Child Support Guidelines

The Child Support Guidelines is a federal regulation, adopted by all of the provinces, which sets out the rules that the courts must apply when making an order for child support. The most important feature of the Guidelines is the child support tables which fix the amount of support payments according to the payor's annual income and the number of children support is to be paid for. The Guidelines cover every aspect of child support, including the calculation of income, how children's special expenses are paid for, the amount of support payable when the parents have shared custody and the amount payable when parents have split custody.

This chapter will discuss the Guidelines' basic principles, the sharing of special and extraordinary expenses, the calculation of income, imputing income, and the circumstances in which the income of a parent's new partner may be taken into account. It also looks at the changes to the Guidelines made in 2006 and provides an example of the contents of a typical child support order.

A special expenses calculator and links to the federal government's child support calculator and other child support services are provided at the end of this chapter.

Basic Principles

It used to be the case that the party claiming support had to jump through all sorts of hoops to show the amount of support the child needed and prove that the payor had the means to pay that amount. These days, the amount of a child support order is based on the amounts set out in the tables attached to the Child Support Guidelines. The Guidelines has helped to streamline the court process and generally reduced the amount of time and money that parents spend fighting about child support.

The Guidelines tables were most recently adjusted on 31 December 2011. The amount of child support required of lower earning parents was reduced and the amount of support for higher earning parents was increased, although none of the changes were particularly dramatic. If you are relying on a printed version of the child support tables to figure out how much child support should be paid, make sure that your materials reflect the new table amounts.

The Guidelines' key presumption is set out in s. 3(1):

Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is (a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and (b) the amount, if any, determined under s. 7. This is, however, only a presumption, and can be challenged or rebutted. (This is discussed is the following chapter, Child Support > Exceptions to the Guidelines.) In the vast majority of cases, however, the amount of child support payable is calculated using the payor's gross annual income at the time the order is made.

Over time, of course, the payor's income may rise or fall. It is open to both the payor, the person paying support, and the recipient, the person receiving support, to make an application to change the original order so that the amount of child support reflects the payor's current income. The payor would typically make the application if his or her income has fallen, while the recipient would make the application when the payor's income has increased. To avoid a situation where parents are contiually making trips back to court to seek an adjustment of child support, it is a good idea to include a provision in an agreement or order for child support that requires both the payor and the recipient to regularly exchange income information so that child support support can be adjusted from time to time without having to go to court.

Another of the Guidelines' important presumptions is that the amount of support payable is set according to the number of children to which each particular support order relates. If a payor has two children from one relationship and three from another, the first order will be based on the Guidelines amount for two children and the second will be based on the amount for three children. The payor's obligation is not based on the Guidelines amount for the total number of five children.

Finally, the amount of support payable is based only on the payor's income. In most situations the recipient's income is not a factor, nor is the income of the payor's new spouse or partner.

Special and/or Extraordinary Expenses

The basic amount of child support a parent pays is presumed to cover a very wide scope of common day-to-day expenses associated with raising children: the child's share of the rent, the hydro and gas bills, shoes, groceries, diapers, clothes, toothpaste, school field trip fees and so forth. The basic amount of support is not always presumed to include certain other kinds of expenses that are infrequent but expensive, such as the cost of daycare or othodontic work. In addition to the basic amount of support payable, a payor may also be required to cover a portion of these other expenses, so long as they qualify as "special and/or extraordinary expenses" under the Guidelines.

"Special and/or extraordinary expenses" are defined in s. 7(1) of the Guidelines:

(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent's employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment; (b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child; (c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses; (d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child's particular needs; (e) expenses for post-secondary education; and (f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. Section 7(1.1) clarifies (d) and (f), and says that for these subsections "extraordinary expenses" means:

(a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or (b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account (i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, (ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities, (iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children, (iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and (v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. Special expenses are considered to be "shareable" between the parents. These provisions of the Guidelines are intended to ensure that, if either parent incurs significant additional expenses for the child's needs or actvities, both parents will share the cost on the principle that it is in children's best interests to have such needs met or to participate in such activities.

If an expense if found to qualify as a "special and/or extraordinary expense" under the s. 7(1) and (1.1) definitions, the court may make an order that both parents pay additional amounts, on top the usual Guidelines basic amount of support, to cover all or a portion of the cost of the expense.

Qualifying Expenses as "Special and/or Extraordinary"

Just because an expense appears to fall into one of the categories listed in s. 7 of the Guidelines does not necessarily make it a shareable "special and/or extraordinary expense." As well, just because an expense has been incurred doesn't mean it will automatically be shared; if you're not sure whether a planned expense will qualify as a shareable special expense, get some legal advise or talk to the other parent first.

According to s. 7(1) of the Guidelines, the court must not only find that an expense fits into one of the categories listed above, but also consider

the "reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern prior to the separation;" and, the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests, bearing in mind the special test for primary- and secondary-school education and extracurricular acitivites prescribed by s. 7(1.1). Here's a helpful summary from a 2010 case from our Supreme Court, Piper v. Piper:

"Under s. 7(1.1)(a) the court is first required to consider whether the income of the requesting spouse, including any child support received, can reasonably cover the expense claimed or whether the expense exceeds her ability to pay without any consideration of the factors enumerated in s. 7(1.1)(b). If the income cannot cover the expense, the expense is deemed to be extraordinary and the court's next analysis turns to consideration of the factors enumerated in s. 7(1) which, of course, brings into consideration the parties' means and pre-separation spending pattern."

Reasonableness

When the court is asked to consider a particular expense, it should first decide whether the expense is reasonble according to the parents' means. For lower income parents not many things are going to be considered reasonable.

Orthodontics, providing they are medically necessary. Daycare, providing the daycare is required to enable a parent to work outside the home. For parents with more money, more expenses will qualify as special expenses.

Costmetic orthodontia. Dance, music and art classes, and summer day camps. Less expensive team sports, like soccer, baseball and basketball. Basic high-school graduation costs, such as tickets and gown or tuxedo rentals. Basic post-secondary education costs, such as tuition fees for a local college or university, student fees and textbook costs. For parents with lots of money, almost every big-ticket expense is probably going to qualify as a special expense.

Multiple week summer camps and trips abroad. Expensive team sports, like hockey and horseback polo, and expensive solo sports like skiing and scuba diving. Post-secondary education costs, including meal plans and residence costs.

Necessity

Sometimes the needs of the child will outweigh the cost of the expense to the child, and an expense will qualify as a special expense whether at a hardship to the parents or not.

Medical costs, including costs that aren't covered by MSP such as autism therapies. Counselling services, where the counselling is necessary for the child's mental health. Tutoring services, where the child needs the extra help to get through school. Lessons or coaching in arts and sports, where the child has a special talent that should be nurtured. A driver training course, for example, is unlikely to qualify as a special expense under the heading of necessity, since you can learn to drive and obtain a driver's licence without it, as was held in a 2011 Supreme Court case, M.S.J. v. J.M.J. On the other hand, if a semester with Sylvan will mean the difference between passing or failing a grade, the tutoring would be considered a necessity.

Sharing Qualifying Expenses

Under s. 7(2) of the Guidelines, expenses which qualify as "special and/or extraordinary expenses" are shared by the parents in proportion to their incomes, after deducting any contribution to those costs made by the child or the governments, through things like grants or tax deductions. The idea here is to look at the total pot of money available to the child — the income of the payor plus the income of the recipient — and to figure how much each parent's share of that pot is, and then pay the child's special expenses according to each parent's share.

The easiest way to calculate a parent's "proportionate share" is to add the incomes of both parents together and then figure out what percentage each income is of the total. Here are two examples:

If one parent earns $75,000 per year and the other $25,000, the total pot available to the child is $100,000. Of that sum, the first parent contributes 75% and the second parent 25%. As a result, the first parent would be ordered to pay 75% of qualifying expenses, and the second parent 25%. If one parent earns $48,000 per year and the other $62,000, the total of their incomes is $110,000. The first parent's income is 43.6% of the total, and the other parent's income is 56.4% of the total. The first parent would have to pay 43.6% of all qualifying special expenses, and the second would have to pay 54.6% of those expenses. The cost that is being shared is the net cost of an expense, in other words, the amount actually being paid, after any third party contributions have been applied to reduce the expense. Daycare costs, for example, are usually partly subsidized by the government with certain tax deductions. If $1,000 is spent on daycare, but the government chips in a $200 tax benefit, the amount of the expense shared between the parents would be $800, not the full $1,000.

Note that the income of a parent's new spouse or partner can be taken into consideration in determining a parent's "means" in sharing a special expense. In the 2000 British Columbia Supreme Court case of Baum v. Baum, the court held that the s. 7(1) consideration of the "means of the spouses" should be interpreted broadly as including all sources of income available to the paying parent, including the income of a parent's new partner.

A calculator which will work out each parent's proportionate share of a child's special expenses is available at the end of this chapter.

The Calculation of Income

Before the court even looks at the Child Support Guidelines tables it has to decide what the payor's income is. The tables set out the amount of child support payable according to the payor's income. The Guidelines require that the court use the most up-to-date information available. Sections 15 to 20 of the Guidelines set out the rules the court must apply in determing income.

According to Rule 7-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules and Rule 4 of the Provincial (Family) Court Rules of Court, when someone makes an application for child support, the payor or both the payor and recipient are required to disclosure their financial circumstances using court form called a Financial Statement.

Financial Statements require each party to set out their income and expenses, and assets and liabilities. Certain income documents must be attached to a Financial Statement, typically:

income tax returns for the last three years, complete with all of the usual schedules and attachments; all Canada Revenue Agency notices of assessment and notices of reassessment received for the last three tax years; the party's most recent paystub showing his or her earnings-to-date, or other proof of current income such as a letter from an employer, WCB statements, EI statements and so forth; and, corporate financial statements and corporate income tax returns for the last three fiscal years. The basic rule of thumb is that a party's income for the purposes of the Guidelines is the amount stated at line 150 of the payor's most recent tax return. A party's income includes all of the party's income, not just income from a job. "Income" might include bonuses, rental income, company dividends, government benefits, interest from an investment and so forth, as well as employment and self-employment income.

Section 2(3) of the Guidelines requires that the most current income information be used; this can include a calculation of income based on paystub evidence. Most of the time income is based on the most recent tax year, since the income information for that year is complete. This means that there is usually a one-year lag between the amount of support being paid and the payor's income.

Government Benefits

Payments and benefits from WCB, Employment Insurance, CPP, Old Age Security and welfare all count as income under the Guidelines. If a party is receiving these payments as a temporary subsitute for employment income, the party's income may be assessed at his or her usual income. A temporary period on welfare, for example, won't entitle a payor to have his or her income assessed at that unusually low level.

Fluctuating Income

Where a party's income changes from year to year for reasons beyond the party's control, such as fluctuating commission sales or bonuses that are assessed by an employer, the court may take the party's income over the past three years into consideration in setting the payor's income. In certain circumstances, the court may fix the party's income as the average of his or her income over the last three years.

Unexpected Losses and Gains

Where a payor has suffered an unexpected loss, such as a corporate loss or an investment loss, or enjoyed an unexpected gain, such as from cashing in RRSPs or selling stock, the court has the discretion to decide to take this into consideration in setting the payor's income.

Court Awards

If a payor has received an award from a civil lawsuit such as for wrongful dismissal or for personal injury, the court may attribute the portion of the award allocated for lost wages to a payor's income. The whole amount of the award will not be seen as income for the purposes of the Guidelines, just the part intended to compensate for lost wages.

Windfalls

Money received from an inheritance, the sale of a house or a lottery win does not count as income under the Guidelines. It may be an asset that the parties each have a right to share in, but it isn't income for the purposes of child support.

Imputing Income

To "impute" income means to attribute income to a payor above that which the payor claims he or she earns. Typically, someone asks the court to impute income to a payor where:

the payor works in the service industry, for example as a restaurant server or a taxi driver, and receives tip income that is not reported on income tax returns; the payor has quit or been fired from his or her job; the payor moves from full- to part-time work without a very good reason; the payor is self-employed and either receives unpaid benefits from his or her company (like a company car, paid meals or a free cell phone), or doesn't report the full amount of money taken from the company; the payor has refused to provide full and complete financial disclosure; or, the payor has or will have income from a trust. If the court decides to attribute extra income to a payor, child support will be payable at the Guidelines rate for the higher income. Qualifying special and/or extraordinary expenses will also be shared based on the higher income.

The court can decide to change a payor's income for the purposes of calculating child support in other circumstances, such as when the payor is underemployed and unemployed, is income splitting with a new partner, or lives in a place with a lower tax rate than usual.

Underemployment and Unemployment

Section 19(1) of the Guidelines says that:

The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following: (a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse; (d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines; (e) the spouse's property is not reasonably utilized to generate income; (f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; (g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income; In other words, the court may decide that a payor has a different income than that which the payor says he or she has if:

the payor has quit a job in order to avoid paying child support; the payor has taken lower-paying work than he or she used to have, or is capable of holding, in order to minimize the amount of child support payable; the payor has hidden or appears to have hidden some of his or her income; the payor is not using resources at hand to generate income which could be used to generate income, such as a vacant house that could be rented out or savings that could be invested; or, the payor has tried to reduce his or her income by claiming unreasonable deductions. If you are going to make an argument that income should be imputed to someone, you will have to prove that one or more of the conditions described in s. 19(1) exist.

In the case of underemployment or unemployment, you will also have to show that the payor has acted in bad faith, and is unemployed or underemployed intentionally. If a party's underemployment or unemployment is caused by child care responsibilities, the court will not usually impute income.

It is not enough merely to argue that one of these conditions listed in s. 19(1) exist, you have to be able to provide evidence that the condition exists. The following factors were cited by the court in a 2003 Supreme Court case, Nahu v. Chertkow, in determining whether a payor is intentionally underemployed or unemployed:

the payor's education, training and work experience; the payor's previous earnings and past borrowing of funds during unemployment; the payor's work history; the payor's spending patterns and lifestyle; the payor's efforts to upgrade his or her education and work qualifications; the nature and quality of the payor's attempts to obtain employment; and, any evidence that the underemployment or unemployment is motivated by ill will towards the recipient. This last point, about the payor's ill will, has to do with the idea that the payor is able to earn more but chooses not to. In the 1999 British Columbia Supreme Court case of Hanson v. Hanson, the court had this to say on the subject:

"1. There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannot work. It is 'no answer for a person liable to support a child to say that he is unemployed and does not intend to seek work or that his potential to earn income is an irrelevant factor' ... "2. When imputing income on the basis of intentional underemployment, a court must consider what is reasonable under the circumstances. The age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent are factors to be considered in addition to such matters as the availability of work, freedom to relocate and other obligations. "3. A parent's limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant skills, or employment in which the necessary skills can be earned on the job. ... [C]ourts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take reasonable steps to support his or her children simply because the parent cannot obtain interesting or highly paid employment. "4. Persistence in [poorly paid] employment may entitle the court to impute income. "5. A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations [to pursue] unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. "6. As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income." B. "Grossing Up" Income Section 19(1) of the Guidelines also provides that:

The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following: (b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax; (c) the spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada; (h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax. Under these sections of the Guidelines, payors who have a lower income tax obligation than usual, such as certain First Nations persons living on reserve who might pay no federal taxes, or persons who live in another country with a lower tax rate, can have their income "grossed up" to reflect this tax advantage when child support is determined.

The "grossing up" process essentially involves figuring out the amount of money the payor would have to earn to have the same after-tax income at the tax rates normally applicable to residents of British Columbia. This will result in income being imputed to the payor for the purposes of calculating child support, with a consequent increase in the amount of child support which will be payable.

The math behind "grossing up" someone's income is a bit complex. Essentially, the idea is to ensure that the person with the unusually low tax burden pays a fair amount of support by having his or her income assessed at normal BC standards. Think of it like this:

Say Mr. A earns $100,000 per year. As a resident of British Columbia, Mr. A pays income tax at, for example, 40%. This means that Mr. A's net income is $60,000 per year. Mr. B also earns $100,000 per year. Mr. B, on the other hand, lives in Texas, and has an income tax rate of, for example, 25%. This means that Mr. B's net income is $75,000 per year. In this example, income for the purposes of the Guidelines would normally be calculated for both Mr. A and Mr. B at a gross income of $100,000. In reality, though, Mr. A has a lot less money after income taxes are paid than Mr. B does. Mr. B actually has a lot more money than Mr. A, and ought to pay child support based on this additional money. Mr. B's income would be "grossed up" to figure out what income he would have to earn in BC to have an after tax income of $75,000. Since he would pay income tax at a rate of 40% here, the court would consider Mr. B to have a gross income of $125,000 for the purposes of child support, since tax of 40% on a gross income of $125,000 leaves a net income of $75,000. Mr. A and Mr. B both have incomes of $100,000 per year. Mr. A will pay his base amount of support at that income, but Mr. B will pay at a grossed up income of $125,000 to reflect what he would have to earn in BC to have the after-tax income of $75,000 he has living in Texas. Grossing up a payor's income can be a bit tricky, and requires a sound knowledge of the income tax laws of different countries. If you have a problem in this area, you should consider retaining a lawyer to help you.

Child Support and Parents' New Partners

This segment discusses the impact that the income of a payor's new spouse or partner can have on child support and the circumstances in which this additional income may be taken into account.

Parents often move on with their lives after the relationship which produced their children has ended, and meet new people and enter into new romantic relationships. Parents and their new partners are often concerned about how their relationship will impact on the parent's obligation to pay child support. The parent might be concerned to know whether the new partner's income will be added to his or her income in calculating child support. The new partner will want to know whether he or she is now on the hook for support and must contribute to the parent's payments.

Basic Child Support

The income of a parent's new partner is not relevant to the payment of child support, nor is a payor's new partner obliged. The new partner will not inherit the child support obligation and the recipient of support won't be able to pursue the new partner for additional payments.

For the purposes of calculating the base amount of child support a parent must pay — that is, the parent's basic obligation under the Child Support Guidelines, exclusive of special and/or extraordinary expenses — the court will only look at the parent's income. The income of the new partner is not taken into account.

Undue Hardship

Section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines allows a parent to argue that the base amount of support set out in the Guidelines is too low or too high and would cause "undue hardship" if that amount was paid. Payors generally claim that the base amount is too high, while recipients argue that it is too low. (This exception to the Guidelines is discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter.)

If undue hardship is claimed, the court will look at the standard of living of each parent's household, rather than the standard of living of each parent alone. This means that the court, in deciding whether there is undue hardship, will look at the total expenses and total income of each parent's household, including the income of each parent's new partner. This will not cause the new partner to be liable to pay support, it just means that his or her income will be added to the parent's income to see whether the base amount of support payable is unduly high or low.

Incomes in Excess of $150,000

The tables provided in the Child Support Guidelines set out the amount of support owing by payors who earn up to $150,000 per year. The Guidelines provide a mathematical forumla for figuring out what parents earning more than $150,000 must pay, while payors earning less than $8,100 pay nothing.

Section 4 of the Guidelines deals with parents who earn more than $150,000 each year. Under this section, the income (or lack of income) of a parent's new partner can be taken into account in deciding whether the formula gives a fair result. (The calculation of support owing by parents with incomes in excess of $150,000 is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.)

Section 4(b)(ii) of the Guidelines says that when considering the amount payable above the basic amount for a payor whose annual income is $150,000, the court should apply the formula but take into account:

... the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children ... In other words, the income of a new partner can be taken into account under the general heading of "financial ability" of a spouse in determining whether the formula amount is fair.

Special Expenses

Section 7 of the Guidelines allows for sharing of the children's "special and/or extraordinary expenses" between the parents, as described above. In figuring out how much a parent should have to contribute to these expenses, the court is required to take into account, among other things:

... the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child ... A parent's new partner's income can be taken into consideration in assessing the "means of the spouses," which is exactly what the court did in the 2000 British Columbia Supreme Court case of Baum v. Baum. In that decision, the court held that "means of the spouses" should be interpreted broadly as including all sources of income available to the paying parent, including the income of his or her new partner.

Again, the new partner will not be responsible to pay child support or a share of the children's special expenses as a result; only the payor's obligation will be affected by the new partner's income.

The Payor's Death=

A number of readers have asked whether they will have any responsibility to make child support payments if their partner, a parent under an obligation to pay child support, dies. The simple answer to that question is no, they will have no responsibility. The fact that they are in a relationship with a paying parent doesn't necessarily mean that they will have a duty to keep paying support if that parent dies.

While that is a good general rule, and one you can probably rely on, it is possible but unlikely that a claim could be made against the new partner as a "stepparent" of the child under the Family Relations Act. The act says that all "parents" are required to support their children, but s. 1 defines parents as including stepparents who have contributed to the support of a child for a period in excess of one year. In otherwords, a new partner who marries a paying parent may have an obligation if he or she has contributed to the support of the child. Again, while this is technically possible, orders against new partners following the death of the paying parent are extremely rare.

Back to the top of this chapter.

VI. Changes to the Child Support Guidelines

Certain changes to the Child Support Guidelines took effect on 1 May 2006. According to the announcement in the Canada Gazette, the changes were "intended to improve the predictability, consistency and fairness" of the Guidelines. This segment summarizes the highlights of these changes.

A. Revised Support Tables The tables for each province have been revised substantially. In British Columbia, the table amounts have gone up by between 9% and 19%, with payors with lower incomes seeing the lesser increase, and in some cases an actual reduction, and payors with higher incomes seeing the greater increase.

B. Special and/or Extraordinary Expenses The legal test for whether a certain expenses qualify as "extraordinary" expenses under s. 7 has been clarified. Under a new subsection, s. 7(1.1), the court must first find that a proposed expense is within the means of the parent seeking payment of that expense. If it is, then the court must look at five factors to decide whether the expense qualifies as extraordinary:

the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount (including the child support amount); the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities; any special needs and talents of the child or children; the overall costs of the programs and activities; and, any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. Special expenses are discussed in the segment above on Special and/or Extraordinary Expenses.

C. "Grossing Down" Income The Guidelines allow the court to "gross up" the income of payors who live outside of Canada and enjoy a lower personal income tax rate than they would if they lived here. The Guidelines now include a "grossing down" provision, to lower the income of payors who live in jurisdictions with income tax rates higher than those prevailing in Canada.

Grossing up income is discussed in the segment above on Imputing Income.

D. Undue Hardship The Guidelines allow the court to impose a child support order which is higher or lower than what the tables require if the payor or recipient can show that payment of the table amount would cause "undue hardship" under s. 10. When the court is looking at a claim for undue hardship, it is required to compare the standards of living of the two households. The amendments give the court a revised formula for comparing household standards of living.

Undue hardship is an exception to the Guidelines discussed in the next chapter.

Back to the top of this chapter.

VII. Child Support Orders

An order for child support typically has the following elements:

a statement of the names and birthdates of the children for whom support will be paid; a declaration of the payor's income; an order as to the Guidelines amount payable; an order with respect to the exchange of income information; and, a statement of the date on which child support will no longer be payable. These elements look like this in a typical order made under the Divorce Act:

UPON the Court being advised that the children of the marriage are Jesse Ann Doe, born on 1 March 1998, and Sandra Alexandra Doe, born on 1 April 2000; AND UPON the Court finding that the Claimant's income for the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines is $72,000.00 per year; THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The Claimant, Jane Doe, payor, shall pay to the Respondent, John Doe, recipient, the sum of $1,080 per month, commencing on the first day of September 2010 and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter until such time as the children are no longer "children of the marriage" as defined by the Divorce Act (Canada); and, 2. The Claimant shall provide to the Respondent a copy of her tax return on the first day of May 2011 and continuing on the first day of May for each and every year thereafter until such time as the children are no longer "children of the marriage," and the Claimant shall provide to the Respondent a copy of each Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment or Notice of Reassessment within two weeks of her receipt of the same, continuing until such time as the children are no longer "children of the marriage." Under the Family Relations Act, the order would look like this:

UPON the Court being advised that the children are Jesse Ann Doe, born on 1 March 1998, and Sandra Alexandra Doe, born on 1 April 2000; AND UPON the Court finding that the Claimant's income for the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines is $72,000.00 per year; THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The Claimant, Jane Doe, payor, shall pay to the Respondent, John Doe, recipient, the sum of $1,080 per month, commencing on the first day of Septemnber 2010 and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter until such time as the children are no longer "children" as defined by the Family Relations Act; and, 2. The Claimant shall provide to the Respondent a copy of her tax return on the first day of May 2011 and continuing on the first day of May for each and every year thereafter until such time as the children are no longer "children," and the Claimant shall provide to the Respondent a copy of each Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment or Notice of Reassessment within two weeks of her receipt of the same, continuing until such time as the children are no longer "children." The point of the last clause of each of these sample orders is to require the payor to annually provide evidence of his or her income to the recipient so that both parties can decided whether an increase or a decrease in the amount payable is appropriate.

When parents have shared custody of their children, the amount paid is dependant on both parties' incomes. The same is true where special expenses are being contributed to; the proportion of those expenses each party will pay depends on both of their incomes. In cases like this, the last clause would be changed to require both parents to exchange their income information on an annual basis, not just the payor, and the court would make a finding about both parents' incomes.

Back to the top of this chapter.

VIII. Child Support Calculators

The federal government has finally published an online child support calculator, as a result of which I've removed the calculators formerly found on this page. If you can get it from the horse's mouth you should. The government's calculator is available at:

www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/tool-util/apps/look-rech/index.asp

A. Child Support Info Line The provincial government operates the BC Child Support Info Line which offers free information about child support and the child support tables. Contact them at:

Lower Mainland: 604-660-2192 Outside the Lower Mainland: 888-216-2211 B. Child Support Tables The Child Support Guidelines Tables for British Columbia are available from the website of the federal Department of Justice. (Be patient, the page may take a few minutes to load.)

C. Children's Special Expenses Calculator This calculator will work out the proportionate share of children's special expenses payable by each parent. It applies to agreements or orders for the payment of special expenses throughout Canada.

The information you need to have for this calculator is: the payor's gross income, the recipient's gross income, and the amount of spousal support paid by the payor to the recipient each month, if any.

The special expenses calculator will open in a new window. To print a page, first set your printer to print in landscape format.

Further Reading in this Chapter

• bulleted list of other pages in this chapter, linked

Page Resources and Links

Legislation

• bulleted list of linked legislation referred to in page

Links

• bulleted list of linked external websites referred to in page
• list of related public resources