The best* Surrey interim support lawyers understand that when dealing with interim spousal and child support applications using the correct incomes for each spouse is critical to ensure justice is done. The best* Surrey interim support lawyers, like one of our senior lawyers at MacLean family Law also know that not all income is used to calculate “guideline income” under the child support and spousal support guidelines. Finally, the best* Surrey interim support lawyers can help guide you to a successful negotiated outcome or if required obtain justice in the courts for you and your children.
MacLean Law is a multiple award winner for Vancouver’s best* family law firm and as is nominated yet again for this award by Top Choice. If you are looking for the best* Surrey interim support lawyers, give us a call at 604-576-5400 to meet with us or set up an appointment at our other 5 BC offices or meet with us in Calgary.
In a recent case from our BC Supreme Court of A.L.P. v. E.L.G. the court explained how a Judge approaches a support claim to allow parties to make ends meet until trial:
[19] In Loesch v. Walji, 2008 BCCA 214, the Court commented on questions raised on interim support applications. The Court of Appeal said:
[17] Applications for interim support are usually made in circumstances in which the evidence concerning family assets and the economic consequences of the breakdown of the marriage are not fully developed. Consequently, most applications for interim support focus on the needs of the party and the ability to pay.
[18] As Smith J. (as he then was) observed in Grossi v. Grossi (1993), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 413 at para. 2 (B.C.S.C., Chambers):
Where the parties have, during the course of the marriage, established a standard of living and a pattern of spending, the interim award should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue at that level if the ability to pay warrants that: Row v. Row (1991), 1991 CanLII 5897 (AB QB), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 237 (Alta. Q.B.), at p. 242. The applicant is not entitled, however, to an award which will permit extravagant spending: Kives v. Kives (1984), 43 R.F.L. (2d) 126 (Man. C.A.); O’Toole v. O’Toole (1986), 1986 CanLII 1323 (BC SC), 3 R.F.L. (3d) 218 (B.C.S.C.).
Best* Surrey Interim Support Lawyers 604-576-5400
MacLean Family Law’s best* Surrey interim support lawyers also explain to our clients that some income needs to be grossed up to ensure a proper calculation such as tax free income or capital gains income and other income may be excluded altogether from being part of a spouse’s guideline income.
In the A.L.P case a veteran’s disability pension for non pecuniary loss was not included as income for support purposes. The conclusion points out just how complex the issues of spousal and child support guideline income can be. Basic support and the more complex assessment of special and extraordinary expenses and shared and split custody calculations are not simple. Don’t make a huge mistake when you can call one of the best* Surrey interim support lawyers at 604-576-5400.
Part Of Disability Pension Not Income For Support
[47] In my view, LF and Wells settle the controversy in B.C. In LF, Mr. Justice Brown performed a detailed analysis of the policy reasons to exclude pension revenues from income for support purposes. The non-pecuniary portions of the Veteran’s Affairs benefits received by the respondent do not become income for the purposes of establishing his Guidelines income. Mr. Justice Brown’s remarks are compelling and leave no doubt about the proper approach to the law in British Columbia. He said:
[57] In my opinion, Wedge J.’s reasoning aptly applies to a Veteran’s Affairs disability pension. In short, when a payor parent receives income from an annuity originally purchased with the proceeds of personal injury award proceeds, as in non-pecuniary damages, or for cost of future care, such income does not constitute Guidelines “income” for child support purposes. Equally so, the lump sums of court awards for those heads of damages are not a family asset; and income derived from them does not constitute Guidelines “income” for child support purposes. Furthermore, the recipient of a lump sum award for those kinds of personal damages is not obliged to purchase an annuity or to invest it: in my opinion, it would be unreasonable to notionally attribute an income stream to a lump sum award and then go on to treat that stream as “income” for Guidelines purposes.[48] This conclusion adopts Madam Justice Wedge’s conclusion in M.K. v. R.A.S., 2004 BCSC 1798 and is consistent with Manuge.
[49] On this interim application, my view is that payments made pursuant to s. 43 of the Pension Act function as a type of reimbursement to the respondent to the extent that he has expenses incurred in supporting his child and spouse, “at least equal to the amount of the additional pension”.
[50] Notwithstanding the tension in the analysis in Darlington on the one hand and Frigon and Vaughan on the other, I am satisfied that the Veterans Affairs pension for the respondent, for any children of a disabled veteran, and for a spouse of a disabled veteran are all derived from the government policy that treats these payments as compensation for non-pecuniary losses and not as income. I am not persuaded that LF should be revisited on this interim application; LF remains persuasive and compelling in the circumstances of this case. It will be open to the trial judge to revisit this issue after considering further submissions or new authorities presented at trial.
