8,081
edits
Changes
→Block formatting caselaw and regular text
A block formatted excerpt of a typical case looks like this:
In the leading case [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxpf ''Contino v. Leonelli-Contino''], 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada said this with respect to section 9(b)about child support payments where there is shared custody:
<blockquote>
"[5237] What should the courts examine under this heading? Section The framework of s. 9(b) does not refer merely to the expenses assumed by the payor parent as requires a result of two‑part determination: first, establishing that the increase in access time from less than 40 percent to more than 40 percentthreshold has been met; and second, where it has been met, as argued in this Court. This cannot be for at least two reasonsdetermining the appropriate amount of support.First, it would be irreconcilable with "[38] With respect to the second part of the fact that some applications under sdetermination [... 9 are not meant ] courts across the country have struggled to obtain a variation develop an interpretation of a support order, but constitute a first order (see Payne, at ps. 261)9 that is consistent with the Guidelines’ objectives. SecondWhile the approaches vary widely, as mentioned earlierthey can be divided in two categories. One approach, similar to the Table amounts in approach used by the Guidelines do not assume that motions judge, can be described as the payor parent pays for “formulaic approach”. The other approach, which may be described as the housing“discretionary approach”, food, or any other expense for eschews the child. [use of formulae...]"
</blockquote>