Report of the Follow-Up Committee on the Quebec Model for the Determination of Child Support Payments

July 2004

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]

CONCLUSION

When the Federal Child Support Guidelines were introduced on May 1, 1997, Quebec chose a different path by adopting its own model for Quebec residents. The distinction between the two models was accentuated by the fact that Quebec enacted legislation to cover issues concerning which clear solutions were provided, i.e. all types of custodial arrangements, particularly custody with access rights, and arrangements involving shared custody.

In this regard, the most important difference between the two involves the calculation of the basic parental contribution which, in Quebec, factors in both parents’ income, not just the income of the non-custodial parent. In this way, Quebec has been able to protect and maintain the basic principle underlying its model, namely that the level of support should be determined by taking into account both parents’ ability to pay, as well as the needs of their children.

Since procedural matters fall under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec decided to include a form as part of its Regulation in order to make it easier for users of the model to calculate levels of support. This distinct feature of the Quebec model has led to its being applied much more effectively, with results that are a great deal more predictable. The Child Support Determination Form now constitutes an indispensable tool for mediators, lawyers, judges and parties before the court alike.

It would seem, on the whole, that the Quebec model has attained its objectives, and it is important to point out that the long variation and consultation process that preceded its coming into force contributed to this successful outcome. Lawmakers should indeed be aware of and well informed about the repercussions of any reform that is as important as that of the determination of child support payments.

This preliminary procedure thus contributed to achieving the anticipated results. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to devote so much time to analyzing the need for change and finding pertinent solutions; yet here we have a clear example of a successful outcome when such efforts are in fact made.

Several of the statistics taken from the data provided in Chapter 4 speak volumes concerning how the model has actually been applied.

It may be concluded that, as a rule, the support awards obtained by using the Quebec model meet the needs of most parties before the court, and that if not, the model is flexible enough to accommodate and facilitate the implementation of the necessary adjustments.

The fact that these objectives have been reached does not preclude other improvements. In this regard, our attention has been focused on certain specific areas.

The Child Support Determination Form was the first topic of discussion among Committee members. Some technical anomalies had already been reported, and the mandatory use of the form in court proceedings quickly revealed other flaws. While suggesting changes in areas other than those already identified, the Committee, in the course of its mandate, also recommended certain immediate technical alterations. Once these recommendations are in fact applied, the model will be better understood and a handful of anomalies will be corrected, problems involving, for example, the mechanics of calculating various types of custody arrangements, compensation in cases where both parents have custody of one or more children, the special situation of the parent who defrays a variety of expenses in addition to providing the basic parental contribution, and clarifications with respect to the legal implications of certain calculations.

Aside from the debate concerning transitional provisions (involving questions ultimately settled by a ruling of the Court of Appeal), the most controversial subjects have to do with fundamental problems rather than with how the model is actually applied. The most delicate of all concerns how to handle support obligations associated with other unions. This issue in itself gave rise to a variety of contending and fundamentally worthwhile opinions. A more in-depth study is needed here, because it is a question, in a way, of analyzing the evolving change in the way we think about family values with regard to subsequent unions and their economic consequences.

Most other subjects, such as indexation, additional income to be included or excluded, depreciation allowances, the calculation of custody time, and additional costs associated with certain types of custody arrangements, to name only a few, have not led to such widely divergent fundamental positions. Instead, these subjects involve various ways of assessing the scope of the problem, as well as which mechanism to use so that a given solution does not make the model any less easy to use and apply.

The prescribed form has proven to be the veritable cornerstone of the Quebec model, an indispensable tool in its application. As well as making support payments more predictable and easier to calculate (a major objective of the legislation), the form is flexible enough to incorporate the changes proposed by the Committee. Even the most difficult or complex problem to be addressed as a result of the Committee’s recommendations should normally be solved by a simple change to the form.

During its mandate, Committee members made every effort to reach a consensus with respect to their recommendations. The present report represents the nearly unanimous agreement of members about the recommendations they have made. The Committee recommends additional research, studies or consultations in cases where time constraints and the feedback it has received have led to the conclusion that these important matters should be explored in more depth before being subject to a government decision.

Other recommendations that do not require study or more research should be implemented as quickly as possible. As a rule, they are the result of a general consensus noted by the Committee among parties before the court, practitioners and judges, as well as officers of the court.

The establishment of a Follow-up Committee to evaluate the implementation and development of new legislation is an initiative that has proven to be worthwhile and important. For instance, new work and research tools have been designed to meet the Committee’s requirements, and these tools will be of long-term use for the Ministère de la Justice, not only for subsequent monitoring of the Quebec model for the determination of child support payments, but also for dealing with the constant change in the social norm of parties before the court in family and support matters.

The Committee met on a regular basis, which, in turn, meant that its members remained highly attentive throughout the process. Thus the latest feedback it received was subject to very rapid analysis.

The help of external consultants also enabled deeper and more objective studies of the ever-changing case law in the area, as well as the creation of an important database. Such assistance was an indispensable tool for the Follow-up Committee, as it would be for any such Committee under similar circumstances.

The Quebec model for the determination of child support payments has passed the test with flying colours. Nevertheless, we suggest that certain improvements are called for in light of three years of experience with the model, with special care being taken to ensure that all proposed solutions lead to a greater degree of efficiency and a higher level of user satisfaction.

Committee members are proud to have participated in this stage of the process and firmly believe that their recommendations will help improve the model. The entire procedure pertaining to this important reform, from its design to its implementation to its assessment, provides a model to be emulated. We can only hope that it will serve as a guarantee of success for the future.

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]