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ug_a1-gu_a1/ Advisory Guidelines] | ||
}}The [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ssag-ldfpae.html Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines] is an academic paper released by the federal Department of Justice in July 2008. It is not a law and is not expected to become a law. | }}The ''[http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ssag-ldfpae.html Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines]'' is an academic paper released by the federal Department of Justice in July 2008. It is not a law and is not expected to become a law. | ||
When someone is entitled to receive spousal support, the Advisory Guidelines describes several different formulas that can be used to calculate how much support should be paid and the length of time it should be paid for. | When someone is entitled to receive spousal support, the Advisory Guidelines describes several different formulas that can be used to calculate how much support should be paid and the length of time it should be paid for. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
In 2001, the federal Department of Justice struck an advisory working group to look into the feasibility of uniform guidelines for the calculation of spousal support. The group was composed of judges, family law lawyers, law school faculty members, and social workers. The group was led by Professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, both gifted and highly qualified academics with strong backgrounds in family law. | In 2001, the federal Department of Justice struck an advisory working group to look into the feasibility of uniform guidelines for the calculation of spousal support. The group was composed of judges, family law lawyers, law school faculty members, and social workers. The group was led by Professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, both gifted and highly qualified academics with strong backgrounds in family law. | ||
In January 2005, Professors Rogerson and Thompson released their first paper, ''Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A Draft Proposal'', for public comment and feedback. After touring the country speaking to judges, lawyers and academics, and monitoring the case law on the draft Advisory Guidelines as it developed over several years, Rogerson and Thompson released their final paper, ''Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines'', in July 2008. | In January 2005, Professors Rogerson and Thompson released their first paper, ''Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A Draft Proposal'', for public comment and feedback. After touring the country speaking to judges, lawyers, and academics, and monitoring the case law on the draft Advisory Guidelines as it developed over several years, Rogerson and Thompson released their final paper, ''Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines'', in July 2008. This was supplemented by the [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ug_a1-gu_a1/index.html Revised Users Guide] in 2016. | ||
===The legal status of the advisory guidelines=== | ===The legal status of the advisory guidelines=== | ||
The Advisory Guidelines is not a law, and people involved in family law disputes are not bound by it. As of July 2008, the Department of Justice said that it had no plans to turn the Advisory Guidelines into a law and didn't intend to do so. I've heard nothing to suggest a contrary intention since. | The Advisory Guidelines is not a law, and people involved in family law disputes are not bound by it. As of July 2008, the Department of Justice said that it had no plans to turn the Advisory Guidelines into a law and didn't intend to do so. I've heard nothing to suggest a contrary intention since. The BC Court of Appeal, however, has said that a judge must consider the Advisory Guidelines, and a ruling that falls substantially outside its ranges may be an appealable error. Lawyers and the courts now routinely use the Advisory Guidelines in making decisions about spousal support. Read more below under the heading "The state of the law in British Columbia." | ||
===The Advisory Guidelines in a nutshell=== | ===The Advisory Guidelines in a nutshell=== | ||
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is an attempt to capture how the majority of Canadian court decisions on spousal support have determined how much support should be paid, and how long support should be paid for, in mathematical formulas. It is not intended to change the law on spousal support, rather it is intended to normalize future decisions about spousal support based upon how the general majority of past court decisions have dealt with the issue. | The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is an attempt to capture how the majority of Canadian court decisions on spousal support have determined how much support should be paid, and how long support should be paid for, in mathematical formulas. It is not intended to change the law on spousal support, rather, it is intended to normalize future decisions about spousal support based upon how the general majority of past court decisions have dealt with the issue. | ||
====Influence of existing law==== | ====Influence of existing law==== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The essential concept underlying the Advisory Guidelines is the calculation of support based on the total disposable income available to both parties, rather than looking at each party's needs and means separately. The formulas work with the total amount of money collectively available to a couple. | The essential concept underlying the Advisory Guidelines is the calculation of support based on the total disposable income available to both parties, rather than looking at each party's needs and means separately. The formulas work with the total amount of money collectively available to a couple. | ||
Income sharing does not mean an equal division of income, however, | Income sharing does not mean an equal division of income, however. When child support is being paid, the Advisory Guidelines proposes a spousal support range equal to between 40% and 46% of the total disposable income available to both parties. When no child support is paid, the Advisory Guidelines gives the recipient a share of the difference between the recipient's income and the payor's income, which increases with the length of the relationship. | ||
====Entitlement to support==== | ====Entitlement to support==== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
In many cases, the Advisory Guidelines sets out a range of years that support will be paid for. In certain cases, such as long marriages, where the dependant spouse is older or when child support is paid, support will be paid for an indefinite period of time. | In many cases, the Advisory Guidelines sets out a range of years that support will be paid for. In certain cases, such as long marriages, where the dependant spouse is older or when child support is paid, support will be paid for an indefinite period of time. | ||
The key factors in determining the length of time for which support will paid are the length of the marriage plus any period of time the parties lived together before marriage, the age of the recipient of support and the age of the youngest child. | The key factors in determining the length of time for which support will be paid are the length of the marriage plus any period of time the parties lived together before marriage, the age of the recipient of support, and the age of the youngest child. | ||
====Upper and lower income limits==== | ====Upper and lower income limits==== | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
====Exceptions to the formulas and restructuring the results==== | ====Exceptions to the formulas and restructuring the results==== | ||
To every rule there is an exception, and the Advisory Guidelines is no different. The ranges the Advisory Guidelines formulas produce aren't carved in stone. Factors such as advanced age, illness, debt load and so forth may suggest that the results for amount, duration, or both should be ignored. | To every rule there is an exception, and the Advisory Guidelines is no different. The ranges the Advisory Guidelines formulas produce aren't carved in stone. Factors such as advanced age, illness, debt load, and so forth may suggest that the results for amount, duration, or both should be ignored. | ||
The Advisory Guidelines also allows for the restructuring of a support award to pay more for a shorter time, to pay less for a longer time, or to pay it all up front in one lump sum. Restructuring keeps the total amount paid within the results generated by the Advisory Guidelines formulas. | The Advisory Guidelines also allows for the restructuring of a support award to pay more for a shorter time, to pay less for a longer time, or to pay it all up front in one lump sum. Restructuring keeps the total amount paid within the results generated by the Advisory Guidelines formulas. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
===DivorceMate's spousal support calculator=== | ===DivorceMate's spousal support calculator=== | ||
Until fairly recently, my enthusiasm for the Advisory Guidelines was primarily tempered by the absence of public, free spousal support calculators. This seemed to me to be an appropriate function of government, particularly as it was government that funded the Advisory Guidelines project, however the Department of Justice had no enthusiasm for the project. Making things worse, the two main manufacturers of spousal support software, DivorceMate and ChildView, would not sell their product to people who weren't employed in the justice system in some capacity. | Until fairly recently, my enthusiasm for the Advisory Guidelines was primarily tempered by the absence of public, free spousal support calculators. This seemed to me to be an appropriate function of government, particularly as it was government that funded the Advisory Guidelines project, however; the Department of Justice had no enthusiasm for the project. Making things worse, the two main manufacturers of spousal support software, DivorceMate and ChildView, would not sell their product to people who weren't employed in the justice system in some capacity. | ||
This all changed in April 2011 when DivorceMate stepped up to the plate with a free public website, [http://mysupportcalculator.ca mysupportcalculator.ca]. The website performs child support calculations under the Child Support Guidelines and spousal support calculations under the Advisory Guidelines. The results of the spousal support calculations do not precisely match the results produced by their bells-and-whistles product for professionals and do not <span class="noglossary">account</span> for all of the factors that can impact on the results (such as source of income, tax benefits, deductions and credits, payments to special expenses, and so forth). However, the results will be fine for most people most of the time. DivorceMate deserves much credit for making this resource available, and I thank them for it, whether the resource is a revenue-generating advertising platform or not. | This all changed in April 2011 when DivorceMate stepped up to the plate with a free public website, [http://mysupportcalculator.ca mysupportcalculator.ca]. The website performs child support calculations under the Child Support Guidelines and spousal support calculations under the Advisory Guidelines. The results of the spousal support calculations do not precisely match the results produced by their bells-and-whistles product for professionals and do not <span class="noglossary">account</span> for all of the factors that can impact on the results (such as source of income, tax benefits, deductions and credits, payments to special expenses, and so forth). However, the results will be fine for most people most of the time. DivorceMate deserves much credit for making this resource available, and I thank them for it, whether the resource is a revenue-generating advertising platform or not. | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
==The views of the courts== | ==The views of the courts== | ||
On 4 July 2005, the British Columbia Supreme Court released its first judgment considering the Advisory Guidelines, in the case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1l3x1 W. v. W]'', 2005 BCSC 1010. The judge said that the Advisory Guidelines "provide a cross check against the assessment made under existing law" | On 4 July 2005, the British Columbia Supreme Court released its first judgment considering the Advisory Guidelines, in the case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1l3x1 W. v. W]'', 2005 BCSC 1010. The judge said that the Advisory Guidelines "provide a cross check against the assessment made under existing law," and that the formulas provided in the Advisory Guidelines are "consistent with the law in British Columbia." She then made an order for spousal support using the Advisory Guidelines as a check, without expressly applying the Advisory Guidelines to determine the issue. The Advisory Guidelines, she held, is not law, and is not intended to become law. | ||
On 19 July 2005, the court released its second judgment on the Advisory Guidelines, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1l2x7 M.S. v. W.S.]'', 2005 BCSC 939. In this case, the judge held, rather emphatically, that the court is not bound by the Advisory Guidelines in determining spousal support and that "equitable distribution can be achieved in a variety of ways and need not be calculated according to a strict formula." | On 19 July 2005, the court released its second judgment on the Advisory Guidelines, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1l2x7 M.S. v. W.S.]'', 2005 BCSC 939. In this case, the judge held, rather emphatically, that the court is not bound by the Advisory Guidelines in determining spousal support and that "equitable distribution can be achieved in a variety of ways and need not be calculated according to a strict formula." | ||
This view was softened later in 2005 by the Court of Appeal in the case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1lb8m Yemchuk v. Yemchuk]'', 2005 BCCA 406. In this case, the court held that the Advisory Guidelines | This view was softened later in 2005 by the Court of Appeal in the case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1lb8m Yemchuk v. Yemchuk]'', 2005 BCCA 406. In this case, the court held that the Advisory Guidelines reflect the general results seen in the case law on spousal support. While the court stopped well short of saying that the Advisory Guidelines must be used to determine spousal support, it did consider the Advisory Guidelines a useful tool and a factor to be considered in making an order for spousal support, and made an order for support that was within a hair's breadth of the numbers the Advisory Guidelines formulas produced. | ||
===The state of the law in British Columbia=== | ===The state of the law in British Columbia=== | ||
As a result of ''Yemchuk'', the law in British Columbia was that the Advisory Guidelines is a factor to be taken into <span class="noglossary">account</span> in fixing the amount and duration of an order for spousal support, but that it is no more than a factor. This changed with ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1nwzz Redpath v. Redpath]'', 2006 BCCA 338, a 2006 decision of the Court of Appeal, in which the court held that it is an appealable error for a judge to fail to consider the results produced by the Advisory Guidelines. This moves things well beyond ''Yemchuk'', as now a trial judge ''must'' consider the Advisory Guidelines formula results in making a decision on spousal support. In 2010 the Court of Appeal went even further in ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2d35m Domirti v. Domirti]'', 2010 BCCA 472, ruling that an award of spousal support that falls substantially outside the Advisory Guidelines ranges may be an appealable error. | As a result of ''Yemchuk'', the law in British Columbia was that the Advisory Guidelines is a factor to be taken into <span class="noglossary">account</span> in fixing the amount and duration of an order for spousal support, but that it is no more than a factor. This changed with ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1nwzz Redpath v. Redpath]'', 2006 BCCA 338, a 2006 decision of the Court of Appeal, in which the court held that it is an appealable error for a judge to fail to consider the results produced by the Advisory Guidelines. This moves things well beyond ''Yemchuk'', as now a trial judge ''must'' consider the Advisory Guidelines formula results in making a decision on spousal support. In 2010, the Court of Appeal went even further in ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2d35m Domirti v. Domirti]'', 2010 BCCA 472, ruling that an award of spousal support that falls substantially outside the Advisory Guidelines, ranges may be an appealable error. | ||
The law in British Columbia, then, is that the results of the Advisory Guidelines calculations must be considered when making a decision on spousal support. The Advisory Guidelines is, in other words, all but mandatory in this province. | The law in British Columbia, then, is that the results of the Advisory Guidelines calculations must be considered when making a decision on spousal support. The Advisory Guidelines is, in other words, all but mandatory in this province. | ||
Of course, this also means that lawyers must become proficient in using the Advisory Guidelines formulas or they risk giving their clients and the courts incorrect information. The Without Child Support calculations, discussed later, are not terribly complex, but the With Child Support calculations demand a basic knowledge of the federal and provincial benefits and credits relating to children, the different deductions that apply to employment and self-employment income, received versus taxable dividends, and a few other wrinkles relating to the calculation of after-tax income. Owning the software required to do the Advisory Guidelines calculations isn't enough. Lawyers need to know how to expertly use that software, with tax and income issues in mind, and the software has to do the math and actually perform those calculations correctly. | |||
===The law in other provinces=== | ===The law in other provinces=== | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Here is a sampling of judicial comment on the Advisory Guidelines. | Here is a sampling of judicial comment on the Advisory Guidelines. | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1llxc Woodall v. Woodall]'', 2005 ONCJ 253 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1llxc Woodall v. Woodall]'', 2005 ONCJ 253 (an Ontario case): | ||
<blockquote>"Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines may be of some assistance to the court on an initial application for spousal support, it must be noted that they are advisory only and are not binding on the court. More importantly, the authors of the guidelines make it very clear in the Executive Summary ... that the advisory guidelines do not deal with the effect of a prior agreement on spousal support and that this issue, like entitlement, is outside the scope of the advisory guidelines and would continue to be dealt with under the evolving law guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in ''Miglin v. Miglin''."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines may be of some assistance to the court on an initial application for spousal support, it must be noted that they are advisory only and are not binding on the court. More importantly, the authors of the guidelines make it very clear in the Executive Summary ... that the advisory guidelines do not deal with the effect of a prior agreement on spousal support and that this issue, like entitlement, is outside the scope of the advisory guidelines and would continue to be dealt with under the evolving law guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in ''Miglin v. Miglin''."</blockquote> | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1mjwb Puddifant v. Fraser]'', 2005 NSSC 340 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1mjwb Puddifant v. Fraser]'', 2005 NSSC 340 (a Nova Scotia case): | ||
<blockquote>"Counsel urged the court to consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. These are not law."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"Counsel urged the court to consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. These are not law."</blockquote> | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvph Modry v. Modry]'', 2005 ABQB 262 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvph Modry v. Modry]'', 2005 ABQB 262 (an Alberta case): | ||
<blockquote>"These <span class="noglossary">Guidelines</span> are not mandatory and are only a suggestion. There has been very little judicial analysis of the Guidelines as they are new. | <blockquote>"67. These <span class="noglossary">Guidelines</span> are not mandatory and are only a suggestion. There has been very little judicial analysis of the Guidelines as they are new. [...]</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>"I suggest that courts will likely use these Guidelines as a <span class="noglossary">bench</span> mark to see what the support amount would be if the Guidelines were | <blockquote>"70. I suggest that courts will likely use these Guidelines as a <span class="noglossary">bench</span> mark to see what the support amount would be if the Guidelines were applied. Thus it will serve as another method of calculation, which when coincidentally echoing judicial discretion, will become referenced with approval. In other cases where the courts are either astonished by the payment proposition, that is that the math creates a number that is perceived to be too high or inadequate, the courts will shy away from its <span class="noglossary">application</span>."</blockquote> | ||
And, finally, my personal favourite for the judge's powerful and florid language, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754 | And, finally, my personal favourite for the judge's powerful and florid language, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754 (an Alberta case): | ||
<blockquote>"The provisions of the ''Divorce Act'' as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada are the law in this country with respect to spousal support. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are the work of two university professors, Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, assisted by a small committee. Those with strong views to the contrary were not involved, nor was there widespread discussion of the guidelines prior to their publication. They have not been enacted by the Parliament of Canada or any Provincial Legislature nor are they the subject of any governmental regulation.</blockquote> | <blockquote>"The provisions of the ''Divorce Act'' as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada are the law in this country with respect to spousal support. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are the work of two university professors, Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, assisted by a small committee. Those with strong views to the contrary were not involved, nor was there widespread discussion of the guidelines prior to their publication. They have not been enacted by the Parliament of Canada or any Provincial Legislature nor are they the subject of any governmental regulation.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
===The ''Without Child Support'' formula=== | ===The ''Without Child Support'' formula=== | ||
The Without Child Support Formula is fairly straightforward | The Without Child Support Formula is fairly straightforward. | ||
'''Amount:''' The ''amount'' of support is 1.5 to 2 percent of the difference between the parties' gross incomes for each year of marriage. | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>''Example:'' Say a relationship is 10 years long, and Party A has a gross income of $50,000 and Party B has an income of $20,000. The difference between the parties' incomes is $30,000. Party B would have a share in the difference of 15 to 20 percent (1.5 times 10 and 2 times 10), or between $4,500 and $6,000 per year. On a monthly basis, support would be paid at $375 to $500.</blockquote> | ||
The maximum amount payable under | '''Duration:''' The ''length of time'' support will be paid is 0.5 to 1 year for each year of the relationship. If a couple have been together for more than 20 years, or if the age of the dependant party plus the number of years of the relationship equals 65, support will be paid indefinitely. | ||
<blockquote>''Example:'' Using the same example, support would be payable for 5 to 10 years (0.5 times 10 and 1 times 10). If, however, the dependent party was 55 at the time of separation, support would be paid indefinitely (55 years of age plus 10 years equals 65).</blockquote> | |||
The maximum amount payable under the Without Child Support Formula ranges from 37.5% of the difference between the parties' gross incomes to 50% of the difference between the parties' net incomes (calculated after taxes and benefits). | |||
The maximum time spousal support can be payable under this formula ranges from an amount of time equal to the duration of the parties' cohabiting relationship to an indefinite amount of time. | The maximum time spousal support can be payable under this formula ranges from an amount of time equal to the duration of the parties' cohabiting relationship to an indefinite amount of time. | ||
| Line 167: | Line 168: | ||
===The main ''With Child Support'' formula=== | ===The main ''With Child Support'' formula=== | ||
This formula is a lot more complex. In | This formula is a lot more complex. In the With Child Support Formula, child support is taken out of the payor's gross income and the recipient's income, taxes are taken into account, and government benefits are added to the recipient's income. The reason why child support is deducted from the recipient's income is to reflect the <span class="noglossary">costs</span> that parents bear in raising the children. | ||
'''Amount:''' The ''amount'' of support is 40 to 46% of the payor's individual net disposable income plus the recipient's net disposable income. | |||
The ''payor's net disposable income'' is their gross income, minus taxes and minus their child support obligation, including the tax credits they receive as a result of paying spousal support. | |||
The ''recipient's net disposable income'' is their gross income, minus taxes and minus their notional child support obligation, plus any government benefits they receive, less the taxes payable as a result of receiving spousal support. | |||
<blockquote>''Example:'' Say the parties have an 8 year old child, the payor has a gross income of $50,000 and the recipient has an income of $20,000. The payor's net disposable income is $26,710 ($50,000 minus taxes of $15,570, minus annual child support of $5,112, minus EI deductions of $772, minus CPP deductions of $1,831). The recipient's net disposable income is $15,045 ($20,000 minus taxes of $4,410, minus notional child support of $2,052, minus EI deductions of $396, minus CPP deductions of $816, plus child tax benefit of $1,208, plus national child benefit of $1,511).</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>The family's net disposable income is $41,755 ($26,710 plus $15,045). 40 percent of the net disposable income is $16,702; 46 percent of the income is $19,207. After deducting the recipient's net disposable income, the difference between the recipient's income and 40 percent of the family's disposable income is $1,657 per year, and $4,162 for 46 percent.''</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>On a monthly basis, spousal support would be between $138 and $346. The total the payor would pay each month would be spousal support plus $426 in child support.</blockquote> | ||
'''Duration:''' The ''length of time'' for which support will be paid ranges from the longest of two formulas used to determine the low end of the range to the longest of two formulas used to determine the high end of the range. If a couple have been together for more than 20 years, or if the age of the dependant party plus the number of years of the relationship equals 65, support will be paid indefinitely. | |||
I've written a paper on the subject for the Department of Justice, "[http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/ | The ''low range'' formulas for duration are: | ||
<blockquote>1) 0.5 years for each year of the relationship</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>2) the length of time remaining until the youngest child starts full-time school</blockquote> | |||
The ''high range'' formulas for duration are: | |||
<blockquote>1) 1 year for each year of the relationship</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>2) the length of time remaining until the youngest child finishes full-time school</blockquote> | |||
I told you it was complex. To quote Professor Thompson, "this is not a calculation you can do on the back of an envelope, you will need a computer program." This formula requires a detailed understanding of how income is determined under the Advisory Guidelines and of the various government benefits, tax deductions, and tax credits that can apply to adjust net income. | |||
I've written a paper on the subject for the Department of Justice, "[http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/calc/index.html Obtaining Reliable and Repeatable SSAG Calculations]," which is available to the public. Be warned: it's a bit dry. | |||
The maximum amount payable under this formula is the range the formula sets out: 40% to 46% of the difference between the payor's net disposable income and the recipient's net disposable income. | The maximum amount payable under this formula is the range the formula sets out: 40% to 46% of the difference between the payor's net disposable income and the recipient's net disposable income. | ||
| Line 193: | Line 201: | ||
The factors this formula uses are: | The factors this formula uses are: | ||
*the payor's gross income, | |||
*the recipient's gross income, | |||
*the length of time the parties lived together, | |||
*the recipient's age, | |||
*the number of children child support is payable for, and | |||
*the number of years until the youngest child starts and leaves full-time school. | |||
===The other ''With Child Support'' formulas=== | ===The other ''With Child Support'' formulas=== | ||
| Line 204: | Line 212: | ||
The Advisory Guidelines describe a few other formulas that apply when: | The Advisory Guidelines describe a few other formulas that apply when: | ||
*all of the children are over the age of majority, | |||
*the parents have split custody of the children, | |||
*the parents have shared custody of the children, | |||
*the children live with the payor, or | |||
*the children are step-children to the payor. | |||
These formulas use modified or hybrid versions of the Without Child Support and main With Child Support formulas. | These formulas use modified or hybrid versions of the Without Child Support and main With Child Support formulas. | ||
| Line 218: | Line 226: | ||
There are three ways the results can be restructured: | There are three ways the results can be restructured: | ||
*pay more spousal support each month, but for a shorter period of time, | |||
*pay less each month, but pay for a longer period of time, or | |||
*pay the total amount payable over the period of the award in a single lump sum. | |||
The point of each option is that the total amount payable under the formula results stays the same. The total amount is just paid sooner or later | The point of each option is that the total amount payable under the formula results stays the same. The total amount is just paid sooner or later. | ||
Restructuring will not work if the length of time support is to be paid for is indefinite. In cases like this, the best option is probably to build in a review date, a date on which the recipient's entitlement to receive spousal support will be checked. | Restructuring will not work if the length of time support is to be paid for is indefinite. In cases like this, the best option is probably to build in a review date, a date on which the recipient's entitlement to receive spousal support will be checked. | ||
| Line 228: | Line 236: | ||
==Exceptions to the Advisory Guidelines formulas== | ==Exceptions to the Advisory Guidelines formulas== | ||
If adjusting support within the ranges doesn't work and if restructuring support doesn't work, the Advisory Guidelines | If adjusting support within the ranges doesn't work and if restructuring support doesn't work, chapter 12 of the Advisory Guidelines contains exceptions, which are recognized categories of departure from the formula outcomes that have been included in the Advisory Guidelines so that parties can accommodate their special circumstances. According to a 2016 update from Professors Rogerson and Thompson, in ''[https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ug_a1-gu_a1/p12.html Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User's Guide]'', there has been "a steady increase in the use of the [Advisory Guidelines] exceptions, better every year, and a growing body of case law applying them, including appellate level decisions". | ||
===Greater need for compensation=== | ===Greater need for compensation=== | ||
| Line 252: | Line 260: | ||
In cases where a payor has an obligation to provide support to other people, such as prior spouses or children from previous relationships, the payor may not be able to pay spousal support at the amount required by the formula. | In cases where a payor has an obligation to provide support to other people, such as prior spouses or children from previous relationships, the payor may not be able to pay spousal support at the amount required by the formula. | ||
Under this exception, the payor's income is adjusted to deduct the amount of support paid as a result of the previous relationship before calculating the amount spousal support to be paid for the present relationship. | Under this exception, the payor's income is adjusted to deduct the amount of support paid as a result of the previous relationship before calculating the amount of spousal support to be paid for the present relationship. | ||
===Other exceptions=== | ===Other exceptions=== | ||
| Line 274: | Line 282: | ||
===Documents=== | ===Documents=== | ||
* [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/ | * [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ssag-ldfpae.html Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines] | ||
* [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/ | * [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/calc/index.html ''Obtaining Reliable and Repeatable SSAG Calculations''], by JP Boyd | ||
===Links=== | ===Links=== | ||
* [http://mysupportcalculator.ca DivorceMate’s free basic spousal support calculator] | * [http://mysupportcalculator.ca DivorceMate’s free basic spousal support calculator] | ||
* [ | * [https://clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1641 Legal Services Society's Family Law website's information page "Child & spousal support"] | ||
* [ | **See "Spousal support" | ||
* [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/ | * [https://clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1239 Dial-A-Law Script "Spousal support"] | ||
* [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/ | * [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ss-pae.html Department of Justice's website "About spousal support"] | ||
* [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ug_a1-gu_a1/index.html ''Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User's Guide''] | |||
{{REVIEWED | reviewer = [[David Dundee]], | {{REVIEWED | reviewer = [[David Dundee]] and [[Gillian Oliver]], May 15, 2019}} | ||
{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox|type=chapters}} | {{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox|type=chapters}} | ||
