Spousal Support

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steveco

New member
Hi all - Through a mediator, my ex and I agreed on shared custody, 50/50. My income is 65K and hers 38K. We used the tables to agree on a child support amount of $420 ( 2 kids ).. This is all well and good but now she's talking about wanting spousal support as well. We were married 10 years and we both always worked. I cannot find any easy calculation on this. Am I looking at a significant amount?

Thanks
 
There's really no easy calculations.

SS is supposed to equalized both spouse's income for a period of time after the breakdown. Usually for about half the lenght of the marriage, but up to a maximum of the length of the marriage. So, in your case, it would be between 5 and 10 years.

You have to add up all your income. This includes any benefits she receives from the government for the children (UCCB and CCTB). And, you deduct from your income the CS you pay.

But, for an example, say she receives no government assistance.

She makes 38K, and you make 61K (65K - 5,040$). Her income is 38% of your combined income. The SS guidelines say it should be between 40% and 46%. So, you would owe her between 2K and 7K of spousal support per year. But, this will be lowered by any money she received from UCCB and CCTB.

There's a Spousal Support Advisory Report and a user guide on uToronto's website. If you do a search for it, you'll be able to find it. It's quite informative and it'll explain it all.
 
Hi,
The Spousal support calculation uses Net Disposable Income like Foredeck implied, so it is after CS is paid/received, it is after tax, it is after any government benefits are received(Child Tax Credit, GST). The calculations are best done with software, and they include all the benefits etc because a lot of the benefits drop with the added income of spousal so this let's a judge get a clear before/after picture of respective incomes. It makes it tough on us doing it by hand, though.

Your income would be after tax and after deductions for CPP. I'm going to call it 50k, you might actually be a little less. You are paying $5040 for CS, so that brings you down to 45k. You should qualify for a Child Tax Credit of $140 per month, X6 months, so $840. Probably you won't get GST? Going to round you up to 46k.

Your ex would be 31k after tax and deductions. She should receive just over 2k for CCTB (6 months X338). She probably gets some GST, I will be lazy and round up to 33.5k with government benefits included. Then add CS and she is at 38.5k.

There may be other deductions from your incomes, or other benefits. I'm going to assume the children are both 6 or older to make it easy on myself. In any case, you each would receive $600 per year, so it would pretty much cancel out.

So anyway, according to my bad math, she is around 84% of your NDI. This is well past the 46% threshold, and the courts wouldn't award her spousal support on that basis.

She will argue different numbers, and software will tell a slightly different story but these are your ballpark numbers. If they are going to push this, then I think it is well worthwhile for you to go to a lawyer's office, run accurate numbers through Divorcemate and get a printout to wave in her face.

Edit to add: My numbers are a little more off, I forgot the equivilent to spouse deduction for the kids, and a slew of other things you'll probably claim. 2 kids, you should each claim 1, so you each should get deductions. You are at a higher bracket so you benefit more, but it's not such a difference that you would pay spousal. But just to point out, it's crazy to try to do this by hand, take your numbers to someone with the software..
 
Mess said:
...

So anyway, according to my bad math, she is around 84% of your NDI. This is well past the 46% threshold, and the courts wouldn't award her spousal support on that basis.

...
Click to expand...

46% is not the threshold, 92% is, in the context of Mess' message. Apples and oranges Mess, keep them straight.

46% of the combined NDI or 92% of the other spouses NDI are the same, but have to be used in context appropriately.
 
OrleansLawyer said:
Entitlement. Entitlement. Entitlement.

How does she justify it?
Click to expand...

She justifies it as there is a 27k difference in income and she was married for 10 years.

I would suggest you use MySupportCalculator.ca as it will give you a ball park figure of what Divorce mate will do.
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the can of worms....

My spousal support is NOT after deductions. It is after an agreed-up deduction for business expenses. What, how, who, when he pays after that isn't my concern.

Orleanslawyer is right - entitlement first.

After entitlement is proven it is negotiated.

Not written in stone like CS.
 
momforever1956 said:
She justifies it as there is a 27k difference in income and she was married for 10 years.

I would suggest you use MySupportCalculator.ca as it will give you a ball park figure of what Divorce mate will do.
Click to expand...

3.2.2 Entitlement

The Advisory Guidelines do not deal with entitlement. The informal status of the Guidelines means that they must remain subject to the entitlement provisions of the Divorce Act, notably ss. 15.2(4) and (6) as interpreted by the courts. Entitlement therefore remains a threshold issue to be determined before the guidelines will be applicable.


On its own, a mere disparity of income that would generate an amount under the Advisory Guidelines formulas, does not automatically lead to entitlement. There must be a finding (or an agreement) on entitlement, on a compensatory or non-compensatory or contractual basis, before the formulas and the rest of the Guidelines are applied.


The Advisory Guidelines were drafted on the assumption that the current law of spousal support, post-Bracklow, continues to offer a very expansive basis for entitlement to spousal support. Effectively any significant income disparity generates an entitlement to some support, leaving amount and duration as the main issues to be determined in spousal support cases. However, the Guidelines leave the issue of when an income disparity is significant, in the sense of signalling entitlement, to the courts. It is open to a court to find no entitlement on a particular set of facts, despite income disparity, and the Advisory Guidelines do not speak to that issue.
The basis of entitlement is important, not only as a threshold issue, but also to determine location within the formula ranges or to justify departure from the ranges as an exception. Entitlement issues also arise frequently on review and variation, especially applications to terminate support.
Entitlement is dealt with in Chapter 4.
Click to expand...

4.1 Entitlement as a Threshold Issue: The "No Entitlement" Cases

In some cases the threshold entitlement analysis will determine that there is no entitlement to spousal support and hence that the Advisory Guidelines are not applicable. As noted above, current spousal support law, post-Bracklow, does provide a broad basis for entitlement. Moge created a broad basis for compensatory claims for spousal support based on economic disadvantage from the marriage or the conferral of an economic advantage upon the other spouse. But even if it is not possible for a lower-income spouse to make a compensatory claim, Bracklow has provided the possibility of a non-compensatory claim based on need or hardship created by the loss of the marital standard of living. Typically a significant disparity in income at the point of marriage breakdown will create an entitlement to some support — at the very least to some time-limited, transitional support.


However, the case law does show that there may be a finding of "no entitlement" despite income disparity. Under the current law it is possible to argue that an income disparity reflects neither economic disadvantage flowing from the marriage nor economic need and hence that there is no entitlement to support. Lawyers using the Advisory Guidelines need to remain aware of these possibilities.
Click to expand...

Both those sections above are taken from the Department of Justice website here... as noted in the bold section income disparity does not automatically entitle one to SS.
 
She justifies it as there is a 27k difference in income and she was married for 10 years.
Click to expand...
While her perspective on her entitlements is both interesting and edifying, she may wish to frame her entitlement within the context of the law.

BF's post addresses this well.
 
OrleansLawyer said:
While her perspective on her entitlements is both interesting and edifying, she may wish to frame her entitlement within the context of the law.

BF's post addresses this well.
Click to expand...

Those are almost identical numbers to my stbx's claim for entitlement. Her stance is also the same. You make more than me therefore I am entitled.

Long motion scheduled for May

9 year marriage. 28K difference in incomes.
 
Last edited:
All you have to do is argue that she worked throughout the marriage, and did not sacrifice her career opportunities in favor of yours. (now if the household moved based on your job at some point during the marriage, this MAY not be the case...but best case, you both have always worked, you both coordinated taking time off when the kids were sick/etc).

Onus should be on her to prove entitlement, but you should be prepared with arguments against entitlement anyway. Make sure your lawyer knows his shit.

To avoid court, you might want to consider offering the low end of spousal for the shortest duration, just to settle this. You'll easily spend that in fees anyway.

If you DO THAT, for the love of God, put a firm termination date on it.
 
For me low is $0. Which is exactly what I offered LOL.

NDI with off-set child support is 53.5/46.5.
 
Add me to the list with regards to entitlements....Married 9yrs, a toddler son and a 17yr old step daughter who was 7 when I came along.

She had to move twice for my military postings, but she always found work, which includes currently a full-time and part-time gig. I bathe our son in the morning and take him to school, she pics him up and I also look after him when she goes to her 2-3 evening a week part - time gig

I have been adamant from the get go that I'll pay CS even for the step daughter but I won't pay full as she is still collecting CS for the soon to be 17 yr old daughter

She is getting half my pension which she is entitled to (she will have to wait til she is 65) and me to hers (which she is not forthcoming with) with the mediator. I hope I don't have to pay her SS, but if the law says I have to, then I hope it's just for half the marriage duration (9yrs) at a lower end rate



FB_ said:
Those are almost identical numbers to my stbx's claim for entitlement. Her stance is also the same. You make more than me therefore I am entitled.

Long motion scheduled for May

9 year marriage. 28K difference in incomes.
Click to expand...
 
STBX works in a school and has 9 weeks off during the summer. Can she be considered under employed for these 9 weeks and can I attempt to have an income imputed on her at say minimum wage.

If her only claim to spousal is need wouldn't her working for these 9 weeks be more sensible to make up the need as opposed to me paying it?

I wouldn't even know how to search for similar case law on CanLII. keywords etc.

EDIT: Found one of the rules (1) the needs of a child of the marriage. So since the kids are off it's going to be hard to impute income since it would then require daycare in the summer.
 
Last edited:
Found something

J.R.B. v. P.J.B., 2012 BCSC 1644 (CanLII)

CanLII - 2012 BCSC 1644 (CanLII)


[17] In support of this argument, the claimant deposes that during the course of their marriage, until the last summer before she and the respondent separated, the respondent worked in the summer months and was able to earn approximately $4,000.00 to $6,000.00 per year. She sets out in paragraph 8 of her first affidavit some of the summer jobs the respondent had.

[18] The Guidelines permit the imputation of income under s. 23 when there has been a failure to comply with obligations set out in s. 21. Imputation of income is specifically addressed in s. 19 of the Guidelines. With respect to the submission that I should impute income to the respondent for failing to work in summer jobs, s. 19(1)(a) (intentional unemployment) is the key circumstance I should look at.

[19] I could consider imputation of income as I consider appropriate in the circumstances. None of the specified circumstances in s. 19(1) are applicable to the failure of the respondent to work in the summer. As is well known, teachers work from the commencement of school following Labour Day until the conclusion of school just prior to Canada Day, and generally get the summers off as well as some additional holidays throughout the year. That is not intentional under-employment.
Click to expand...

This is in regards to child support. The person was not claiming they "needed" spousal support. Which could probably be used in a different angle. the rules in 19(1) are for child support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top