“The appellant argues that his $201 monthly child support obligation should be reduced by the $200 CPP child benefit that arises out of the appellant’s CPP disability.
For several reasons, I agree with the courts that have considered and rejected the argument that the amount of the CPP child benefit should be credited against the child support otherwise owing. See Wadden v. Wadden, 2000 BCSC 960 (CanLII), [2000] B.C.J. No. 1287 (S.C.); Huey v. Huey (1991), 39 R.F.L. (3d) 14 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Williams v. Williams (1995), 18 R.F.L. (4th) 129 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Corkum v. Corkum (1997), 1998 CanLII 2691 (NS SC), 36 R.F.L. (4th) 367 (N.S.S.C.); Griffiths v. Griffiths (1999), 1999 ABQB 193 (CanLII), 45 R.F.L. (4th) 353 (Alta. Q.B.); Vickers v. Vickers (2001), 2001 NSCA 96 (CanLII), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 65 (N.S.C.A.); Peterson v. Horan (2006), 2006 SKCA 61 (CanLII), 279 Sask. R. 94 (C.A.).
First, if Parliament had intended to provide an offset of the child benefit against support, it would have provided for that result either in the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175 (the Guidelines), or in the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the Act). It did not do so.
Second, the benefit is not income of the appellant in the sense that he redirects it to his son simply as a matter of convenience. Instead, the Act treats the benefit as that of the child, not that of the contributor. Paragraph 44(1)(e) of the Act specifically provides that “a disabled contributor’s child benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor…”. As well, an application for the benefit is not made by the parent, but by the parent “on behalf of” the child. This is confirmed by s. 75, which provides that the benefit is payable directly to the child, unless the child is a minor, in which case the benefit is paid to the custodial parent. The appellant has no entitlement to the benefit, he has no control over its payment, it is not taxable in his hands, and it is not included in his income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. Accordingly, it should not be used to reduce the appellant’s obligation to pay support for his child.
Third, had Parliament intended the benefit to satisfy all or part of a contributor’s child support obligation, it could have crafted a scheme that provided an increased benefit for a contributor with a dependent child, rather than a separate child benefit. Had it done so, the quantum of child support would have been calculated on the appellant’s gross income. This, however, was not the scheme devised by Parliament. See Vickers, supra, at para. 12.
Fourth, the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) mandates that child support orders must be made in accordance with the Guidelines. Support is calculated on the taxpayer’s taxable income, which does not include the child benefit. The Guidelines do not provide for a reduction of Table support by the amount of the CPP child benefit and do not factor a minor child’s means into consideration, except in certain specific circumstances, none of which was raised in this proceeding. The trial judge knew that Andrew was approaching the age of majority when his means could become relevant. However, when considered in the context of Andrew’s needs, and the financial circumstances of his parents, his receipt of the CPP child benefit would not operate to reduce the appellant’s child support obligation.”