1,399
edits
Difference between revisions of "Child Support Guidelines"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Underemployment and unemployment
m |
|||
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
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. If a party's underemployment or unemployment is caused by child care responsibilities, the court will not usually impute income. | 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. If a party's underemployment or unemployment is caused by child care responsibilities, the court will not usually impute income. | ||
It's not enough merely to ''argue'' that one of the 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, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pt18 Nahu v. Chertkow]'', 2003 BCSC 1285 in determining whether a payor is intentionally underemployed or unemployed: | It's not enough merely to ''argue'' that one of the 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, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pt18 Nahu v. Chertkow]'', 2003 BCSC 1285, 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 their 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 Supreme Court case ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1d2x1 Hanson v. Hanson]'', 1999 CanLII 6307 the court had this to say on the subject: | 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 Supreme Court case ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1d2x1 Hanson v. Hanson]'', 1999 CanLII 6307 the court had this to say on the subject: | ||