I (self-represented) am finalizing my final Minutes of Settlement (with wife who has lawyer), and want to ensure the child support clause is worded appropriately so that I can claim the dependent credit on my personal tax return for one of my three children (without any CRA hassle). This issue (i.e. the wording of this paragraph) is the final item to be agreed – the child support amounts are not in question. [background note – FRO has never been involved, and I am the higher income earner, so if you net the two child support payments, I would be the payor].
Based on the legal advice I’ve obtained, I am suggesting the following high-level wording:
1. Wife and I share custody of the children
2. Children spend approximately 50% of their time with each parent
3. Wife will pay the sum of $xxx per month of child support to me based on her annual income of $xxx
4. I will pay the sum of $xxx per month of child support to wife based on my annual income of $xxx
5. Ensure no mention of “Child Support Guidelines” in the paragraph
6. Ensure no mention of “set off” in the paragraph
This appears to be ok, and consistent with the ruling found in Verones v. The Queen
Wife’s lawyer is being very confrontational. He objected vehemently to this wording for the following reasons:
a) Wife doesn’t have a child support obligation – only I do (as the higher income earner)
b) The suggested wording introduces collectability and enforcement issues for wife
c) I am simply not entitled to such credit based on CRA rules and case law (he suggested I look at Lawson v. The Queen)
d) Omitting the reference to the Guidelines and set-off wording amounts to “fraudulent representation”
To address his concerns in (b) above, I came back and suggested we change the payment dates (mine at beginning of month and wife’s at end), and a clause saying if FRO is ever involved, a net payment can be made for convenience (so there’s an incentive for me to never be a late payor).
He once again rejected, and scheduled a court date. He wants me to explain my behavior to the court.
Oh, and he wants me to pay wife’s legal fees!
Suggestions?
Based on the legal advice I’ve obtained, I am suggesting the following high-level wording:
1. Wife and I share custody of the children
2. Children spend approximately 50% of their time with each parent
3. Wife will pay the sum of $xxx per month of child support to me based on her annual income of $xxx
4. I will pay the sum of $xxx per month of child support to wife based on my annual income of $xxx
5. Ensure no mention of “Child Support Guidelines” in the paragraph
6. Ensure no mention of “set off” in the paragraph
This appears to be ok, and consistent with the ruling found in Verones v. The Queen
Wife’s lawyer is being very confrontational. He objected vehemently to this wording for the following reasons:
a) Wife doesn’t have a child support obligation – only I do (as the higher income earner)
b) The suggested wording introduces collectability and enforcement issues for wife
c) I am simply not entitled to such credit based on CRA rules and case law (he suggested I look at Lawson v. The Queen)
d) Omitting the reference to the Guidelines and set-off wording amounts to “fraudulent representation”
To address his concerns in (b) above, I came back and suggested we change the payment dates (mine at beginning of month and wife’s at end), and a clause saying if FRO is ever involved, a net payment can be made for convenience (so there’s an incentive for me to never be a late payor).
He once again rejected, and scheduled a court date. He wants me to explain my behavior to the court.
Oh, and he wants me to pay wife’s legal fees!
Suggestions?
Comment