canada child support

Top court child support ruling could have major impact
Monday, February 13, 2006

OTTAWA -- Nine years after the federal government set guidelines intended to bring some order and predictability to child support awards, the Supreme Court of Canada is again facing the task of sorting out who gets what.

The issue this time is whether payments should automatically go up -- or down -- when the parent paying the support starts to earn more or less money.

Closely tied to that question is a second one: whether a parent who doesn't stay up to date can be hit with a lump-sum retroactive bill.

The decision could affect thousands of divorced and separated couples, and the total dollars at stake could run into the millions.

"It has the potential to be a massive wealth transfer,'' said Deidre Smith, the lawyer for four Alberta fathers who are challenging lower-court rulings that went against them.

If they lose again at the Supreme Court, said Smith, the implications would be country-wide and the result could be "an awful lot of arguments, an awful lot more conflict between families.

"And the one thing that we know, without a doubt, the one thing that's bad for kids is conflict.''

Carole Curtis, the lawyer for two of the four mothers involved, agreed the legal fallout could be sweeping.

But for her the mater boils down to a simple principle: "You pay what you're supposed to pay when you're supposed to pay it. And if you don't you're going to pay it retroactively.''

The comments came outside the courtroom after a seven-judge panel, made up of four women and three men, reserved judgment Monday. It will likely be several months before the high court rules.

The four fathers were hit with retroactive payments ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 in the Alberta courts.

At the upper end, the $100,000 worked out to more than half the man's current annual earnings. At the other end of the spectrum, the $10,000 payment was assessed against a man who has never earned more than $23,000 in a single year.

All four say the awards were unfair because they had complied with the original court orders or agreements negotiated at the time of their separation or divorce.

The for women say they were owed the money because their former partners' ability to pay had changed for the better over the years, even though the changes weren't always disclosed at the time.
source