Cole v. Dixon

Cole v. Dixon

Applying s.9 of the Guidelines and relevant precedents the court held that: non-recurring payments (Carquest pension payout and manager buyout/signing bonus) are excluded from income under s.17; accepted CRA-allowed employment and business deductions including motor vehicle expenses in determining Mr. Dixon's income; accepted Ms. Cole's line 150 income adjusted for RRSP and one-time items; using current income post-September 1, 2014 and weighing the s.9 factors including the parties' means and Ms. Cole's greater family obligations, the court exercised its s.9 discretion and concluded that no child support is payable by one parent to the other for the period governed by this decision;...

Citation
2016 NSSC 26
Parties
Applicant: Kimberlie Heather Cole; Respondent: William John Dixon
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Custody and Support / Decision
Outcome
No child support payable between the parties under s.9 for the period governed by this decision effective September 1, 2014; each parent to bear childcare costs while the children are in his/her care; uninsured health expenses to be shared equally; costs awarded to the respondent and payment mechanics ordered.
Legal Topics
Shared Custody Under S.9 of the Child Support Guidelines, Income Determination for Child Support (s.16, Schedule Iii), Imputation and Reasonableness of Expense Deductions (s.19), Non Recurring Income and Pattern of Income (s.17), Costs Awards
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody Costs Shared Custody Under S.9 of the Child Support Guidelines Income Determination for Child Support (s.16, Schedule Iii) Imputation and Reasonableness of Expense Deductions (s.19) Non Recurring Income and Pattern of Income (s.17) +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberlie Heather Cole

Applicant

William John Dixon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Custody and Support / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether child support is payable between the parties under s.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines following a 50:50 shared parenting arrangement
  2. 2 What amounts constitute each party's income for child support purposes including treatment of non-recurring payments, pension payout, signing/manager buyout and employment/vehicle/business expenses
  3. 3 Whether and what costs should be awarded given mixed success

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s.9 of the Guidelines and relevant precedents the court held that: non-recurring payments (Carquest pension payout and manager buyout/signing bonus) are excluded from income under s.17; accepted CRA-allowed employment and business deductions including motor vehicle expenses in determining Mr. Dixon's income; accepted Ms. Cole's line 150 income adjusted for RRSP and one-time items; using current income post-September 1, 2014 and weighing the s.9 factors including the parties' means and Ms. Cole's greater family obligations, the court exercised its s.9 discretion and concluded that no child support is payable by one parent to the other for the period governed by this decision;...

Court Disposition

No child support payable between the parties under s.9 for the period governed by this decision effective September 1, 2014; each parent to bear childcare costs while the children are in his/her care; uninsured health expenses to be shared equally; costs awarded to the respondent and payment mechanics ordered.

Orders

  • No periodic child support is to be paid by one party to the other pursuant to s.9 of the Child Support Guidelines effective September 1, 2014
  • Each parent shall pay any child care expenses incurred while the children are in his or her care