Calgary Child Support Guideline Income Lawyers deal with cases involving the proper calculation of guideline income for employed persons, business owners and professionals, recipients of capital gains income and those who receive tax free income including disability benefits. Fair child support depends on a proper calculation of the paying parent’s income.
Calgary Child Support Guideline Income Lawyers
Our highly rated* Calgary Child Support Guideline Income Lawyers took note of a new and precedent setting Alberta Court of Appeal decision that upheld a judgment that included tax free veteran’s disability income for purposes of awarded child support.
*(Top Choice Award (2014, 2016, 2017), top rated reviews on Google, Yelp, threebestrated, lawerratingz.com).
The best Calgary Child Support Guideline Income Lawyers know that it isn’t enough to simply add tax free income to the payor’s other income. YOU MUST ALSO GROSS IT UP to make it the same as what a person paying tax would need to earn to net the same amount after tax. Contact our award winning family lawyers by calling our Calgary office at 403-444-5503 today.
Lorne N. MacLean, QC the founder of our team of Calgary Child Support Guideline Income Lawyers has extracted the following paragraphs from Rooker v Rooker, 2017 ABCA 87 :
[4] The chambers judge analyzed the evidence and the case law. He noted some divergence in the law at the trial level, specifically older cases that had tended to characterize VAC payments as property or as payments for pain and suffering, akin to damage awards for personal injury. However, he concluded that more recent cases had included VAC payments in income. On the evidence before him, he found there was no basis to exclude the payments received for the purpose of calculation of income to establish spousal and child support.
Analysis
[5] In recent years, trial courts have diverged on how to treat VAC benefits for support purposes….
[6] The decisions that exclude a payor’s VAC benefits as income for support purposes rest on that characterization, namely that the purpose of VAC benefits is not income replacement…
[7] A different approach was taken by the only appellate court to have determined the issue. In Vaughan v Vaughan, 2014 NBCA 6 (CanLII), 415 NBR (2d) 286, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal….preferred the analysis in Darlington v Moore, 2013 NSSC 103 (CanLII), [2013] NSJ No. 205 which concluded that the objectives of the Divorce Act, and the requirement to consider the “condition, means, needs or other circumstances”, required the court to take a broader view of what ought to be included in income for the purposes of support.
[8] In Darlington, the court concluded that the objectives of the Divorce Act and the Maintenance and Custody Act, RSNS 1989, c 160 directed that income for child support and spousal support purposes include tax free disability income. In adopting the Darlington ratio in Vaughan, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal said at para 26:
I am persuaded by the ratio in Darlington. This is not a situation where benefits should be excluded because of the interpretation of a contract of insurance. Rather, trial judges should endeavour to determine support payments based on the broad policy objectives contained in the Divorce Act. When fashioning a spousal or child support order, the court is obligated to consider the “condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse”. This includes the tax-free disability payments, and, in future, these payments should be taken into consideration in the calculation of child and spousal support.
[9] We agree. ….. The question to be determined is whether these payments form part of the means and ability to pay of the payor, a fundamental consideration in determining entitlement to and quantum of spousal support. Similarly under s 1(a) of the Guidelines, one of the stated objectives is the requirement to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation. It is within that framework that the question must be asked and answered. VAC benefits seen through this lens are means from which support can be paid.
[10] Section 19 of the Guidelines provides that a court “may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances” and proceeds to list a number of circumstances. The list is non-exhaustive. Where a court is satisfied that inclusion of non-taxable benefits fairly reflects a person’s ability to contribute to the joint obligation to support the children of the marriage, a court is entitled to take those amounts into consideration.
[11] This is not inconsistent with the purpose of the pension legislation under which the benefits are payable. The legislation recognizes the obligation of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or died as a result of service and to their dependants. See Pension Act, RSC 1985, c P-6, s 2. The Government of Canada website states that the purpose of the Veteran’s Affairs Disability Pension is to “provide compensation for…the disability endured and its relative impact on earning capacity.”
Conclusion
[12] The chambers judge concluded that the VAC benefits being received by the appellant were properly included in his income for the purposes of support. We find no error in his conclusion. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Our award winning family law team is proud to have expanded into Calgary to provide high level legal support to Calgarians who need strategic family and divorce law help.
