Smith v. Smith

Smith v. Smith

The court used current earnings evidence (paystub extrapolated) and found Mr. Smith unreasonably deducted business expenses such that income was imputed to $68,010 under clause 19(1)(g); accordingly monthly child support was set at $943 under clause 3(1)(a) and proportionate sharing applied to childcare under s.7 resulting in Mr. Smith paying 75% ($365.94) of monthly childcare; payments were made effective October 1, 2013 with suspension of amounts from Oct 1, 2013 to Jan 31, 2014 to be addressed at trial.

Citation
2014 NSSC 15
Parties
Petitioner: Ernest Michael Smith; Respondent: Shella Lynn Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Divorce Child Support (family Division) / Interim Motion (pre Trial Divorce Proceeding)
Outcome
Motion granted in part; interim child support and proportionate childcare contributions ordered.
Legal Topics
Application of Federal Child Support Guidelines, Imputation of Income Under Guidelines Clause 19(1)(g), Section 7 Childcare Expense Sharing, Interim Relief Under Divorce Act S.15.1(2), Deviation From Proportionate Sharing
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Income Assessment/tax Application of Federal Child Support Guidelines Imputation of Income Under Guidelines Clause 19(1)(g) Section 7 Childcare Expense Sharing Interim Relief Under Divorce Act S.15.1(2) Deviation From Proportionate Sharing

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Michael Smith

Petitioner

Shella Lynn Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Child Support (family Division) / Interim Motion (pre Trial Divorce Proceeding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Determination of payer's income for child support under ss.16-19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines
  2. 2 Whether business losses should be allowed or income imputed under clause 19(1)(g)
  3. 3 Whether childcare expenses under s.7 should be shared proportionately and whether to deviate from proportionate sharing

Ratio Decidendi

The court used current earnings evidence (paystub extrapolated) and found Mr. Smith unreasonably deducted business expenses such that income was imputed to $68,010 under clause 19(1)(g); accordingly monthly child support was set at $943 under clause 3(1)(a) and proportionate sharing applied to childcare under s.7 resulting in Mr. Smith paying 75% ($365.94) of monthly childcare; payments were made effective October 1, 2013 with suspension of amounts from Oct 1, 2013 to Jan 31, 2014 to be addressed at trial.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; interim child support and proportionate childcare contributions ordered.

Orders

  • Mr. Smith's annual income for Guidelines purposes determined to be $68,010.00
  • Mr. Smith shall pay monthly child support of $943.00 for Brianna and Hope, pursuant to clause 3(1)(a) of the Guidelines