Case summary: C.A.H. v. J.J.

Case summary of C.A.H. v. J.J., 2023 BCPC 85

The case dealt with the determination of child support payments when each spouse exercises not less than 40% of parenting time with a child over the course of a year.

The court held that once the 40% threshold is met, the amount of child support must be determined by taking into account the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each spouse, the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and any child for whom support is sought. The court emphasized that there is no discretion as to when this section is to be applied, and discretion only exists in relation to the quantification of child support.

The court also discussed the financial position of both parties, and how income can be imputed to a parent who is intentionally underemployed or unemployed. The court outlined several guidelines to be considered when determining whether to impute income, including the duty to seek employment when a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannot work, and that limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant skills.

The court further stated that a parent cannot be excused from their child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations, and that a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. The court also outlined the test for imputing income, which is one of reasonableness, having regard to the parties' capacity to earn income in light of their age, education, health, work history, and work availability.

Finally, the court discussed the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and any child for whom support is sought, and how the set-off approach in Section 8 of the Family Law Act can be a useful starting point to bring consistency and objectivity to the determination of child support. However, the court cautioned against deciding these issues without proper information and against a rigid application of the set-off, which can entail a drastic change in support, dubbed the "cliff effect" by commentators.

In summary, the case of C.A.H. v. J.J. dealt with the determination of child support payments when each spouse exercises not less than 40% of parenting time with a child over the course of a year. The court outlined guidelines for imputing income to a parent who is intentionally underemployed or unemployed and emphasized the importance of the reasonableness test. The court also cautioned against a rigid application of the set-off approach and emphasized the importance of considering the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and any child for whom support is sought.

Full text available at: https://canlii.ca/t/jx2bk