Difference between revisions of "Spousal and Child Support (3:X)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(formatting, adding case law) |
(formatting) |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
* (2) Non-compensatory (need based) (''Bracklow v Bracklow'', [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420); and | * (2) Non-compensatory (need based) (''Bracklow v Bracklow'', [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420); and | ||
* (3) Contractual (i.e. if there was a marriage or cohabitation agreement setting out terms for support) (''Miglin v Miglin'', 2003 SCC 24). | * (3) Contractual (i.e. if there was a marriage or cohabitation agreement setting out terms for support) (''Miglin v Miglin'', 2003 SCC 24). | ||
Once a party has met the requirement of demonstrating entitlement, you move to the calculation of quantum. When determining quantum of support one factor to be considered is whether the needs of the recipient spouse have been met by the division of assets however if support is compensation based then even if the recipient receives significant assets that is not a basis to reduce support (See ''Chutter v Chutter'', [2009] CarswellBC 1028 (BCCA)). Typically the way this is addressed is to determine what income a party can reasonably earn from the assets received on division and to take that into account in calculating the quantum of support. | Once a party has met the requirement of demonstrating entitlement, you move to the calculation of quantum. When determining quantum of support one factor to be considered is whether the needs of the recipient spouse have been met by the division of assets however if support is compensation based then even if the recipient receives significant assets that is not a basis to reduce support (See ''Chutter v Chutter'', [2009] CarswellBC 1028 (BCCA)). Typically the way this is addressed is to determine what income a party can reasonably earn from the assets received on division and to take that into account in calculating the quantum of support. | ||