7,381
edits
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
A block formatted excerpt of a typical case looks like this: | A block formatted excerpt of a typical case looks like this: | ||
In | In [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada said this about child support payments where there is shared custody: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
[ | "[37] The framework of s. 9 requires a two‑part determination: first, establishing that the 40 percent threshold has been met; and second, where it has been met, determining the appropriate amount of support. | ||
"[38] With respect to the second part of the determination [...] courts across the country have struggled to develop an interpretation of s. 9 that is consistent with the Guidelines’ objectives. While the approaches vary widely, they can be divided in two categories. One approach, similar to the approach used by the motions judge, can be described as the “formulaic approach”. The other approach, which may be described as the “discretionary approach”, eschews the use of formulae." | |||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||