Retroactive Child Support: Benefits and Burdens

S E R V I N G

C A N A D I A N S

Retroactive Child Support:

Benefits and Burdens

Prepared by:

Shelley Kierstead

Presented to:

Family, Children and Youth Section

Department of Justice Canada

March 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the

views of the Department of Justice Canada.

This article may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further

permission from the Department of Justice Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in

ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; that the Department of Justice Canada is

identified as the source department; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official

version of the original report.

Aussi disponible en fran?ais sous le titre : La pension alimentaire r¨¦troactive au profit des

enfants : avantages et inconv¨¦nients

? Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,

represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 2009

Retroactive Child Support: Benefits and Burdens

Shelley Kierstead ?

(March 2009)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada¡¯s 2006 decision in four cases1 dealing with retroactive

child support has been widely referred to by courts across Canada. It seems fair to say

that the test articulated by the Supreme Court in SRG for considering whether retroactive

child support should be ordered, and if so, for what period and in what quantum,

continues to be the subject of interpretation and commentary.

The following work aims to describe what is at issue in retroactive support claims, the

approach that Mr. Justice Bastarache outlined in the majority decision, and the points of

departure articulated in the concurring minority decision written by Justice Abella. The

author attempts to ¡°unpack the analysis¡± within the case, and to highlight complexities

arising from the decision, as articulated both in subsequent cases and by various authors

and family law practitioners.2 Finally, the paper will close with a list of tips for lawyers

dealing with child support cases.

1.

How the Retroactive Support Question Came Before the Supreme

Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada¡¯s analysis applied specifically to four Alberta-based

cases¡ªthree that had been combined by the Alberta Court of Appeal3 and a fourth that

the Supreme Court added.4 In each case, the parent who was a recipient of child support

was seeking an amount of support for a prior period¡ªspecifically, an amount that was in

keeping with the support obligation attributable to the payor parent¡¯s income during that

period.5 The tricky feature of these claims was that the specific obligations sought to be

enforced were not ones that had been spelled out by order or agreement¡ªhad this been

the case, the relief sought would have been enforcement of arrears that had accrued over

the years. Instead, as the Supreme Court said, the claims concerned ¡°the enforceability

and quantification of support that was neither paid nor claimed when it was supposedly

due.¡±6

In many cases, such claims will arise where support obligations have been settled

pursuant to either an agreement or a court order,7 and subsequently, the payor¡¯s income

increases, but the support paid does not. As the Court recognized in SRG, ¡°retroactive¡± is

technically a misnomer in such circumstances¡ªthe payor is not being asked to comply

?

Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School.

-1-

with a legal obligation that did not exist in the past. Instead, the recipient is seeking to

hold the payor accountable for the obligations that would have been associated with his

or her income during the period in question had support been calculated afresh at that

time. The ultimate issues for the court were whether it could order such ¡°retroactive¡±

support, and if so, under what circumstances it should do so.

It is useful to consider, prior to reviewing the court¡¯s analysis, the legislative backdrop to

this question. An important shift in the characterization of child support obligations

occurred in 1997 with amendments to the Divorce Act8 and a corresponding introduction

of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.9 Under the current child support regime,

assuming a post-separation situation where one parent has responsibility for the care of

the children for the majority of the time while the children see their other parent for

¡°access¡± visits, there is an assumption that the person with whom the children reside most

of the time will automatically contribute to the children¡¯s well-being in accordance with

his or her financial ability. The other parent¡¯s support obligation is calculated by using a

table that dictates amounts owed for each income level. In other words, the payor¡¯s

obligation is established by direct link to his or her income (along with the number of

children for whom support is owed and the province of residence).10 The monthly amount

set out within the Guidelines table is said to approximate the proportion of one¡¯s income

that could appropriately be transferred based on that person¡¯s ability to pay.

The method of calculation that sees support flowing directly from income levels

represents a departure from the pre-Guidelines regime. Prior to the implementation of the

Guidelines, support was determined by calculating children¡¯s needs based on budgets

provided by parents and then assessing the proportion of the required amount that each

parent should contribute. This proportionate share was based on each parent¡¯s financial

ability.11

Another essential backdrop to understanding the Supreme Court¡¯s decision is the fact that

neither the Divorce Act12 nor the Guidelines13 specifically dictate that a parent must

increase his or her payments as income increases. The key provisions speaking to this

question are contained within s. 25 of the Guidelines, which provides:

25. (1) Every spouse against whom a child support order has been made must, on the written request

of the other spouse or the order assignee, not more than once a year after the making of the order and

as long as the child is a child within the meaning of these Guidelines, provide that other spouse or the

order assignee with

(a) the documents referred to in subsection 21(1) for any of the three most recent taxation years for

which the spouse has not previously provided the documents;

(b) as applicable, any current information, in writing, about the status of any expenses included in the

order pursuant to subsection 7(1); and

(c) as applicable, any current information, in writing, about the circumstances relied on by the court in

a determination of undue hardship.

-2-

These subsections place an onus on the recipient spouse to request income disclosure

from the payor spouse. One of the complicating factors in this analysis then, is whether,

during any period that a recipient does not make such a request, and does not initiate

subsequent proceedings (either through informal negotiations or court application) to

alter support amounts in accordance with the new income information, the payor parent is

entitled to assume that he or she need not adjust the support being paid for his or her

children. And, when at some point the recipient spouse does make an application for

changed support, to what extent should this ¡°assumption¡± that nothing further was

required of the payor parent impact the analysis?

2.

How Did the Supreme Court Approach the Issues?

A.

Establishing the Obligation

Justice Bastarache, speaking for the majority,14 began his analysis by noting that

parentage, in and of itself, establishes a support obligation: ¡°upon the birth of a child,

parents are immediately placed in the roles of guardians and providers.¡±15 For over a

century, this parent-child relationship has been understood as entailing both moral and

legal obligations.16 Notwithstanding the breakdown of his or her parents¡¯ marriage, the

child¡¯s right to support from his or her parents survives.17 Financial support, which is the

child¡¯s right, survives the breakdown of his or her parents¡¯ marriage and should, to the

extent possible, provide children with the same standard of living they enjoyed during the

time the parents were together.18

A key distinction to be recognized, the court held, was between the existence of an

obligation and the enforcement of an unfulfilled obligation. Clearly, there was no

difficulty in finding that there is an ongoing obligation to pay child support in accordance

with income. However, in Canada, the mechanism for seeking to have a court enforce19

this ongoing obligation is to bring an application pursuant to either the Divorce Act or

provincial/territorial legislation. While the legislature could have chosen a different

mechanism for enforcement, and indeed, s. 25.1 of the Divorce Act contemplates federalprovincial agreements whereby provincial child support services would be created to

recalculate the amount of support owed at regular intervals,20 in light of this policy

decision, the obligation for ensuring compliance rests partially on the recipient parent.21

However, the existence of an application-based regime does not preclude the court¡¯s

ability to contemplate retroactive awards, assuming the child is a child of the marriage

within the meaning of the Divorce Act22 and therefore entitled to support at the time the

application for retroactive support is filed. Whether a retroactive award should be made

in a given case will depend on the specific legislation in effect within a particular

jurisdiction, the legislation that applies to a specific case, and the exercise of judicial

discretion.23

-3-

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download