Department of Justice
www.justice.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Institutional links
The Department of Justice Canada works to reduce family violence in Canada. Learn more...
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 ]
CHAPTER 3: INTRODUCTION TO THE FOLLOW-UP COMMITTEE ON THE QUEBEC MODEL FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Section 4 of the Act to amend the Civil Code of Québec and the Code of Civil Procedure as regards the determination of child support payments (1996, c. 68) stipulates that:
4. The Minister of Justice shall, on or before May 1, 2000, report to the Government on the implementation of, and advisability of amending, the provisions of this Act.
The report shall be tabled by the Minister in the National Assembly within the ensuing 15 days or, if the Assembly is not in session, within 15 days of resumption.
In light of these provisions, Serge Ménard, then Minister of Justice, decided to form a Committee to follow up on the Act.
It should be mentioned that the federal Justice Minister must also table a report respecting the federal guidelines no later than May 2002, in accordance with section 28 of the Divorce Act.[5]
THE COMMITTEE’S MANDATE
The Committee has basically been given the responsibility of assessing the degree to which the objectives of the legislation have been attained and the principles enunciated in the model respected. Two aspects have been taken into account: how the legislation has been implemented (assessment and analysis of results), and whether the Act should be amended (recommendations).
Length of the Committee’s Mandate
As stated in section 4 of the Act, the government must receive the report no later than May 1, 2000.
In order that the Minister might complete her report to the government within the time frame established in the legislation, the Committee presented her with its final report in March 2000.
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The Committee is made up of eight members from the main groups and organizations representing those directly affected by the way child support payments are determined, as well as representatives from the government departments concerned. Each group or organization designated one person as their representative on the Committee, and one alternate. However, those who actually participated in Committee deliberations are as follows:
The Association masculine irénique
The Barreau du Québec
The Comité des Organismes accréditeurs en médiation familiale (C.O.A.M.F.)
François Crête
The Federation of Co-operative Family Economics Associations of Quebec (F.A.C.E.F.)
Monique Emond
The Fédération des Associations de familles monoparentales et recomposées du Québec (F.A.F.M.R.Q.)
Claudette Mainguy
The Ministère de la Solidarité sociale
The Ministère de la Famille et de l’Enfance
The Ministère de la Justice
The Committee retained the professional services of Jocelyn Verdon, from the firm of Garneau, Verdon, Michaud for the meetings of November 11, 1998, and November 10, 1999. He was asked to inform the Committee about developments in the case law pertaining to the determination of child support payments.
THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND HOW THEY WERE CONDUCTED
The Committee held seventeen meetings over a period of eighteen and a half days. Aside from the opening meeting on June 16, 1998 (which lasted half a day), the sessions began at 9:00 a.m. and finished at 4:30 p.m. All meetings were held at the Ministère de la Justice building in Quebec City.
While carrying out its mandate, the Committee reviewed a number of documents, articles and studies related to the determination of child support payments. A list of these documents can be found at the conclusion of the report.
In the course of its deliberations, the Committee analyzed the way in which the new judicial framework governing the determination of child support payments was being applied. For instance, Committee members observed how the new standards were being interpreted and noted the various problems raised in the principal courtrooms with respect to the judicial framework in question. Summaries of certain key legal decisions studied by the Committee are included in Appendix 16 of the report.
As a means of supporting its deliberations and facilitating its assessment of the model, the Committee put together a database drawn from support orders handed down in 1997 and 1998. It also distributed questionnaires to people working directly in the child support field in order to carry out a general appraisal of the model. A statistical summary and analysis of the data gathered by way of these initiatives can be found in Chapter 4.
In addition, the Committee had the opportunity, while carrying out its mandate, to study criticisms and commentaries relevant to its work, this data having been taken from letters addressed to the Minister or to department officials, either by payers or recipients of support or by practitioners. The observations thus tabled with the Committee were duly analyzed and helped members focus upon problems, sometimes by reinforcing conclusions already drawn concerning the model and at other times by directing the Committee toward as yet unexplored issues by highlighting relevant difficulties or shortcomings.
These documents contain personal information about the individuals who forwarded them, information that could lead to disclosure of their identities. Such information is confidential under the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (R.S.Q., c. A-2.1, ss. 53 and 54).
The concerned parties did, however, give Quebec’s Ministère de la Justice permission to reveal such personal information to the follow-up Committee for the exclusive purposes of its work. In other cases, this information was simply crossed out in order to protect the identity of the individual in question.
Furthermore, as a means of providing the best possible guarantee of confidentiality for all concerned, Committee members (and their alternates) read and signed a confidentiality agreement.
The Committee received seventeen letters from practitioners and parties before the court; of the latter group thirteen came from men and two from women, including one spouse of a debtor father. There were also two letters from interveners, one of them from a lawyer and one from a group representing separated and divorced fathers. If applicable, the essential message of these letters has been provided in the various sections of Chapter 5 or directly listed in the set of recommendations found at the end of this report.
It should be noted that the observations provided by the above parties do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Committee.
The remarks in question pertain to the following aspects of the model:
- Statement of parents’ income—Part 2
- Calculation of parents’ disposable income—Part 3
- Calculation of annual parental contribution—Part 4
- Calculation of annual support according to custody time—Part 5
- Capacity to pay of debtor—Part 6
- Agreement between parents—Part 7
- Special problems related to indexation of the model
- Specific questions related to children from another union
- General remarks about how the model works
A synthesis of the observations referred to above can be found in Appendix 3 of the report.
OBJECTIVES, BASIC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Committee members carried out their deliberations in such a way as to ensure that shared objectives were reached in the course of their mandate, in a context within which the differing interests represented by the members served a complementary purpose. The members were able to develop a consensus on the different problems dealt with as well as on the recommendations.
This section contains the observations made and the criteria established during Committee meetings for each objective of the legislation, reflecting the members’ attempt to carry out the Committee mandate.
Objectives of the Quebec Model for the Determination of Child Support Payments
Predictability of support payments: to guarantee similar support payments for families in similar situations.
Remarks:
- Before the legislation was enacted, the amount awarded for support payments was revealed when the court decision was handed down. Now the guidelines for determining support enable the parties to predict what these payments will be. Thus, if properly applied, the model ensures predictability. The basic parental support contribution outlined in the table serves as a norm and covers the needs of a child between the ages of 0 and 18.
- The model is designed in such a way as to take into account child care, post-secondary education and special expenses, but the amount in question must be outlined in an agreement between the parties or entered as evidence before the court. These expenditures represent the limits of support-payment predictability.
- Statistics concerning the number of cases contested before and after May 1997 may serve as an indicator of the reduction of contested cases, a reduction anticipated with the legislation’s enactment. However, given that the model for family mediation came into force in September 1997, it will be difficult to isolate the contribution of the model for the determination of child support payments as concerns conflict reduction.
- The very fact of being able to count on a predictable amount of child support facilitates the reorganization of the family.
- As a rule, one is left with a certain impression of equality when the model is properly applied since the amount of the basic child support contribution will be the same for two households with equal incomes and similar custody arrangements.
Adequacy of the support payments: to ensure that the needs of the children are met to the extent of the parents’ ability to pay.
Remarks:
- Evaluate the table according to the various income categories by comparing the amounts actually awarded (statistics).
- Update the Table to Determine the Basic Parental Contribution using data from the 1996 survey on family consumer spending and compare the new table to the current one.
- Adjust the calculation of the basic parental support contribution in light of additional costs (child care, post-secondary education and special expenses), using available statistics.
- Interpret the child care, post-secondary education and special expenses, as well as the concept of undue hardship (review variation of the case law).
- Document the number of applications for review variation as an indicator.
- For low-income cases, consider the relative importance of family government transfers as a means of compensating for the inadequacy of support payments to cover the needs of the child.
Establish precise and objective standards to facilitate the determination of child support payments and standardize a method of calculation that takes into account the real costs of providing for children’s needs.
Remarks:
- The Act, the Regulation and especially the form and table facilitate the determination of child support payments.
- An examination of the case law has made it possible to verify the interpretation of child care, post-secondary education and special expenses, as well as the concept of undue hardship.
Basic Principles of the Model[6]
Like the objectives, the basic principles can be found in the legislative and regulatory provisions that make up the model.
Several aspects of the basic principles were assessed using both the available case law and information gathered during the course of the Committee’s mandate (collection of data, questionnaires, etc.).
- [ Previous Page |
- Table of Contents |
- Next Page ]
