R. v. R.

R. v. R.

The table amount was inappropriate given the established pre‑separation modest family lifestyle, but the trial judge erred by failing to account for the payor's substantial post‑separation income increase and by dismissing the applicant's April 2000 discretionary budget without assessing reasonableness; accordingly the Court of Appeal substituted an appropriate s.4 award of $32,000 per month for basic and discretionary support plus $4,000 per month under s.7 (total $36,000), affirmed spousal support at $5,000 per month, and increased required life insurance to $2,000,000.

Citation
C34821
Parties
Applicant (appellant): R.; Respondent (respondent in Appeal): R.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Spousal Support (appeal) / Appeal From Trial Judgment to Court of Appeal for Ontario (decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: child support increased; life insurance increased; spousal support affirmed; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Federal Child Support Guidelines, Section 4 Deviation for High Income Payors, Reasonable Discretionary Expenses, Life Insurance as Security for Support, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Divorce Act Appeal Federal Child Support Guidelines Section 4 Deviation for High Income Payors Reasonable Discretionary Expenses +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Applicant (appellant)

R.

Respondent (respondent in Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Spousal Support (appeal) / Appeal From Trial Judgment to Court of Appeal for Ontario (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the table amount under the Federal Child Support Guidelines was inappropriate for a high income payor
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by basing deviation from the table amount solely on pre‑separation family lifestyle and spending patterns
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to consider the post‑separation increase in payor's income and the reasonableness of the applicant's April 2000 budget

Ratio Decidendi

The table amount was inappropriate given the established pre‑separation modest family lifestyle, but the trial judge erred by failing to account for the payor's substantial post‑separation income increase and by dismissing the applicant's April 2000 discretionary budget without assessing reasonableness; accordingly the Court of Appeal substituted an appropriate s.4 award of $32,000 per month for basic and discretionary support plus $4,000 per month under s.7 (total $36,000), affirmed spousal support at $5,000 per month, and increased required life insurance to $2,000,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: child support increased; life insurance increased; spousal support affirmed; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Vary paragraph 1 of trial order: child support under s.4 fixed at $32,000 per month and s.7 maintained at $4,000 per month for total child support of $36,000 per month, payable from July 1, 1998 with credit for amounts already paid and pre‑judgment interest at 5% per annum on unpaid amounts
  • Spousal support order of $5,000 per month affirmed