Case Law Minutes #12- LL v MC (s. 9 Child support Guidelines, 40% threshold) скачать в хорошем качестве

Case Law Minutes #12- LL v MC (s. 9 Child support Guidelines, 40% threshold)

#childsupport This is the 12th video of our series Case Law Minutes, which focuses on the often cited cases in family court in Ontario, as listed here: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/prac... This series is presented by Osgoode Hall Law School students. This video highlights the case L.L. v. M.C., 2013 ONSC 1801 (CanLII) LINK: https://canlii.ca/t/fwslt (s.9 of Child Support guidelines) Speaker: Aaron Huizinga Osgoode Hall Law student JD 2023 The current S.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines wording is reproduced here: (this is slightly different from the passage in the 2013 case decision) "Shared parenting time 9 If each spouse exercises not less than 40% of parenting time with a child over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account (a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses; (b) the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and (c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought." LINK to current Federal Child Support Guidelines https://canlii.ca/t/80mh How is the 40% calculated? Timemark: 3:55 Paragraphs 34-36 from the judge's reasons: "[34] As demonstrated in Gauthier v. Hart and Maultsaid, the courts do not have discretion to round up or down to reach (or avoid) a finding that a parent has access 40 per cent of the time. Forty per cent is fixed as a firm threshold. It is acknowledged that when parents are exercising that level of access, child support determinations need to be approached in a different manner given the reality of the costs incurred by parents in these types of access and custody arrangements. [35] It is therefore desirable to be as precise as possible when determining the reality of the parents’ access and custody situation. As the Alberta Court of Appeal stated in C.(L.) v. C. (R.O.), 2007 ABCA 158, [2007] A.J. No. 513, “there is no place for ‘deeming’ parenting time to be what it is not”. Arguably it is equally unfavourable to deem non-parenting time. If we are rounding up or down to larger portions of a day rather than using the most precise information available, “deeming parenting time” is inevitable. [36] While it is important for the courts to not get lost in the numbers entirely, there will necessarily be an accounting of time and a question of whether the party exercising access does so in a manner that exceeds or falls short of 40 per cent. [37] The two most common approaches to calculating access and custody time are in days, and in hours. If using days, to reach 40 per cent, the access parent must have the child in his or her care for 146 days per year (Handy v. Handy, [1999] B.C.J. No. 6 (S.C.). When calculating in hours, the 40 per cent threshold lies at 3504 hours per year (Claxton v. Jones, [1999] B.C.J. No. 3086 (Prov. Ct.)). [38] In his paper, “A Practitioner’s Guide to the Economic Implications of Custody and Access under the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines”, Julien D. Payne points out that no matter how the calculation is completed, the relevant period is the amount of time the child is in the care and control of the parent not the amount of time that the parent is physically present with the children ((2002) 32 R.G.D. 1-36, at 8). The calculation includes the time the child spends in swimming lessons, at day care, at school, or with a nanny, so long as the parent claiming this time is the parent who during that period is “responsible for their well-being” (Sirdevan v. Sirdevan, [2009] O.J. No. 3796). [39] In line with this approach, a custodial parent will be credited with time that a child spends sleeping or at school, except for those hours when the non-custodial parent is actually exercising rights of access or the child is sleeping in the non-custodial parent’s home (Cusick v. Squire, [1999] N.J. No. 206 (S.C.)). If there is a fixed drop-off time for the access parent to deliver the child to school or daycare and the child returns to the custodial parent at the end of that day, the time during school or daycare is typically credited to the custodial parent (Maultsaid, at para. 20; Barnes v. Carmount, 2011 ONSC 3925, [2011] O.J. No. 3717, at para. 43)." Warning: The videos on Litigation Help are intended to provide general legal information only. They are not substitutes for legal advice from a legal professional. We do not warrant the accuracy of any of the information in the videos. They are entertainment, informational videos only meant to provide some context to common legal terms or doctrines. If you require legal help, please consult a professional directly.