Update to Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2024, University of Toronto Press- Federal Child Support Guidelines -Auer v Auer

?

In Auer v Auer, the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to determine whether the Governor in Council acted within the scope of its delegated authority in establishing the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, C?té J stated:

[114] The reasonableness standard under the Vavilov framework presumptively applies when reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation. Katz Group continues to provide helpful guidance. However, for subordinate legislation to be ultra vires on the basis that it is inconsistent with the purpose of the enabling statute, it no longer needs to be “irrelevant”, “extraneous” or “completely unrelated” to that statutory purpose. Continuing to maintain this threshold from Katz Group would be inconsistent with robust reasonableness review and would undermine Vavilov’s promise of simplicity, predictability and coherence.

[115]?The Child Support Guidelines fall reasonably within the GIC’s scope of authority under s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act, having regard to the relevant constraints. Under s.?26.1(1), the GIC is granted extremely broad authority to establish guidelines respecting child support. Section 26.1(2) constrains this authority by requiring that the guidelines be based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities to contribute. The Child Support Guidelines respect this constraint.

[116]?The GIC was entitled to choose an approach to calculating child support that (1) does not take into account the recipient parent’s income; (2) assumes that parents spend the same linear percentage of income on their children regardless of the parents’ levels of income and the children’s ages; (3) does not take into account government child benefits paid to recipient parents; (4) does not take into account direct spending on the child by the payer parent when that parent exercises less than 40?percent of annual parenting time; and (5) risks double counting certain special or extraordinary expenses. Each of these decisions fell squarely within the scope of the authority delegated to the GIC under the Divorce Act.[1]

?

?

[1] ?2024 SCC 36 at paras 114-116 (Can LII)

?