View Single Post
Old 12-22-2021, 10:44 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,509
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future

Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Tayken if you read that case, it notes that the EAP grant in the RESP is the child�s in the case and the judge ordered that the EAP should be apportioned per year to both parent�s benefit. Should also note that the RESP funds were applied to the costs prior to the claim to the father. The judge ruled that the $5,000 in annual EAP was to be applied to the costs prior to the proportionate split.
You are somewhat correct about that case. As the money was "gifted" into a managed account by the parents. I am talking about actual REGISTERED accounts held in whole by grandparents. That is how it is done. I doubt you would find any "rich" grandparent that has any financial advisor worth their weight recommending to give the money to their adult child to put into an RESP account for which high-conflict separated parents are both the sponsor to the account.

Remember, this is case law from 2007. It also has very few references and does not make it "jurisprudence" by any means. The judge in fact outlines that he can't follow the money in para 11. Based on my interpretation it is a single RESP account where both parents were sponsors and one parent put "gifted" money into it.

Hence this quote:

[11] It is not clear from the evidence, the amount of the RESPs that is available to Genevieve this year, gifted by other members of the family.
A proper RESP held by grandparents, which I suspect the majority of situations are in 2020 are not "gifts" in that they gave the money to a 3rd party to invest on their behalf. They are registered savings plans that are owned by the sponsor (grandparents). The grandchildren are the tax-free beneficiaries of the money but, again, the grandparents are whom doles out the funds. As well, the money held in that account is the sole property of the grandparents. This is why they put the additional tax penalties on RESPs because grandparents were using them to avoid taxes on their investments.
Its a 68% tax on the gains in the account if withdrawn by the sponsor now. :O

Its a control game that rich people play. To the very wealthy... the 50,000 in an RESP is what they earn weekly. Just saying... I see these files all the time.

The really good ones create one RESP in their names (grandparents) and one under the name of their adult child and leave the other parent out of it. Then they split the investments they make between the two accounts. Its all a game.

Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
I�m sure we can argue this based on both of our experience�s which isn�t useful to the question. If someone wants to fight it they will and a judge will look at the RESP amount, planned expectations of the subscribers and what the grants are.
Actually, you have to actually get a court to add the grandparents as a 3rd party to the case as they are um... NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. Basically, the grandparents have every right to cash out the RESP at any time and pay the penalties.

Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
For Brampton33, it doesn�t matter what your ex�s rich parents do to support their daughter and grandchildren. It�s not your business. If they open accounts and if they provide funds to them, that is within their right. HOWEVER, If their funds go over the share of your ex and your child then you can request that your share be calculated in accordance (ex. Kids share is $5,000, mom�s share is $5,000 and the resp amount applied was $11,000 then you can request the entire cost be reduced by $1000 then split). In my friend�s case the argument was that there were no expenses as they were paid in full by the resp funds and the judges agreed. The bigger argument will be whether it is worth the cost to argue it at the time. If you are spending $5,000 to save $1,000 and/or �be right� then you are wasting your time and money.
Incorrect. Very very incorrect.

This was a shared account for which the parents put "gift" money into. See para. 11. I suspect that Brampton33's rich ex-laws have their own RESP where they are the sponsors. Making them a 3rd party to the case. It would be like him making a claim to the grandparents regular bank accounts LOL.

Trust me... No one "gifts" RESP money after a separation into an account where both parents are sponsors. Especially wealthy ones who have financial advisors who are managing family wealth that will transition over generations.

If Brampton's ex-laws are stupid enough to put the money into an account that both he and the other parent are sponsors of... then this case law applies... otherwise... its useless case law and its small treatment of a whopping 4 cases since 2007.

The court does not have jurisdiction over the RESP accounts where grandparents are the sole sponsors of that account sorry to say... This is where we may not be connecting.

I have a high doubt that Brampton33 is a sponsor on the account he is discussing and that the ex-law grandparents are the sole sponsors to protect that money from meddling hands.
Reply With Quote