Contino+v.+Leonelli–Contino

//Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, SCC, 2005//

__Facts__: Father applying for reduction in amount of child support because child is now in his custody 50% of the time (was not previously). In 1992, father paid $500/month, in 1998 this was increased to $563/month. Mother earns $68G/year, father earns $87G/year. __Judicial History__: Motions judge reduced child support to $100/month. Divisional Court ordered father to pay $688/month. Court of Appeal ordered father to pay $399/month, using simple set-off amount adjusted by a multiplier of 67.6% and taking actual situation into account. __Issues__: How should child support be adjusted in cases of shared custody? How to interpret s.9 of //Federal Child Support Guidelines?// __Decision__: Majority ordered father to pay $500/month in child support. Multipliers are inappropriate, court must rely on particular facts and context of the case to determine amount. __Reasoning__: S.9(a): simple set-off formula is starting point that must be followed by examination of ability of recipient parent to meet child’s needs in light of fixed costs. Court has the discretion to modify the set-off amount where it would lead to significant variation in standard of living between the child’s households. S.9(b):Total cost of raising a child in shared custody may be greater than in sole custody situations. S.9(c): Court has broad discretion to examine resources and needs of both parents and children. Objective is a fair standard of support for child and fair contributions by both parents. Majority holds that courts should demand information from parties where evidence is deficient. Court should not apply a multiplier (as Court of Appeal did) or rely on “common sense” assumptions to deduce the costs of parents. S.9(a): Court must take Table amounts into account, simple set-off formula is starting point. In this case, set-off amount is $128/month. S.9(b): increased costs of shared custody must be reflected in support order (i.e. duplication of fixed costs). Applies in this case in terms of duplications and variable child care costs. S.9(c): “Appropriate place for apportionment of certain expenditures according to the respective incomes of the parents”. In this case, disparity between net assets of parents and arrangement prior to shared custody must be considered. Although mother incurred fixed costs that were in part a function of support she received, this does not create an entitlement to continued support in light of changed custody arrangement. S.10(1): Allows Court to award an amount different from that determined under s.3-5, 8, 9. Dissent upholds Court of Appeal’s award as being within the “acceptable range”. CA’s multiplier had no bearing on it’s conclusion, and since it’s basic principles were correct, it can be upheld. __Principle__: Two readings of s.9 of the //Federal Child Support Guidelines.// Discretion of Court under s.9(a) differs, in addition to use of s.10(1).
 * Majority** : Payor-recipient model of section 3 does not apply. Section 9 of the //Federal Child Support Guidelines// requires that in cases of shared custody (40% threshold) the Court must rely on 3 factors to determine support payments. Weight given to each factor varies with the facts of each case.
 * Dissent** : “Appropriate” means “within an acceptable range that is in each case determined by applying in a principled manner the s.9 factors to the proven facts and particular circumstances of the matter”. In this case, child’s standard of living should not vary markedly from that he experienced before the divorce, and between households. Method is evidence-based.