“The leading case in Ontario on the use of the SSAG isFisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11 (CanLII), 88 O.R. (3d) 241, 232 O.A.C. 213, 288 D.L.R. (4th) 513, 47 R.F.L. (6th) 235, [2008] O.J. No. 38, 2008 CarswellOnt 43 (Ont. C.A.). In that case, the Court of Appeal considered the applicability of the SSAG, when the calculations are raised by the parties before the trial judge who is charged with the issue of deciding spousal support. At paragraph [103], the court stated:
|
[103] In my view, when counsel fully address the Guidelines in argument, and a trial judge decides to award a quantum of support outside the suggested range, appellate review will be assisted by the inclusion of reasons explaining why the Guidelines do not provide an appropriate result. This is no different than a trial court distinguishing a significant authority relied upon by a party. |
In other words, while the Court of Appeal stamped its imprimatur of “significant authority” on the SSAG, the Court was clear that the SSAG are not to be treated as binding authority.
In any event, the SSAG cannot be used to establish an entitlement to support. Rather it is a “useful tool” in calculating quantum, once entitlement has been established. See Eastwood v. Eastwood, 2006 NBQB 413, 307 N.B.R. (2d) 210, 795 A.P.R. 210, 34 R.F.L. (6th) 408, [2006] N.B.J. No. 513, 2006 CarswellNB 655 (N.B.Q.B., Fam. Div.); and Yemchuk v. Yemchuk, 2005 BCCA 406 (CanLII), 215 B.C.A.C. 193, 44 B.C.L.R. (4th) 77, 355 W.A.C. 193, [2005] 10 W.W.R. 634, 257 D.L.R. (4th) 476, 16 R.F.L. (6th) 430, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1748, 2005 CarswellBC 1881 (B.C.C.A.).”