July 28, 2025 – Section 9, Child Support Guidelines

“In the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217,  the court made the following significant comments regarding the interpretation of s. 9 and the manner in which child support calculations should be approached in shared parenting scenarios:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1.  In shared parenting arrangements, there is no presumption in favour of the parent who has less time with the child paying the table amount of child support; rather, the court must determine the quantum of child support in accordance with the three factors listed in s. 9.
            2.  A finding that shared parenting exists does not automatically dictate a deviation from the table amount of child support. In some cases, a careful review of all the factors set out in s. 9 may lead the court to conclude that the table amount remains the appropriate figure.
            3.   In determining the appropriate quantum of support, none of the three factors listed in s. 9 prevails over the others. The court must consider the overall situation of shared custody, the cost to each parent of the arrangement, and the overall needs, resources, and situation of each parent. The weight to be afforded to each of the three factors will vary according to the particular facts of each case.
            4.   The purpose of s. 9 is to ensure a fair and reasonable amount of child support.
            5.   In adopting s.9 of the Guidelines, the legislature has made a clear choice to emphasize the need for fairness, flexibility, and the actual conditions, means, needs and circumstances of each parent and the child, even if this meant sacrificing to some degree the values of predictability, consistency, and efficiency.
            6.  The simple set-off approach may be a useful starting point (s. 9(a)). This is particularly so in cases where parties have provided limited information and the incomes of the parties are not widely divergent. However, the court emphasizes that the simple set-off approach has no presumptive value in carrying out the support calculation. It cautioned against a rigid application of the set-off approach, noting that that may not be appropriate when a careful examination of the respective financial situations of the parties and their household standards of living raise concerns about fairness of a drastic reduction in child support to the recipient.
            7.   The court held that the judge has discretion to modify the simple set-off where “considering the financial realities of the parents, it would lead to a significant variation in the standard of living experienced by the children as they move from one household to another, something which Parliament did not intend.” The court should strive for a result that avoids the child experiencing a noticeable decline in their standard of living as they move between households.
            8.  One of the considerations in carrying out the s. 9analysis is whether one parent is actually incurring a higher standard of the child’s costs than the other, such as costs relating to clothing and activities.
            9.   Subsection 9(b) recognizes that the total global cost of raising the child in a shared custody arrangement may be higher than a primary residence arrangement. It requires the court to consider the total additional costs attributable to the situation of shared custody. In carrying out this analysis, evidence of necessary duplication of fixed costs arising due to shared parenting may be important.
            10. Not every dollar spent by a parent who has the child more than 40% of the time is a dollar saved by the recipient parent. In absence of evidence to the contrary, it is possible to presume that the recipient parent’s fixed costs have remained the same and that their variable costs have only marginally decreased by the other parent’s increase in time with the child.
            11. Financial statements and/or child expense budgets are necessary for the court to properly carry out the child support analysis pursuant to s. 9(b).  The judge should not make assumptions regarding additional costs attributable to shared parenting in the absence of any evidence relating to the issue.
            12. The court’s discretion under s. 9 is sufficiently broad to bring a parent’s claim for s. 7 expenses into the analysis under that section, taking into consideration all the factors outlined in s. 9.”

            Beaudoin v. Stevens, 2023 ONSC 4401 (CanLII) at 81