Vancouver Calgary Child Parenting Appeal Lawyers

Dawson Creek Child Support lawyers ensure proper child support is paid and collected. We ensure that the payments accurately reflect the payor’s real income.

Dawson Creek Child Support Lawyers

Our top Dawson Creek child support lawyers are pleased to expand their Fort St John and Dawson Creek family law office with the addition of a new senior lawyer resident in Dawson Creek Fort St John and an articled student. MacLean Family Law is Western Canada’s largest family law firm and one of its most highly rated.

We have 5 offices in BC in Fort St John/Dawson Creek, Kelowna, Surrey, Richmond and Vancouver, BC.

You can call our Dawson Creek Child Support Lawyers us in Fort St John Dawson Creek at 250-262-5052.

Cases Our Dawson Creek Child Support Lawyers Handle:

Our Dawson Creek child support lawyers handle medium to high net income child support cases involving:

Incomes over $150,000;
Split custody and shared custody adjustments
Imputation of income to recipient spouses
Determination of true self employed income for paying spouses
Imputing income for underemployed parents for paying spouses
Lump sum and secured support
Arrears of child support enforcement and cancellation
Variations of child support up or down

Our Dawson Creek child support lawyers are often asked:

What do you do when one parent decides to sacrifice their children’s lifestyle because they are angry or frustrated or want to punish the other spouse?
What can be done when they threaten to quit their job or refuse to retrain or look for work?
What can be done when they take cash under the table
What can be done when they actually stop working at all?

Spouses have threatened to quit jobs and not pay support since the dawn of time. Courts will not be dissuaded from calculating what a person can earn looking at their skills education and work history if work is available. Substance abuse and addiction may provide a brief respite for payments if the person is in a serious recovery program but long term couch surfing while children’s needs are not met is not sustainable and courts will take action.

Dawson Creek Child Support Lawyers Explain Imputed Income

In Kandola v Kandola the BC Supreme Court found a non working ex courier who had issues with alcoholism and was not working at all could work and an income of $25,000 was attributed to him for purposes of his child support obligation.

CHILD SUPPORT

Applicable Principles

[114]     Section 15.1 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), confers jurisdiction on the court to make an order requiring a spouse to pay support for the children of the marriage.

[115]     Section 15.1(3) requires the court making an order for child support to do so in accordance with the applicable Federal Child Support Guidelines.

[116]     Under s. 3(1)(a) of the Guidelines the presumptive rule is that the amount of basic child support for children under the age majority is the table amount, as determined by the number of children under the age of majority and the income of the payor spouse.

[117]     Under s. 16 of the Guidelines, a spouse’s annual income is determined using all sources of income comprising “Total income” in the payor spouse’s T1 General Income Tax Return, as adjusted in accordance with Schedule III of the Guidelines. Under Schedule III, where the spouse is an employee, union or professional dues are deducted in determining the spouse’s Guidelines income.

[118]     Section 19 of the Guidelines confers a broad discretion on the court to impute income to a spouse, and provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances where income may be imputed: Ouellette v. Ouellette, 2012 BCCA 15 at para. 66.

[119]     Section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines permits the court to impute income where a spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child. Under s. 19(1)(f), the court may impute income to a spouse where he or she has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.

[120]     A party seeking to impute income bears the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that income should be imputed on a rational and evidentiary basis: Windle v. Windle, 2010 BCSC 18.

Imputation of Income to Respondent

[121]     In determining whether the respondent is intentionally unemployed or under-employed under s. 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines, I must consider whether Mr. Kandola has taken reasonable steps to obtain employment commensurate with such factors as his age, health, education, skills and work history. In order to impute income for intentional unemployment or under-employment, the court is not required to make a finding of bad faith on the part of the payor spouse. Income may be imputed where the payor is not earning to capacity: Barker v. Barker, 2005 BCCA 177; Koch v. Koch, 2012 BCCA 378. The principles that apply in determining whether a parent is earning to capacity include the following:

parents who are healthy and can work have a duty to seek employment;

reasonable income-earning capacity will be based on consideration of a parent’s age, education, experience, skills, health, and on the job opportunities that are reasonably available;

limited experience and skills do not justify failure to pursue employment;

persistence in unremunerated employment or unrealistic career aspirations will not be an excuse; and

self-induced reduction in income will not justify the avoidance of child support obligations.

Hanson v. Hanson, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2532 (QL) (S.C.); Fong v. Fong, 2011 BCSC 42.

[122]     Mr. Kandola is a recovering alcoholic. Since the parties separated, he has lived with his parents and relied upon them for financial support. He testified he was receiving welfare benefits at the time of trial.

[123]     For 20 years before and during the marriage, the respondent was employed by Purolator as a courier. In or about July 2012, his employment was terminated for misconduct related to his alcoholism. The respondent was unemployed when the parties separated in September 2012. Purolator reinstated Mr. Kandola for approximately six weeks in the fall of 2013 before dismissing him again. Mr. Kandola has been unemployed since then.

[137]     I find that the respondent is intentionally unemployed and that he has the capacity to contribute to the children’s support.

[138]     I accept that for the twelve months following his enrolment in the detoxification program on April 28, 2014, Mr. Kandola devoted much of his time and energy to the treatment and control of his addiction to alcohol. However, the respondent has offered no satisfactory explanation of his failure to seek and find employment in any capacity since May 2015. I conclude that Mr. Kandola has been deliberately unemployed since then.

[139]     Mr. Kandola is still a relatively young man at age 45. Before and during the marriage, he worked exclusively as a courier. Although the court received no evidence indicating that the respondent holds any other professional qualification or post-secondary vocational certification, he is both intelligent and articulate. To his credit, Mr. Kandola has succeeded in controlling his addiction to alcohol for the last two years.

[140]     The claimant invites the Court to impute to Mr. Kandola an annual Guidelines income of $50,000, based on the income he earned during the three years before the parties’ separation.

[141]     The respondent has been unemployed for the better part of four years. He was twice dismissed for cause by his former employer. There is a real possibility that Mr. Kandola will not be able to secure new employment as a courier at his former salary level. On the other side of the ledger, the respondent demonstrated for many years his ability to earn an income above the minimum wage.

Respondent’s Guidelines Income

[142]     Taking all of these factors into account, I impute to the respondent an annual Guidelines income of $25,000, which I find to be a fair measure of his present capacity to contribute to the support of the children.