28 April 2017

Spousal Support in High Income Cases: Over $350,000

Payor income above the $350,000 ceiling

This week I am copying directly from the Department of Justice website because I really like their concise summary of this issue. What follows is a discussion about calculation of spousal support in high income cases.  The nugget at the end is this: the courts decide cases on the unique facts of each case, but the general trend is towards reliance on the range of payments provided for in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.   SSAG


Karen F. Redmond, Family Law Lawyer


This is from the DOJ cite below:


Department of Justice


"In absolute numbers, there aren’t that many of these cases, but they are over-represented in the decided cases, partly because of the high stakes involved and partly because they test the outer limits of our thinking about spousal support. A number of these cases have made their way to the B.C. Court of Appeal: see Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, “Complex Issues Bring Us Back to Basics: The SSAG Year in Review in B.C.” (2009), 28 Canadian Family Law Quarterly 263 at 283-86. B.C. cases still dominate the reported decisions, as many of these high-income cases in Ontario are resolved by arbitration or mediation-arbitration.
There are some clear principles enunciated in the case law, even if the actual outcomes are discretionary and sometimes conflicting. In J.E.H. v. P.L.H., 2014 BCCA 310, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 412, there is a careful review of the law for cases above the ceiling, where some of these principles are stated.
  • The formulas for amount are no longer presumptive once the payor’s income exceeds the “ceiling”.
  • The ceiling is not an absolute or hard “cap”, as spousal support can and usually does increase for payor incomes above $350,000. 
  • The formulas are not to be applied automatically above the ceiling, although the formulas may provide an appropriate method of determining spousal support in an individual case, depending on the facts.
  • Above the ceiling, spousal support cases require an individualized, fact-specific analysis. It is not an error, however, to fix an amount in the SSAG range, as was done in J.E.H. v. P.L.H., above. Evidence and argument are required.
  • Where the payor’s income is not too far above the ceiling, the formula ranges will often be used to determine the amount of spousal support, with outcomes falling in the low-to-mid range for amount. How far is “not too far above” is still not clear. Somewhere between $500,000 and $700,000, it seems.
  • Once the payor’s income is “far” above the ceiling, then the amount of support ordered will usually be below the low end of the SSAG range, but SSAG ranges are still calculated and sometimes the outcome will fall within the SSAG range.
In light of these principles, it is critical that counsel do SSAG calculations even in high income cases. It is wise to calculate the ranges for alternative income levels:  for the $350,000 ceiling (as a minimum) and for the full income (as a maximum), as well as for a range of intermediate incomes (to assist the court in triangulating an outcome). For a good example of such alternative calculations, see Saunders v. Saunders, 2014 ONSC 2459.
A number of the reported high income decisions involve interim or temporary support awards. Interim outcomes are more likely to fall within the formula range, as the goal in the interim period is to maintain the financial status quo: Cork v. Cork, 2013 ONSC 2788. In some of these cases, the estimate of the payor’s income will be low, pushing the amount higher in the range to adjust: Saunders v. Saunders, above; Loesch v. Walji, 2008 BCCA 214.
  • For incomes not too far above $350,000, courts frequently order an amount at the low end of the SSAG range for amount (payor’s income noted for each): Ponkin v. Werden, 2015 ONSC 7466 ($498,828, then $406,507); Stober v. Stober, 2015 BCSC 743 ($600,000); Piche v. Chiu, 2015 BCSC 335 ($465,000); Droit de la famille – 151740, 2015 QCCS 3284 ($375,000);  Cork v. Cork, 2014 ONSC 2488 ($562,000, final); C.E.A. v. B.E.A., 2014 BCSC 1500 ($592,122); Dymon v. Bains, 2013 ONSC 915 ($550,000); D.L.D. v. R.C.C., 2013 BCSC 590 ($652,000); Perry v. Fujimoto, 2011 ONSC 3334 ($353,000); Trombetta v. Trombetta, 2011 ONSC 394 ($660,000); and Teja v. Dhanda, 2007 BCSC 1247, appeal partly allowed on other issues, 2009 BCCA 198 ($425,000).
  • Not all of these cases end up at the low end: J.E.H. v. P.L.H., 2015 BCSC 1485 ($650,000, mid, variation); T.T. v. J.M.H., 2014 BCSC 451 ($597,000, mid-high); J.R. v. N.R.F., 2013 BCSC 516 ($471,814, mid-high); Abelson v. Mitra, 2008 BCSC 1197 ($355,000, mid-SSAG); and Y.J.E. v. Y.N.R., 2007 BCSC 509 ($602,400, mid-SSAG). In some jurisdictions, below-SSAG amounts are ordered even for these incomes, e.g. Babich v. Babich, 2015 SKQB 22 ($746,000, well below SSAG) and Milton v. Milton, 2008 NBCA 87 ($500,000, below SSAG).
  • For incomes far above the ceiling, the majority of outcomes wind up below the SSAG ranges, sometimes well below at the highest income levels: Volcko v. Volcko, 2015 NSCA 11, leave to SCC refused [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 141 ($1,248,756); J.L.A. v. M.J.G.G., 2014 BCSC 1391 ($831,648); S.R.M. v. N.G.T.M., 2014 BCSC 442 ($900,000); Frank v. Linn, 2014 SKCA 87 ($1,211,828); Margie v. Margie, [2013] O.J. No. 6193 (S.C.J.) (more than $1 million); Goriuk v. Turton, 2011 BCSC 652 ($9,740,000); T.N. v. J.C.N., 2013 BCSC 1870 ($1,163,648, custodial payor); Breed v. Breed, 2012 NSSC 83 ($1,186,585); Dobbin v. Dobbin, 2009 NLUFC 11 ($1.5 million); and Dyck v. Dyck, 2009 MBQB 112 ($3,045,205).
  • Even in cases far above the ceiling, however, some courts have fixed amounts within the SSAG range for high incomes: Saunders v. Saunders, above ($1 million, high SSAG, income estimate low); J.E.H. v. P.L.H., above ($1 million, mid-SSAG); B.L.B. v. G.D.M., 2015 PESC 1 ($1,069,724, low SSAG); Blatherwick v. Blatherwick, 2015 ONSC 2606 ($1.4 million, high SSAG); T.N. v. J.C.N., 2015 BCSC 439 ($982,626); Williams v. Williams, 2015 BCSC 112 ($1.2 million, mid-SSAG): K.R.M. v. F.B.M., 2013 BCSC 286 ($895,898, high SSAG); Elgner v. Elgner, [2009] O.J. No. 5369 (S.C.J., leave to appeal denied, 2010 ONSC 1578 (Div.Ct.) ($2.9 million, low SSAG); Loesch v. Walji, 2008 BCCA 214 ($1.6 million, husband’s income higher in past, spousal support $50,000/mo, higher than high end SSAG of $35,000/mo); and S.O. v. C.S.O., 2008 BCSC 283 ($909,569, low SSAG).
  • In some high-income with child support formula cases, courts have calculated the table amount of child support on the full payor’s income and then calculated the formula range for a gross payor income of $350,000 for spousal support purposes: J.W.J.McC. v. T.E.R., 2007 BCSC 252 and J.E.B. v. G.B., 2008 BCSC 528 (Master). Remember that if you do this hypothetical calculation for the spousal support range, it is critical that you use the child support amounts appropriate for an income of $350,000 too, and not the actual higher amount of child support (an error made in the otherwise careful analysis in Dickson v. Dickson, 2009 MBQB 274). See the discussion of two incomes under “Income” above.
Some commentators have expressed concern that there is too much defaulting to the formula range in high income cases, but no such pattern emerges from the mass of case law reviewed above. Individual high-income cases can attract considerable legal attention, but the wide discretion for these very high incomes will inevitably result in divergent and unpredictable outcomes. High income cases do not pose technical issues that can be solved by any set of guidelines, but raise fundamental theoretical questions about the rationale and purpose of spousal support."


As always, get legal advice if you need it.

11 April 2017

Integrative Mediation training, May 11-12, 2017 in Vancouver, BC

The Collaborative Divorce Vancouver Society is sponsoring the first Canadian training session on Integrative Mediation on May 11 and May 12, 2017 in Vancouver, BC.   

Integrative Mediation is a form of interdisciplinary co-mediation in which all aspects of a dispute — legal, emotional and financial — are addressed, enabling participants to resolve conflicts efficiently and reach deeper levels of resolution, healing and closure. Lawyers, mental health professionals, financial consultants and mediators with other professional backgrounds will learn to work together effectively to help clients reach enduring and mutually-satisfying resolutions.

Learn and practice this model from the initial client contact to the final resolution of the case, using realistic scenarios tailored to the needs of the training participants. Thursday will be the introductory, nuts-and-bolts training, and Friday will be an intermediate and advanced training, building on basic training.

The course has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 13 hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits and for the Law Society's mediation accreditation and qualifying credits, for BC lawyers seeking to become certified as family law mediators.  The course has also been approved for MediateBC's required CPD credits and the BC Collaborative Roster Society's qualifying and annual CPD credits.

The registration form and additional information can be found on the Collaborative Divorce Vancouver's website.  The deadline for registering is April 28, 2017. 

In this two-day course, you will learn how to:
  • work effectively with other professionals in a seamless and integrated manner
  • reframe dispute resolution as a legal, psychological and emotional process
  • cut through impasse and bring meaningful resolution, healing and closure to your clients by getting to the heart of any dispute
  • improve your dispute resolution skills in all kinds of cases you practice, whether IM, solo mediation, arbitration, med-arb, or Collaborative
  • adapt your already existing skills to a new, carefully structured paradigm
  • recognize and work with emotional and psychological issues that are often conflated with positions in legal disputes
  • MPHs: apply clinical skills in a non-clinical, dispute resolution context, and learn how to differentiate clinical skills from psychologically-related mediation skills
  • assess suitability of participants
  • increase self-awareness of participants, maximizing their capacity for meaningful involvement
  • develop capacity of MHPs acting as neutral dispute resolution professionals to remain open, unguarded and empathic when working with individuals in varying states of vulnerability and crisis
  • practice skills working with professionals from other disciplines




"Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference (ISC) 

Marin Superior Court has implemented an innovative and effective program called the Interdisciplinary Settlement Program, designed to better meet the needs of families in high conflict custody matters. Once a party has filed a request for a child custody order and at the request of either party the court may set an Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference (ISC). This is a judicially supervised proceeding in which a volunteer mental health professional and a volunteer family law attorney work together with a judicial officer to help parents resolve custody disputes. The goal is to reach agreement by defusing hostility, initiating better communication and cooperation, and offering research-based information about the developmental needs of children. Self represented litigants should contact the Family Court Facilitator to obtain information and forms to file requests for order and an ISC."


02 April 2017

Talking to Kids about Divorce

My colleague Alyson Jones writes regularly for the Huffington Post.  Her article "Talking to Kids about Divorce" is posted here.  Alyson is a child and family therapist and clinical director and founder of Alyson Jones and Associates, in West Vancouver.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/alyson-jones/talking-about-divorce-kids_b_15456844.html


Karen F. Redmond
Collaborative Family Law Lawyer

14 March 2017

Spousal Support – Is there a clear answer on How to divide Net Disposable income? Should 50/50 NDI be the norm?

I will confess at the outset, this blog is a little long and this is because I was struggling with the question about why, following separation, the net incomes of the parties are not just equally divided.  What follows is a discussion, and my largely failed attempt to answer my own question. 



Each time I review the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Revised Users Guide (“RUG”) online, found here: SSAG RUG it is clear to me why the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were written in the first place.  Prior to the SSAG, there had been decades of conflicting and unsatisfactory court outcomes when it came to spousal support applications.  The SSAG were written as a response to years of complaints from lawyers, judges and the general public, who pointed out that there were no rules to follow, and therefore there was very little consistency in spousal support awards. 

First, a little background information.  What is spousal support anyway and why do people have to pay it?


The underlying reasons for an order of spousal support is the principle of equitable sharing of the economic consequences of marriage and marriage breakdown.  This from a well-known and often cited case , called Chutter v. Chutter 2008 BCCA 507 . In other words when a marriage breaks down, a court can order a sharing of the economic consequences, which, contrary to common perception, means sharing economic consequences of marriage breakdown, not necessarily sharing of income.  And I will go one step further to say as a caution readers that income sharing does not mean equal sharing. The SSAG's rely on mathematical formulas in order to determine spousal support as a percentage of each party’s incomes, and the percentage depends on a host of factors including but not limited to the length of the relationship, the incomes and ages of the parties, and the ability of the parties to earn income and be self-sufficient after the breakdown of the relationship.  The online resources provide a complex explanation which I will not go into here. 

The SSAG formulas generate ranges for spousal support amount (and for duration as well unless the conditions for indefinite (duration not specified) support are met).  The ranges allow parties and their lawyers, or a court, to adjust amount (and duration) to take into account the specifics of the particular case in light of the support factors and objectives found in the Divorce Act, which are:

The Divorce Act at 15.2(6):   a spousal support order should take into account all of the following factors:

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

 

Section 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act also says that the court must consider the condition, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse, including the length of time the spouses cohabited and the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation.  It is important to note that the means of each spouse includes his or her capital base, and this is something that often gets overlooked in calculating spousal support. 

Why do parties have to pay spousal support?  What does it mean to compensate a spouse? 


“Compensatory spousal support” is paid to compensate a spouse for sacrifices made during the relationship in order to recognize and account for the economic disadvantages or advantages flowing from the role taken by the spouses in the marriage.  That's a fancy way of saying if you gave something up or made sacrifices and allowed your spouse and or his or her career to flourish, you may be entitled to compensation in the form of sharing income with your spouse. 
Non-compensatory spousal support” is intended to narrow the gap between the needs and means of the spouses upon marital breakdown which is why it is often referred to as the "means and needs" approach to spousal support. Again, a fancy way of saying, if one of you has a significantly higher income, the lower income earner may be entitled to share in that income.   Where compensatory principles do not apply, need alone may be sufficient to ground a claim for spousal support.  The courts have said clearly that “the primary burden of meeting the needs of a spouse after the breakdown of the relationship is on the former partner rather than on the state” (This from the Chutter case above, at paragraph 54).  That said, there is a clear obligation on the lower income earning recipient spouse to make efforts at self- sufficiency, depending on their age, training, work experience and so on.  The Family Law Act s 161(d)  FLA Section 161

And if you feel like reading a case, read this one:  Kneller v. Greenwood  2015 BCSC 1410

The point to be made here and it may be hard to accept if you are the recipient, is that the equalization of the economic consequences of the marriage or its breakdown does not necessarily mean equalization of net disposable income. The equalization of net disposable income is not the legal test for compensatory spousal support.    Another case you may want to read:  Armstrong v Armstrong  2012 BCSC 166 2012.


The SSAG RUG gives a few examples of when true equalization of net disposable incomes may be appropriate, for example, where only pension income is being shared after a very long marriage, of 25 years or more, or where both spouses are low income, or perhaps where both spouses are employed after a long marriage, but with a significant income disparity.  The writers of the SSAG were clear that they had chosen the equalization of income, (50% of the gross income difference) as the maximum level of income sharing.  More detailed discussion can be found here HERE 

A discussion about sharing of individual net disposable incomes (INDI) can be found here  INDI   and I particularly appreciated the explanation of why the range of support is between 40 and 46 (NOT 50%) percent of the INDI which the writers confirm was done deliberately stating,

Despite the intellectual attraction of a 50/50 split, there are a number of practical problems that convinced us that it was not appropriate to set the upper limit of the range there. First, very few courts are currently prepared to push spousal support amounts that high. Second, there is a live concern for the access-related expenses of the payor spouse, expenses that are not otherwise reflected in the formula. Most payors are exercising access and most are spending directly upon their children during the time they spend with their children. Third, there are concerns for the payor in the situation where the payor has employment-related expenses and the recipient spouse is at home full time and receiving large spousal support.”


So, what if there are children and we share parenting time?

Cases where parties share children on an approximately equal basis also often result in spousal support payments that equalize net disposable income.  A discussion of those principles can be found here HERE

In shared custody or shared parenting situations, where neither spouse has re-partnered and there are no new children in either household, the SSAG says that the starting point should be an amount of spousal support that leaves each household with equal net disposable income. The SSAG range in shared custody cases always includes this equal sharing of the net disposable income (50/50 NDI split), to recognize the importance of this principle. When doing the calculations, sometimes the equal NDI point is in the mid-range, but it is just as often lower or higher in the SSAG range.  The important thing to note is that it is always available as an option in shared parenting cases. 

What are the Courts saying about this? 

Whereas Ontario Courts tend towards an equal sharing of NDI in shared parenting situations, the Courts in British Columbia have continued to default to generating awards in the mid-range of the SSAG.  Although there is no support or justification within the SSAG to default to the mid range, in R.D.L.J. v. B.S.J., 2014 BCSC 1566, the court suggested that an equal NDI outcome, while not out of the question, would be “a significant change in the practice and the law in British Columbia”. 

In this writers opinion, this trend needs to be changed. 


There are a few B.C. shared custody cases where the courts explicitly equalized net incomes see here : A.M.D. v. K.R.J.,    2015 BCSC 1539  as well as Paisley v. Paisley,  2014 BCSC 1752

So, to answer my original question: 


Is there a clear answer on How to divide Net Disposable income?  Yes, and no.  The Guidelines provide the range within which the answer lies. 


Should be 50/50 NDI be the norm?  Well, this depends on whether you are the recipient or the payor, but the answer from the courts and from the drafters of the SSAG appears to be that 50/50 NDI is not the norm. 


For self represented litigants, a useful website is the BCSC site:  http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/self-represented_litigants/

And as always, speak to a lawyer if you need legal advice. 

 

19 February 2017

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: Why NOT to default to the MID range


by Karen F. Redmond, Family Law Lawyer


Has anyone other than JP Boyd read the entire Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Revised Users Guide (“RUG”)?  SSAG RUG     I have to confess that I did not read the entire original 2008 SSAG Users Guide, nor did I make it through the 2010 updated version.  But, I have read the entire 2016 update and I learned a few things, ok I learned a lot, which I hope to share with you here in this next series of Blogs about the SSAG.   This my attempt to share some of these nuggets and to touch on some of the common mistakes and misconceptions about spousal support calculations. 


(I didn’t know, for example that it was the makers of the DivorceMate software who in 2011 provided their online calculators free for use by the general public who previously could only access spousal support calculators by hiring a lawyer or other professional. online calculator .  Shout out to DivorceMate.)  But, I digress….. 


It appears that one of the most frequent mistakes is an automatic deference by lawyers and the courts to the ‘mid-range’ of the guidelines without much consideration for the factors which support the low and high range of the calculations.  The writers of the RUG are clear that  “the mid-point is NOT some kind of “norm”, with the rest of the range only to be used in unusual circumstances”  The tendency to default to the mid range should be avoided.  They go on to say,


"If anything, in the basic formula cases for low to middle-income spouses, there should be a tendency for spousal support to push up into the mid-to-high end of the SSAG range, given the significant compensatory claims with children, the needs in the home of the primary care parent and the constraints of ability to pay upon the range. A simple default to the mid-point likely leaves many of these recipients under-compensated. There may be good reasons to locate in the mid-to-lower end of the SSAG in some of these cases, notably the specifics of ability to pay for lower income payors in individual cases, but these need to be articulated. The dynamics of location with the range will be different where there is only one child or spouses with higher incomes."


From a review of the case law, the following factors may favour a support award at the higher end of the range:

  • The recipient has a strong compensatory claim (eg. recipient moved/gave up employment for payor’s benefit; recipient funded payor’s education/training; recipient sacrificed employment opportunities because of child care).

  • The recipient has limited income.

  • The recipient has limited earning capacity.

  • The recipient has compelling needs and standard of living.

  • The recipient is older.

  • The recipient will be undertaking retraining or education in the immediate future which is aimed at promoting self-sufficiency.

  • The recipient has primary care of very young children, several children and/or special needs children (ie. age, number and needs of the children can restrict the custodial parent’s ability to work).

  • The marriage is long term.

  • The marriage is short with young children and a stay-at-home custodial parent.

  • There is no property to be divided.

  • The recipient is carrying significant family debts (but not severe enough to fall within debt payment exception).

The following factors may support an award at the lower end of the range:

    • The recipient has a weak compensatory claim.

    • The payor has limited income.

    • The payor has limited earning capacity/ability to pay.

    • The recipient does not have significant needs (eg. recipient has solid employment/income; recipient has reduced living expenses (ie. subsidized housing; mortgage free matrimonial home; shared housing costs)).

    • The recipient has remarried/repartnered.

    • The payor has significant needs.

    • The recipient is younger.

    • There is an unequal division of property in favour of the recipient.

    • The recipient holds sizeable exempt or excluded assets after division of property.

    • The payor is carrying significant family debts (but not severe enough to fall within debt payment exception).

    • In the case of a traditional marriage, the payor has costs associated with going to work, in contrast to the non-working recipient.

    • An incentive for the recipient to make greater efforts towards self-sufficiency is needed (although imputing income can also address this factor).

    • There are local and regional differences (eg. Atlantic provinces).

    • The payor has significant direct access costs (especially important when the payor is at the lower end of the income spectrum).

    • The payor makes mandatory deductions for pension contributions (especially important when the payor is at the lower end of the income spectrum).

This list is from a paper I found on the DM website HERE

My take:  This is a good reminder to us all to perhaps ask a few more questions of our clients before we make assumptions about where they may or may not fall within the SSAG range. 

Next week:  the case for 50/50 NDI (an equal sharing of net disposable income)

06 February 2017

WHY CRA NEEDS TO KNOW YOUR “RELATIONSHIP STATUS”


Canada Child Tax Benefits Post Separation
As tax season is approaching I thought it might be a good time to touch on the subject of Canada Revenue Agency’s treatment of separating couples who have children.  As a family law lawyer I never give advice about taxes but there are some helpful links here and as always, speak to your accountant or a tax lawyer if you are unsure. 

Your marital status is important to Canada Revenue Agency because it impacts your eligibility for tax benefits and credits.  Information on how and why to inform CRA about your marital status can be found at the link  HERE  If you are a parent you may be eligible to receive the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) which is a tax-free payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under the age of 18.  To qualify, you must file your annual tax returns and CRA needs information about your relationship status. 

Firstly, are you a spouse?  CRA defines a spouse as someone you are legally married to or someone who you have been in a ‘conjugal’ relationship with, for 12 consecutive months.  (Note the difference here between the definition for family law purposes: the Family Law Act defines common law spouses in part, as non-married parties who have been living in a marriage like relationship for two years or more FLA SPOUSE DEFINITION )  You are also a common law spouse if you are living in a conjugal relationship with someone who is the parent of your child by birth or adoption. 

Are you separated?  CRA says you are separated when you have lived separate and apart because of a breakdown in your relationship for 90 days or more.   Once the 90 days have passed, you are considered separated on the first day that you started living separate and apart.  If you continue to live together at the same address, as many couples do, sharing parenting and other financial responsibilities, you are not separated in the eyes of CRA and you are not eligible for sharing or division of Canada Child Tax Benefits.  Interestingly, if your separation is involuntary (your spouse is incarcerated, is away for school, health or work reasons) you are not considered separated. 

After separation, in joint custody situations, the CCTB will be paid to the parent with whom the child primarily or ordinarily resides.  If the child ordinarily resides with both parents, each parent will be entitled to half of the CCTB which would be paid if they were the sole and primary caregiver. 

If you get married or start living in marriage like relationship and either of you has children who live with you, CRA will put all of the children on the female parent’s account for the purpose of calculating and paying the CCTB.   If you are a same sex couple, the CRA website, simply says, that “one of you” will get the CCTB for all of the children in the house.  Both parents must file income tax returns in order to receive these benefits.  For other credits such as GST/HST credits, only one ‘spouse’ can receive these credits and they are paid to the party whose tax return is first assessed for each taxation year and the amount is the same regardless of which spouse receives is, since it is based on family income. 

The CRA website is a useful tool if you want to calculate your payments or update your status. Information about claiming child care expenses can be found here: CRA WEBSITE 

The important thing to note is that you need to update your relationship status on FB and the CRA site, or you may be on the hook for significant repayments if you have been less than forthcoming with the information you and or your spouse has provided. 

13 January 2017

13 Tips for Cheaper Divorce (National Post)

Credit to my colleague Jonathan Lazar for sending me this article which I think is a great read for anyone either entering into or in the midst of a separation.


13 Tips for a Cheaper Divorce


Karen Redmond, Family Law