Quebec vs. Ontario Child Support

[today]

I've heard there is a significant diffence between the way child support is calculated in Quebec. From what I gather from looking at the Justice Quebec site is that they take the income of both parties (Mon & Dad) look at the table as to how much should be paid then divide by proportion of income as to who pays how much.

If I'm not mistaken, in Ontario we only take into consideration the payors income. Again if I understand correctly in Quebec the payor has an advatage (over Ontario payors) due to taking into consideration both incomes.

Could someone, anyone shed some light on this for me. The formula seems completely different as well as the results, is this right????

[Decent Dad]

It looks like they use an income shares methodology and then do the stratight offset when you have 50-50. Ontario uses the percentage of inome methodology and chaos when 50-50.

Wow... did I get divorced in the wrong province or what!!

Comparing the two:

Quebec: using the example on the website. A father making $40K and the mother making $20K. The both get the $10K deduction. Total disposable income of 40K (40-10 + 20-10) So that sets him with 75% (30/40) and her with 25% of CS. With a total gross income of $60K support is $794. Since they are 50-50 they each assume half of that, $397. His portion is 75% of $794 or $595.50. Her 25% portion of 794 is $198.50. He owes her $198.50 per month (595.50-397) in CS.

Ontario: He makes 40K. He would pay $601 for two kids,. Under 50-50 the minimum with full offsett (if the judge is nice) he would pay 601 minus her offsett of $308, so $293.

Ontario: $293 to $601 with about $5K in legal fees
Quebec: $198.50

Please... someone... tell me I made a mistake!!!

[Decent Dad]

Good God... it gets better. They even reduce support for partial time (not even 50-50). So in the example from the web site, one parent with 26% access gets a break.

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/englis...m#anchor127879

I'm voting Bloc!

[today]

So if child support is based on the payors Province of residence then it appears someone living in say for example in Ottawa would be far better off changing his address to across the river. In a case of 50/50 can a ex spouse object to this move since it is another Provence even though it may only be 5kilomtres away.

I wonder if anyone can clarify how the guidelines are Federal yet there can be such a discrepency in the way child support is calculated between each Provence.

[Decent Dad]

Nice try. The Quebec law states:

3. Which applications for support are not subject to the Rules?

The Rules do not apply if one of the parents lives outside Québec; in this case, the Federal Child Support Guidelines are used to determine the support amount in divorce proceedings.

[Decent Dad]

Originally Posted by today

I wonder if anyone can clarify how the guidelines are Federal yet there can be such a discrepency in the way child support is calculated between each Provence.

In the USA, each state has their own formula and approach. So just like Canada, the Divorce is federal but CS is a local (state/county) issue. Some states do income shares. Some do percentage of income. Some give breaks when 50-50 (or other percentage of time). Some do not.

Odd, eh.

[today]

Hmmm...I did not see that on the Quebec site, (rules do not apply if one parent lives outsdie Quebec). I did read somewhere that cs is calculatied based on payors Province/place of Residence.

So then how would one calcualte cs if both parents do not live in same Province. Would one assume that it is back to good old Ontario rules?

The tables are federal but the rules are Provincial if I understand correctly?

By the way mine is settled I'm quite satisfied with my agreement, I have friends on both sides, the subject comes up and did not realize there was such a discrepency between the tow Provinces.

I'm with you, voting Bloc!

[Decent Dad]

I personally have several problems with the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Some of which stem from the underlying princple of assured lifestyle to the recipient. Others from the methodology used (percentage of income). Other issues like how the guidelines, which are supposed to simplify things, actually do not. Section 7, 15, 19 are a mess. The standard of imputing income to get more than your table amount. And the big one: no specific rules for shared parenting.

Other issues for me rise from the massive amount of double-standards. It is ASSUMED the recipient parent contributes their share. Yet that is not tracked or verified... the payor's money is (through CS). The double standard that the recipient may work, not work, work part-time with little to no consequence. The payor must or have income imputed. Don't pay CS and go to jail. Block access to your kids... oh well. The biases in the courts regarding undue harships, CS awarding, expenses, etc.

Recipients receiving child support for adult children. Assured education tuition through one degree. Subsequent children of second families are completely second-class citizens. It never ends.

They call child support backdoor alimony for a reason. It is lifestyle reward, untaxable and unaccountable.

The more intangible the factors that drive the judge's decisions, the more biases in the judges, and the looser the guidelines, the more legal fees we all pay. But hey, it's all about the money.