04 October 2017
11 August 2017
Is child support payable for a child over the age of majority who is attending college or university?
In six Canadian provinces, the age of majority is 18: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. And, the age of majority is 19 in the four remaining provinces and the three territories: British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, and Yukon.
08 August 2017
26 July 2017
I have written about this issue before but this morning when I was reading a newsletter circulated by the folks at DIVORCEMATE I came across their article on Harder v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 197 I thought it was worth sharing. Both parents in a child sharing situation need to be aware of the potential consequences of not complying with the requirement that both parents actually and physically pay child support to the other. The old practice of paying an offset amount, is no longer acceptable.
"Beware of New Tax Court Ruling The allocation of the “eligible dependant credit” (formerly, the equivalent-to-spouse credit) in a shared parenting arrangement has recently come under intense discussion and scrutiny as a result of a recent decision of the Tax Court of Canada, Harder v. R., 2016 TCC 197. Until this decision, it was generally understood that in shared parenting, so long as any court order or written separation agreement provided that both parties were paying support, even if ultimately a “setoff” payment was made from one to the other for convenience, this would suffice to allow the parties to allocate the credit to the higher income parent. The basis for this understanding came from the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) and various guides and folios published by CRA. It is against this backdrop that the Tax Court of Canada released its Harder v. R. decision, and threw the family law bar into a tizzy. In this case, the parties had two children and had resolved all issues arising out of their separation pursuant to a written consent that was filed with the court. Despite the fact that the consent outlined both parties’ child support obligations in a shared parenting arrangement, and specifically provided that each party would each claim one of the children as a dependant for the eligible dependant tax credit, the Tax Court disallowed the allocation of the credit because ultimately a single setoff payment was paid by the higher income parent to the other. The court held that the “combined effect of subsections 118(5) and 118(5.1) [of the ITA], at a minimum, requires a comprehensive documentary and evidentiary record... Surely cheques, or even their more modern replacement of recurring e-transfers, may evidence a clearly enumerated, reciprocal and mandatory support amount paid by each spouse to the other” (par 11). The unfortunate conclusion of this case is that it now appears necessary to not only provide that both parties are paying support to one another in any written court order or agreement, but the parties must now actually do so, creating the necessary “documentary and evidentiary record”. Aside from the unnecessarily cumbersome two-way exchange of money, this raises concerns where one parent pays his/her share, but the other parent does not. This leads to a particularly ridiculous result when the “deadbeat” parent is the higher income earner - not only would the lower income parent not get the support required, but he/she would be supplementing the deadbeat parent as well! Unfortunately, until such time as the court or the legislators revisit this issue, this is the result with which we are left."
Karen F. Redmond
Family Law Lawyer
19 July 2017
If my annoyance is coming across in my writing, I apologize, but it's not surprising given the number of interactions I have had in the past weeks with parents who are so blinded by concerns for their own 'rights' to their children, that they can't see their way to resolving disputes "in the best interests of their child", for what that's worth. Of course there will be the exceptional cases where lawyers need to be involved, but for the most part, I believe there is a better way to resolve these types of disputes and that is to use professionals who are trained to deal with children and children's issues.
This is my little plug for parents to use parenting coaches and parenting counselors instead of lawyers, to resolve summer parenting and scheduling problems. Collaborative Divorce BC has a website that lists counselors and coaches who can help both parents (together!) to come up with some sort of compromise that doesn't necessitate dragging the children on a sunny summer day to the lawyers office to try to give a statement about what the parent did or didn't do. Honestly, it feels tragic to me that parents could think that their child actually wants to be involved to the point of making a statement to a lawyer about the other parent.
If you have a parenting dispute, which even the most skilled parents and communicators will encounter, consider using a mental health professional, a counselor or a parenting coach to assist you. You and your former partner can sit together to discuss the issue with a counselor, and get some guidance and advice, which you may or may not accept, but isn't it worth a try, for the sake of your child?
Here is the link to the Collaborative Divorce BC Website, where you can find the parenting coaches and counselors:
and HERE for child specialists
Family Law Lawyer and Mediator
09 June 2017
The humorous subtitle to this article is "Why the heck does he/she get to benefit from the mortgage payments I made on the house since he/she left?"
(b) the value of family property and family debt must be determined as of the date
(i) an agreement dividing the family property and family debt is made, or
(ii) of the hearing before the court respecting the division of property and family debt.
05 June 2017
Is Spousal Support Paid to a Canadian Recipient by a Payor in the United States Taxable in the Hands of the Recipient?
Family Law Lawyer and Mediator
Recently in Court a Judge asked a colleague and I this question and although we were all fairly sure we knew the answer, none of us knew with certainty, so here is the answer: Yes, spousal support paid to a Canadian recipient by a payor in the United States is taxable in the hands of the recipient and deductible by the payor in certain circumstances.
A US citizen (or a US resident who is not a US citizen) can deduct spousal support payment paid to a Canadian resident. Here is Article XVIII paragraph 6 of the Canada-US tax treaty (http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/unitedstates-etatunis-eng.asp) :
“ 6. Alimony and other similar amounts (including child support payments) arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State shall be taxable as follows:
(a) such amounts shall be taxable only in that other State;
(b) notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (a), the amount that
Therefore, yes, the spousal support income is taxable in Canada to the recipient who is a Canadian resident and the spousal support is deductible by the payor in his/her US tax return. In addition, the spousal support income is not taxable in the US for the recipient.
Having said that, please note the following, sent to me by a tax colleague:
1. In order for the US citizen to deduct the spousal support in his/her US tax return:
- The recipient must have a US tax number (US Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). This may imply that the recipient must be willing to apply for the tax number.
- Without a US tax number for the recipient, the IRS will deny the spousal support deduction. In IRS’ point of view, a person who does not have a US tax number does not exist.
3. Based on the treaty table provided by the IRS (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/Tax_Treaty_Table_1.pdf), it is silent if alimony is subject to withholding tax (see Belgium or Bulgaria where footnote f specifically mentions “include alimony”).
4. Based on IRS’ Publication 515 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p515.pdf) Page 32 and 51, the IRS now does not require any US tax withholding on alimony payment to non-resident. Here is the quote:
31 May 2017
Family Law Lawyer
I am involved in an interesting case this week where the husband is applying to reduce his spousal support. The case has raised a number of interesting issues which I will post more about this week. The first question is whether the income of the husband's common law wife is relevant to the application for cancellation or reduction of spousal support.
- Chevalier v. Chevalier, 1993 CanLII 4475 (NS SC) (child and spousal support variation application) Chevalier v. Chevalier
- Redpath v. Redpath, 2008 BCSC 68 (child and spousal support variation application) Redpath v. Redpath
- Rakose v Rakose, 2008 BCSC 1165 (application to vary spousal support) Rakose v. Rakose
- Moreau v. Fliesen, 2008 BCSC 1358 (application to vary child support) Moreau v. Fliesen
- Chalmers v. Chalmers, 2009 BCSC 517 (application to vary spousal support) Chalmers v. Chalmers
FOOTNOTE: in Court last week Mr. Justice Leask found that the income of the payer's new spouse was relevant and he was not prepared to hear the application without the information. If we get a written decision I will post.
Karen F. Redmond
10 May 2017
I thank my colleague Georgialee Lang for bringing this case to my attention.
When child support is payable under a separation agreement, the terms of payment, including the amount of the support, are reviewed on an annual basis. This is provided for in the Federal Child Support Guidelines which can be found here. FCSG
When drafting separation agreements, we as lawyers, try to set out as clearly as we possibly can, the procedure for annual review of child support, by detailing the timing and details of documents need to be provided to each party. The clause usually reads something like this
"For so long as the Children are eligible to receive child support, the parties will exchange copies of their respective income and corporate tax returns for the previous year, including all attachments, by no later than May 31 each year and copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency immediately upon receipt, with child support to be adjusted, if necessary, for the following year beginning July 1 of each year based upon the Respondent’s financial information.”
The Court of Appeal in R.A. v. W.A. 2017 BCCA 126 has drawn attention to this clause as follows:
"The difficulty is that the provision, while stating that support is “to be adjusted” does not explicitly set out how it is to be adjusted. There are various possibilities. The adjustment might be “automatic”, based on a tax return and the table set out in the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Alternatively, it might require agreement or a court order. If agreement or a court order is required, it is not clear what sort of interim adjustment, if any, is to be made, or who bears the onus of bringing the matter to court for resolution... I make the obvious observation that, particularly in high-conflict family cases, it is essential that obligations under court orders are easily ascertainable. Where an order provides for adjustment of child support, the mechanism for adjustment should be fully articulated."
A good reminder to lawyers and separating parties that, although it seems tedious, and you may roll your eyes when you are presented with a 30 page separation agreement, more detail up front, saves aggravation and legal fees down the road. My suggestions to avoid the pitfalls outlined above are:
1. Clearly set out the mechanism and timing for review.
2. Clearly set out the mechanism for dispute resolution if no agreement can be reached.
3. Attach to your separation agreements, a document where the parties can formalize the changes to child support on an annual basis. I call this "Addendum: Annual Child Support Review"
I am happy to share it with you, just send me an email.
As always, talk to your lawyer if you need legal advice
28 April 2017
Payor income above the $350,000 ceilingThis 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  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.
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  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,  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,  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.
As always, get legal advice if you need it.
11 April 2017
- 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
California's Bay Area has a practice group devoted to Integrative Mediation and the Marin County Bar Association website explains how a process based on the Integrative Mediation model is used by their court in an 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."