2,443
edits
Difference between revisions of "Exceptions to the Child Support Guidelines"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Exceptions to the Child Support Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 16:53, 24 April 2013
, 16:53, 24 April 2013→Calculating support
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) m |
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> | <blockquote>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.</blockquote> | ||
Just because a payor has the children for 40% or more of the time does not mean that a reduction is automatically applied. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in a case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf Contino v. Leonelli-Contino]'', [2005] 3 SCR 217 and confirmed that the presumption is in favour of the Guidelines tables. The court said that if a payor is to get a reduction from the table amounts, the payor must provide evidence that he or she actually pays increased expenses as a result of having the children for so much time. These expenses may include things like: a higher gas bill for driving the children to their activities, a higher grocery bill, a higher telephone bill, increased costs for clothing and hair cuts, and so forth. | Just because a payor has the children for 40% or more of the time does not mean that a reduction is automatically applied. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in a case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf Contino v. Leonelli-Contino]'', [2005] 3 SCR 217 and confirmed that the presumption is in favour of the Guidelines tables. The court said that if a payor is to get a reduction from the table amounts, the payor must provide evidence that he or she actually pays increased expenses as a result of having the children for so much time. These expenses may include things like: a higher gas bill for driving the children to their activities, a higher grocery <span class="noglossary">bill</span>, a higher telephone <span class="noglossary">bill</span>, increased costs for clothing and hair cuts, and so forth. | ||
==Independent minor children== | ==Independent minor children== | ||
