COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-87387-00
DATE: 2020 01 27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
YUAN YUAN GUO
Applicant
Poroshad Mahdi for the Applicant
- and -
JIAN LI, DONGHUI LI and YU YUN ZHANG
Respondent
Douglas Beamish for Respondent Jian Li
CHILD SUPPORT REASONS
SHAW J.
OVERVIEW
[1] Following an eight-day trial in January 2019, I released reasons on May 1, 2019 dealing with custody and access, equalization of net family property, retroactive child support and s. 7 expenses and spousal support. I asked for further written submissions if the parties could not agree on ongoing child support given my findings on custody and access.
[2] The parties do not dispute that based on my reasons, they share parenting of the children and that s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines applies. According to that section, the amount of child support is determined by taking into account that table amount of child support that each parent would owe to the other, the increased costs of shared parenting and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and child.
[3] The respondent’s position is that the amount of child support should be determined by setting off what each parent would owe to the other based on their respective incomes.
[4] The applicant’s position is that the amount of child support owing should not be based on the set-off amount but should consider the conditions, means, needs and circumstances of each party. She submits that given her financial situation, the respondent should pay child support in an amount greater than the set-off amount. She points to the disparity in their incomes, her modest expenses and the fact that the respondent has financial assistance from his parents who reside with him.
Analysis
[5] Since my reasons were released, the respondent received his 2019 T4 which indicated that his 2018 earnings were $105,482. That is the figure on which ongoing child support shall be determined. I will use the applicant’s 2018 income of $54,005 for the analysis.
[6] Based on these incomes, if a set-off is used, the respondent would owe the applicant child support of $715 per month.
[7] In Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, the court found that the court may depart from the set-off amount of child support owing if it is appropriate to do so in light of the factors set out in ss 9(b) and 9(c) of the Child Support Guidelines.
[8] I do not agree with the respondent’s submission that the court ought to consider as a factor his increased household expenses associated with his parents living with him. His child support obligations supersede any financial obligation to support his parents. Although no evidence was led regarding his parent’s financial circumstances, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are assisting with their own expenses. Furthermore, the respondent receives a great deal of assistance from his parents through the provision of household services that cannot be ignored.
[9] Likewise, I am not prepared to consider the applicant’s claim that her monthly expenses will increase if she chooses to travel to China to visit her family. That is a decision she will make based on her financial circumstances but I do not consider that an increased expense to factor into the determination of child support.
[10] No evidence was led regarding any increased costs or savings associated with a shared parenting arrangement. I have, however, considered the information in the financial statements of both parties that were filed in this proceeding.
[11] The applicant claims total monthly expenses of $6,149. Her monthly income is $4,500. Assuming an additional $488 for ½ of the child tax benefit results in a total monthly income of $4,988 for a monthly deficit of $1,161. The monthly expenses claimed by the applicant were modest and reasonable.
[12] Conversely, the respondent’s monthly expenses are $13,139. His monthly income is $8,750 plus $488 for ½ of the child tax benefit he will receive for a total of $9,238. His monthly deficit is therefore $3,901. The expenses he has claimed are significantly more than the applicant’s expenses which reflects her more modest lifestyle. For example, the respondent claims monthly expenses of $2,150 for personal items whereas the applicant claims only $605 per month. Similarly, the respondent’s housing expenses are $3,359 per month whereas the applicant’s expenses are $1,695.
[13] Given the disparities in their incomes and considering their monthly expenses, I find that the set-off amount is not appropriate in these circumstances and order the respondent to pay to the applicant $1,000 per month in child support. While neither party led any evidence of any increased costs or savings with a shared parenting arrangement, this amount considers the financial circumstances, means and needs of the parties and the children. The support shall be payable effective May 1, 2019 and thereafter on the first day of each month.
[14] If the parties cannot agree on costs of the trial, they are to file their Bill of Costs, any relevant offers to settle and written submissions to a maximum of three pages by March 2, 2020.
Shaw J.
Released: January 27, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-87387-00
DATE: 2020 01 27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
YUAN YUAN GUO
Applicant
– and –
JIAN LI, DONGHUI LI and YU YUN ZHANG
Respondent
CHILD SUPPORT REASONS
L. Shaw J.
Released: January 27, 2020