No announcement yet.

Spousal income vs Child Support

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    No New Day, you are not wrong. Most lawyers and Judges aren't smart enough to figure out what income is for child support purposes.

    Ex and her lawyer tried to use Line 150 income on my and that idiotic Divorcemate program. I got Divorcemate banned from my case because it showed I owed something like 800 or 900 a month (can't remember the exact figure).
    So you did what I stated on a previous post. You plead for a different figure based on your findings. That's ok.

    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    Then when everything was taken into account, I owed zero. Still have the trial decision where the judge dismissed spousal support. I wish I could post it here but that probably isn't allowed.
    Yes post it. I did it in the past. It's up to you if you don't mind everyone seeing your case. Just post the link of your decision here otherwise your statements are suspicious.

    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    At trial, I got the following lines excluded from Line 150 income including:

    Line 10400 Other Employment Income
    Line 12000 Taxable Dividends
    Line 12100 Interest and other investment income
    Line 12200 Limited Partnership Income
    Line 12300 Taxable Capital Gains
    Line 12900 RRSP Income

    I didn't test any of the other lines at trial. My basic argument was this:

    She bought a house and I decided to rent and invest. So you're punishing me just because my investment income is taxable and hers is non-taxable (capital gains in a house). So I said ok if you include my investment income as income for child support purposes then I want her non-taxable capital gains in her house each year added to her income.

    At trial decision, all my investment income was excluded for child support purposes. Of course now it's a non-issue with TFSA's. I just put all my income in there and now it's non-taxable just like hers.
    OK so you adjust your revenue as per your actual situation. That's find. Now post your judgment so we can see.

    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    There were two things I will never ever forget about that trial.

    At one point during the trial, the judge was furious with my ex (I forget the exact reason). So he scremed at her and asked her what her problem was. And me being the politically incorrect person that I am said "She's a c*nt, that's what her problem is" Then the judge screamed at me and said if he heard another outburst like that from me, he'd hold me in contempt of court (but I saw a little smile so I think he liked what I I told him I was just trying to help by answering his question.
    hummmmmm! We see a lot of those in American Courts. Not only we need the judgment but will also require the transcripts. Lot's of possible BS here but could be true with reasonable doubts.

    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    Then at the end of the trial, the judge made this comment. Mr [my last name] Based on your writing and conduct in Family Court, you think you are smarter than every Family Court Lawyer and Family Court Judge including me. Then he paused and I thought he was going to screw me. But then he finished his statement by saying...and you probably are and then he dismissed spousal support and contempt of court.
    Judgment and transcripts please!

    There is two sides to consider when it comes to determine support. The view of the recipient and the view of the payor.

    The recipient will claim that your income is line 15000 and plus more, they always do and the payor will claim that it's less than the actual figures from the NOA, they always do. The court is all aware of those fights. We all know that the judge play dumb at this and you must plead whatever you are determine what your revenue actually is. I did indicate that on my previous post:

    If you feel that line 15000 is not the appropriate amount to use according to your situation, then you can argue and propose your own figures based on your findings. Be prepare as those will certainly be challenged by the opposing party and only in rare and specific circumstances (like self-employed) the judge will diverge from the actual amount file with RCA. Do the maths to establish if it's worth the effort and money to argue in court.

    Remember that as a payor, you only have to justify your revenue if it is challenged by the opposing party. As a payor, if your revenue are strictly base on an annual job supported by T4, stick to line 15000 and don't make a fuzz on it. If you have investments, rental revenues, own business, support to previous breakdown... then adjust and plead accordingly.

    Originally posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
    By the way, I'm an accountant too but based on what I read on this thread a hell of a lot smarter than the other accountant who posted here who blindly wants to accept Line 150 as income.
    Congratulation for being smarter as I never intend to be. As per your post, the judge once told you that you were smarter than him and any lawyers so there you go. Keep the designation up for yourself. Still, I would like to have a look at your judgment. It's full of intrigues and will only need to see it to believe it!

    It's a shame to have to deal with egocentric people on a forum that brings together people seeking support. As if their situation weren't already painful and difficult enough. Still, each of us who publish on this site are just a bunch of monkey who gives only our opinion. No legal advice.


    • #17
      I'm attaching the Department of Justice review of the Child Support Guidelines that review the adjustments to income. They give a brief background to each adjustment, the rationale and provide case law if required.

      Scroll down to the middle of the page until you hit
      "Schedule III: Sections 1 to 13"

      These adjustments do not need to be defended. These are straight from the DOJ.


      • #18
        Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
        I always appreciate hearing how a vexatious person gets their karma handed in court, however feel I must comment on decorum.

        A really smart person would know to not smile, laugh, or get excited in court if things are going their way, knowing to keep it all internal and celebrate outside or in the car on the way home. Judges see everything from up there. Whether you smile, smirk, get upset and cross your arms, posture in chair, etc. And it means something. How you behave in court does count. Verbal and non-verbal.

        A really smart person would be a stand-up individual and not speak ill of their former spouse in front a judge, or use profane language in a court of law. A really smart person knows that the judge is a stranger and you need to make a good impression as an individual. Keep it classy. OP might be good in math, but I would not characterize the story given as being "smart" in litigation or courtroom smart. Sorry.
        I sincerely like your decorum but the poster clearly stated that he was a hell of a lot smarter so this goes a lot over the "really smart" person you define here. I guest we need to multiply your definition by 2 or maybe 3?


        Our Divorce Forums
        Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.