Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-06-2021, 05:19 PM
Gilligan Gilligan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 283
Gilligan is on a distinguished road
Default CPP - Child Disability Benefit (given to a parent for a minor child)

Hi there,

I have a bit of an odd issue and really having a hard time finding case law around it. I'm hoping that somebody on this forum may be familliar and would be able to guide me a bit.

Quick and easy background, my son received a retro-active child disability benefit via mom because of her disability. Because he was a minor, this money was paid directly to mom and I only found out about it after about 2 years. I have 50/50 and joint custody.

My son is turning 18 soon and is away for post-secondary education and I'm in the process of trying to update CS and S7. One big issue is that this CPP - Child Disability Benefit was never given to the child and witheld by mom. We ran into issues when filing his 1st tax return because this informaiton was witheld from the child as well.

I'm of the view that this is the child's money and it's not appropriate for either parent to withold this income from him (He did get a T4A) but mom is of the view that this isn't up for discussion and will likely just try to keep the money.

Anybody have any reference or case law that would help? It's clear that this is the child's money, it's taxible to him and paid to mom while he is minor. I know that it won't change CS, but how do I rectify the situation.

Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-06-2021, 06:59 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,646
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

You could put it in your filings and mention that it should be provided to the child but she could claim she used it for his living expenses.

I havent seen a case involving this.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-06-2021, 08:53 PM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 598
StillPaying has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

It is well settled that the CPP child benefit is the benefit of the child, and not of the recipient parent; which is why it's not included for support purposes.

Sipos v. Sipos, 2007 ONCA 126, [2007] O.J. No. 711
Innocente v. Innocente, 2014 ONSC 7082, [2014] O.J. No. 5842

The money is directly related to your ex's disability and all the additional costs associated. If they didn't have custody/access, they wouldn't receive it. Similar to work benefits, it's a benefit received until child is 18 or in school full time (25). It has a purpose which is not $200/month "free income". Sorry - mom keeps it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-07-2021, 02:33 PM
Gilligan Gilligan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 283
Gilligan is on a distinguished road
Default

StillPaying, I really appreciate the information and cases quoted, it is very helpful. I find it somewhat strange that the money is received by one parent, both are accountable for paying child support, but it's not taken into consideration. I do understand that the CPP can be intended to offset the cost of a disabled parent, but odd that they choose to do it that way as opposed to a non-taxible benefit to the parent.

In any case, it's good information and I will not persue something that isn't appropriate.

Cheers,
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-07-2021, 05:51 PM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 598
StillPaying has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligan View Post
I find it somewhat strange that the money is received by one parent, both are accountable for paying child support, but it's not taken into consideration.
No different than anything else; self employed write offs, attendant care, settlements, or other benefits. They have a purpose, which is not "free money" or an income replacement.

Quote:
I do understand that the CPP can be intended to offset the cost of a disabled parent, but odd that they choose to do it that way as opposed to a non-taxible benefit to the parent.
Most benefits and income replacements are non-taxable which need to be grossed up for support purposes. CPP benefits are taxed (already grossed up).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2021, 07:33 AM
Gilligan Gilligan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 283
Gilligan is on a distinguished road
Default

SillPaying,

I'm not trying to disuade you or change your view, the case law seems to be pretty clear from what I've seen, but wasn't entirly easy to find.

What trips me up however is that part of the legislation is very clear that it's the childs monney. It is paid to the child and they even get a T4A.

So, in the case of my son, it's part of his line 150 and taxible income, and that should be income he is using to pay for his portion of post-secondary education. It would be unfair for him to be responsible for this portion if one parent received this money and did not share it with the child. In what I've seen, it's attributed to the child in the analssis of what they should be paying and it's never assumed that it was "free money" paid to one parent. I assume in most cases, the parents set this money aside, but not sure.

Cheers,
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-08-2021, 10:53 AM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 598
StillPaying has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

I went to trial on this issue. The case law is easy to find, until you start going down the wrong path of dictating how someone should spend their money.

Everyone gets CCB for their kids each month, which is about 100% more than CPPCB, but it has a purpose which is not an income replacement and therefore doesn't get counted as such. To assume parents put all this money aside for their kids is absurd.

ODSP pays more and offers way more benefits over CPPD. It's the much better option, but the only reason we're forced to go to CPPD is because we make too much. Which means your ex is paying you based on all their different disability incomes... you're getting more and ex is spending more, but you just want a lil more still...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-08-2021, 11:06 AM
Gilligan Gilligan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 283
Gilligan is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks, I get it and i'm not trying "to get a little bit more". My point of asking the question is to avoid litigating something that has no merit. So, in that vain, I really appreciate the feedback.

This isn't a discussion about telling somebody how to spend their money, but confusing part about this CCPCB is that it's the child's money, payable to the child via the custodial parent. It's income attributed to the child which they have no control or say in. I can see how it's treated based on the case law, but from a tax persective, it's income to the child and they have no say in it.

It's useful information, most lawyers I've spoken to could not give me advice on it, so this has been most useful.

Cheers,
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-08-2021, 11:24 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,646
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

You should also note the amount of income. Unless your childs annual income is over 10 grand a year it will probably have limited impact on them. Is it really worth battling over something that has a limited financial impact to the child. It may also be something a judge overlooks as the child still got the benefit as it was for the household.

Its the same with grant funding from RESP. That money is taxed to the child but it is technically something the child benefited from in a round about way so it wont be a concern. Most kids (not all) have low incomes and this has limited tax implications.

Your question also screams of telling your ex what to do with support or questioning where it goes. You dont know what she did with that money. Im sure you have your ideas but they may not be true. I grew up with a parent on ODSP and its not a lot of money. Any additional funds for the kids went to groceries, mortgage, utilities.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-08-2021, 11:49 AM
Ontherightpath Ontherightpath is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 5
Ontherightpath is on a distinguished road
Default

Gillian

You did mention that your son will be turning 18 soon so in that case, he will be receiving the money directly instead of through his mom. Are you certain that, now (while he is under 18), he gets a T4A? I could see that after he turns 18 but don't see anywhere that it should be reported as income.

If so, maybe he should work something out with his mom where she would pay any income tax he is required to pay as a result of her keeping the extra $257.58 a month?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 21 05-03-2019 06:21 AM
Editing, reviewing and inclusion help needed. Duped Divorce & Family Law 10 05-29-2011 10:38 PM
Need answers... jinx101 Introductions 7 05-28-2007 06:15 PM
new here & need advice Please??? momofnl Divorce & Family Law 4 03-25-2007 02:36 PM
Mobility clause/access and custody out of province JohnnyV Parenting Issues 12 05-14-2006 07:05 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 PM.