Children Come First: A Report to Parliament Reviewing the Provisions and Operation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - Volume 2

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents

ENDNOTES (cont'd)

• [226] For a detailed discussion of a parent's child support obligation to stepchildren, please refer to "Section 5: Spouse in Place of a Parent."
• [227] See, for example, Messier v. Baines (1997), 161 Sask. R. 132 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Messier]; Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 166 D.L.R. (4^th) 528, 59 B.C.L.R. (3d) 395 (B.C.C.A.) [hereinafter Van Gool cited to D.L.R.]; supra note 49.
• [228] See, for example, Hughes v. Bourdon (5 August 1997), Ontario 98-06615, [1997] O.J. No. 4263 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)), where other circumstances surrounding the paying parent's obligation to pay would have made the application of section 10 unfair to the recipient and the children.
• [229] See, for example, Crawley v. Tobin (1998), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R 92, 42 R.F.L. (4^th) 327 (Nfld. Unif. Fam. Ct.).
• [230] See, for example, Schmid v. Smith (1999), 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 447 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Schmid].
• [231] Van Gool, supra note 227.
• [232] See, for example, Mayo v. O'Connell (1998), 170 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157, 42 R.F.L. (4^th) 193 (Nfld. Unif. Fam. Ct.) [hereinafter Mayo cited to Nfld. & P.E.I.R.]; Ellis v. Ellis (1999), 175 N.S.R. (2d) 268, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 234 (C.A.); Swift v. Swift (5 February 1998), Kingston 98-04648, [1998] O.J. 501 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [233] Williams v. Williams, [1997] N.W.T.R. 303, 32 R.F.L. (4th) 23 (S.C.) [hereinafter Williams cited to N.W.T.R.]. See also the following cases where the access expense was held not to be «unusually high": Paulhus v. Regnier (17 September 1997), Saskatoon 311, [1997] S.J. No. 625 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Paulhus], where the husband's access costs of 10 percent of his gross income of $43,000 did not constitute hardship, even though he lived 900 miles away and exercised access four times per year; Sutton v. Sutton (5 August 1999), Victoria 98 4224, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1933 (S.C.), where there were access costs of $3,800 to travel between the U.S. and Canada; Byrne v. Byrne (12 April 1999), Kamloops 010434, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1087 (S.C.), where there were access expenses of $3,500 for a paying parent with an annual income of $50,000; Eadie v. Eadie (18 September 1998), Fredericton 98-19428, [1998] N.B.J. No. 352 (Q.B.), where travel between two provinces was required.
• [234] See, for example, Petrocco v. Von Michalofski (1998), 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 278 (Ont. Ct. Just.), aff'd (1998), 120 O.A.C. 193, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 372 (Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Petrocco cited to R.F.L.]; A paying parent is more likely to succeed in an undue hardship application if long distance rather than extensive access time is the reason that access expenses are unusually high. See Mayo, supra note 232, where the court disagreed with Williams, supra note 233, and determined that travel costs for sending the children between Florida and Newfoundland, even when the parents shared those costs, were "unusually high." See also Sutherland v. Sutherland (10 February 1998), Cranbrook 98-04350, [1998] B.C.J. No. 342 (S.C.), where access expenses of $300 per month were considered «unusually high" for a mother with an income of $64,000.
• [235] See, for example, Aker v. Howard (1998), 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 159 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [236] Marlow v. Berger (25 September 1998), Peterborough 98-16637, [1998] O.J. No. 3903 at para. 9 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.)) [hereinafter Marlow].
• [237] See Messier, supra note 227; Hansvall v. Hansvall (1997), 160 Sask. R. 201, [1998] 4 W.W.R. 202 (Q.B.).[hereinafter Hansvall cited to Sask. R]; Nagy v. Tittemore (1997), 162 Sask. R. 54 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Nagy]; Jackson v. Holloway (1997), 161 Sask. R. 31, 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 272 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Jackson cited to Sask. R.].
• [238] Foyle v. Foyle (29 January 1998), Nelson 98-07777, [1998] B.C.J. No. 263 (S.C.).
• [239] See Boudreau v. Vickery (1998), 167 N.S.R. (2d) 116 (S.C.).
• [240] Thus, a claim for undue hardship will be dismissed if the paying parent has no legal obligation to support the children of a common-law spouse. See Nishnik v. Smith (1998), 164 Sask. R. 225, 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 105 (Q.B.).
• [241] See, for example, McPhee v. McPhee (16 February 1999), Vancouver A860540, [1999] B.C.J. No. 337 (S.C.).
• [242] Chong v. Chong (1999), 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 301 (B.C.S.C.); followed in Cook v. Hare (1999), 46 R.F.L. (4^th) 343 (B.C.S.C.).
• [243] Van Gool, supra note 227.
• [244] See, for example, MacLeod v. Druhan (1997), 165 N.S.R. (2d) 70, 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 206 (Fam. Ct.); St. Mars v. St. Mars (1997), 160 Sask. R. 221 (Q.B.), where the court found that the paying parent's tuition expense might constitute undue hardship; Stevenson v. Stevenson (14 January 1999), Courtenay 99-05548, [1999] B.C.J. No. 324 (S.C.), where the court held that a paying parent's high debt, due to the fact he was financing his second wife's business, constituted undue hardship.
• [245] See, for example, Bergman-Illnik v. Illnik, [1998] N.W.T.R. 131 (S.C.), where the court found that Revenue Canada tax arrears did not constitute undue hardship. See also Brown v. Carlston (3 June 1998), Regina 014582, [1998] S.J. No. 396 (Q.B.).
• [246] One case where the table amount was increased at the request of the receiving spouse is Scharf v. Scharf (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 422 (Ont. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Scharf], which is discussed below.
• [247] See, for example, Krislock, supra note 136.
• [248] See, for example, Kramer v. Kramer (9 August 1999), Winnipeg 95-01-41795, [1999] M.J. No. 338 (Q.B.).
• [249] For a detailed review of the test, please see "Schedule II: Comparison of Household Standards of Living Test."
• [250] See, for example, Fry v. Hendrickson (1998), 166 Sask. R. 305 (Q.B.).
• [251] However, courts have generally refused to consider changing the table amount unless the parent seeking the change shows that he or she would suffer undue hardship (step 1) and that his or her household standard of living is lower than the other parent's (step 2).
• [252] For examples of different ways of arriving at the child support amount in undue hardship cases see Butler v. Ryan (1998), 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 284 (Nfld. S.C.).
• [253] See, for example, Wislesky v. Wislesky (1999), 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 208 (Ont. Ct. Just.).
• [254] See, for example, Williams, supra note 233; Marlow , supra note 236.
• [255] See, for example, Paulhus, supra note 233; Jackson, supra note 237. Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act codifies the principle of maximum contact.
• [256] Petrocco, supra note 234. See also Odway v. Odway (23 April 1998), Manitoba Court of Appeal AF 97-30-03485, unreported.
• [257] Baranyi v. Longe (10 February 1998), Kenora 99-00092, [1998] O.J. No. 606 (Ct. Just.).
• [258] See, for example, Middleton, supra, note 143; Racette v. Gamauf (1998), 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38, 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 357 (P.E.I. S.C.); O'Hara v. O'Hara (1997), 33 R.F.L. (4^th) 37 (Sask. Q.B.).
• [259] Before the Federal Child Support Guidelines came into effect, there was judicial support for the notion that support should be increased when the paying parent has little or no access. See, for example, MacKinnon v. MacKinnon (1988), 84 N.S.R. (2d) 363 (Fam. Ct.); Russo v. Russo (1988), 15 R.F.L. (3d) 243 (Ont. H.C.).
• [260] The court in Hourie v. Anderson (5 November 1998), Prince Albert 326, [1998] S.J. No. 754 (Sask. Q.B.) questioned whether the undue hardship provisions allowed it to increase support because of a lack of access. In Block v. Baltimore (2000), 149 Man. R. (2d) 137, 5 R.F.L. (5^th) 18 (Q.B.), the recipient claimed the paying parent's lack of access increased custody costs, but the court refused to increase support.
• [261] Scotcher v. Hampson (1998), 41 R.F.L. (4^th) 271 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [262] Scharf, supra note 246.
• [263] Jackson, supra note 237 at para. 19.
• [264] McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1999), 172 D.L.R. (4^th) 70, 44 R.F.L. (4^th) 176 (B.C.C.A.).
• [265] Lobo v. Lobo (1999), 240 A.R. 257, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 366 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Lobo].
• [266] Gibney v. Gibney (4 March 1998), New Westminster 98-07820, [1998] B.C.J. No. 632 (S.C.) [hereinafter Gibney].
• [267] M.R. v. S.R.R. (28 May 1998), Vancouver D100220, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1282 (S.C.) [hereinafter M.R.].
• [268] Lobo, supra note 265.
• [269] Gibney, supra note 266.
• [270] M.R., supra note 267.
• [271] Koyama v. Leigh (26 January 2001), Vancouver D093103, [2001] B.C.J. No. 154 (S.C.).
• [272] See Greenwood v. Greenwood (1998), 37 R.F.L. (4^th) 422 (B.C.S.C.); Gibney, supra note 266.
• [273] Davids, supra note 92.
• [274] Assinck v. Assinck (4 March 1998), Ontario 97-MP-231311, [1998] O.J. No. 875 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
• [275] Lonergan v. Lonergan (23 January 1998), Vancouver 98-11990, [1998] B.C.J. No. 150 (S.C.).
• [276] Survey of Child Support Awards database, February 2001.
• [277] Lee v. Lee (1998), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176, 43 R.F.L. (4^th) 339 (Nfld. C.A.).
• [278] See Walkeden v. Zemlak (1997), 160 Sask. R. 1, 33 R.F.L. (4^th) 52 (Q.B.); Di Pasquale v. Di Pasquale (24 April 1998), Yellowknife 6101-02439, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 58 (S.C.); Chrones v. Scott (1997), 160 Sask. R. 79, 33 R.F.L. (4^th) 115 (Q.B.).
• [279] See Wang, supra note 51; Sherman, supra note 51; Parent v. Pelletier (1999), 219 N.B.R. (2d) 102, 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 66 (C.A.) [hereinafter Parent]; Laird v. Laird (2000), 250 A.R. 193, 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 241 (C.A.) [hereinafter Laird].
• [280] See Dergousoff, supra note 82; Bates, supra note 51; Vandal v. Droppo (1999), 138 Man. R. (2d) 102, 2 R.F.L. (5^th) 136 (C.A.).
• [281] See the review of section 17 of the Divorce Act for a detailed explanation.
• [282] Montalbetti, supra note 82.
• [283] Ibid. at para. 16.
• [284] O'Donnell v. Morgan, [2001] N.B.R. (2d) (Supp.) No. 4 (Q.B.) [hereinafter O'Donnell].
• [285] Cholodniuk v. Sears (2001), 14 R.F.L. (5^th) 9 (Sask. Q.B.) [hereinafter Cholodniuk].
• [286] Ibid. at para. 3.
• [287] Turner v. Turner (2000), 274 A.R. 124, 11 R.F.L. (5^th) 411 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Turner].
• [288] Guidelines, supra note 47.
• [289] Guidelines, supra note 47.
• [290] Hainsworth, T.W., Child Support Guidelines Service, Canada Law Book Inc., Release No. 8, November 2001, p. 65 [hereinafter Hainsworth].
• [291] Robillard-Cole v. Cole (2000), 183 N.S.R. (2d) 176, 568 A.P.R. 176 (N.S.S.C.).
• [292] Wheeler v. Wheeler (16 December 2000), Toronto M26050, [2000] O.J. No. 4759 (Ont. C.A.).
• [293] Lee v. Lee (1998), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176, 513 A.P.R. 176, 165 D.L.R. (4th) 619, 43 R.F.L. (4th) 339 at paras. 4, 6, 8 (Nfld. C.A.) [hereinafter Lee cited to Nfld. & P.E.I.R.].
• [294] Fuzi v. Fuzi (1999), 92 A.C.W.S. (3d) 102 (B.C.S.C.); de Goede v. de Goede (2000), 93 A.C.W.S. (3d) (B.C.S.C.).
• [295] Odendahl v. Brule (1999), 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 37 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Forbes v. Forbes (1998), 79 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1225 (B.C.S.C.).
• [296] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 3.
• [297] See the reviews of sections 6 and 7 of Schedule III.
• [298] Lee, supra note 293 at para. 9.
• [299] Wilson v. Wilson (1998), 165 Sask. R. 241, [1998] 8 W.W.R. 493 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Wilson].
• [300] Pederson v. Walker (1998), 167 Sask. R. 127 (Q.B.).
• [301] Holtby, supra note 192.
• [302] Hart v. Hart (10 November 1997), Regina 016637, [1999] S.J. No. 640 (Sask. Q.B.). See also Arnold v. Washburn [2001] O.J. No. 4996, Docket No. C35085, December 19, 2001, where the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that substantial proceeds from the sale of shares in 1993 do not change the support payer's Guidelines income.
• [303] Kuntz v. Kuntz (1998), 173 Sask. R. 149 (Q.B.).
• [304] Omah-Maharajh v. Howard (1998), 58 Alta. L.R. (3d) 236, 215 A.R. 159. [hereinfater Omah-Maharajh cited to Alta. L.R.] (Q.B.).
• [305] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 4.
• [306] Beeching v. Beeching 1998, 169 Sask. R. 18, 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 15 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Beeching cited to Sask. R.].
• [307] S.(L.) v. P.(E.) (1997), 41 B.C.L.R. (3d) 14, 32 R.F.L. (4^th) 75 (B.C.S.C.), aff'd 50 R.F.L. (4^th) 302, [1999] 12 W.W.R. 718 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [1999]179 D.L.R. (4^th) vii [hereinafter S.(L.) cited to B.C.L.R.].
• [308] Kelly v. Kelly (1997), 162 Sask. R. 74, 33 R.F.L. (4^th) 16 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Kelly cited to Sask. R.].
• [309] Baum v. Baum (1999), 182 D.L.R. (4^th) 715 (B.C.S.C.).
• [310] Stephen v. Stephen (1999), 183 Sask. R. 161 (Q.B.).
• [311] Giene v. Giene (1998), 234, A.R. 355 (Q.B.).
• [312] Rudulier v. Rudulier 1999 182 Sask. R. 23 (Q.B.) at para. 44.
• [313] Beeching , supra note 306.
• [314] Rudachyk v. Rudachyk (1999) 180 Sask. R. 73, 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 363 at para. 23 (Sask. C.A.) [hereinafter Rudachyk].
• [315] Desjardins v. Desjardins (1998), 79 A.C.W.S. (3d) 773 (B.C.S.C.).
• [316] Blackburn v. Elmitt (1997), 34 R.F.L. (4^th) 183 (B.C.S.C.).
• [317] Rudachyk, supra note 314 at para. 25.
• [318] Orser v. Grant (2000), 12 R.F.L. (5^th) 184 (Ont. Div. Crt.); Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin (2000), 189 D.L.R. (4^th) 741 (Ont. Sup. Crt. Just.); Moran v. Cook (2000), 9 R.F.L. (5^th) 352 (Ont. Sup. Crt. Just.).
• [319] S.(L.), supra note 307.
• [320] Risen v. Risen (1998), 78 O.T.C. 189, 81 A.C.W.S. (3d) 669 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
• [321] Vivier v. Vivier (1997), 120 Man. R. (2d) 231 (Q.B.); Laraque v. Allooloo (1999), 48 R.F.L. (4th) 381 (N.W.T.S.C.) [hereinafter Laraque].
• [322] Lessard v. Lessard (1999), 242 A.R. 363 (Q.B.).
• [323] Ewaniw v. Ewaniw (1998), 224 A.R. 301, 41 R.F.L. (4^th) 94 (Alta. Q.B.).
• [324] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 5.
• [325] Fibiger v. Fibiger (1998), 38 R.F.L. (4th) 258 (B.C.S.C.).
• [326] Williams v. Williams (1999), 179 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 283, 50 R.F.L. (4th) 446 (Nfld. C.A.).
• [327] Schmid, supra, note 230.
• [328] See Formula for the Table of Amounts Contained in the Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Technical Report (Ottawa: Department of Justice, CSR-1997-1E, 1997).
• [329] Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Review of Technical Issues and Proposed Solutions.
• [330] Ibid.
• [331] Gray v. Gray (1997), 33 R.F.L. (4th) 273 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [332] Cuddie v. Cuddie (13 January 1998), New Westminster D039031, [1998] B.C.J. No. 159 (S.C.) [hereinafter Cuddie].
• [333] Ibid. at para. 13.
• [334] Wilcox v. Snow (1999), 181 N.S.R. (2d) 92, 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 171 (C.A.) [hereinafter Wilcox].
• [335] Goerlitz v. Paquette (1998), 221 A.R. 182 (Q.B.).
• [336] Fielding v. Fielding (1999), 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 24 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), leave to appeal refused (1999), 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 29 (Ont. Div. Ct.) [hereinafter Fielding].
• [337] Weldon v. Weldon (25 August 2000), Ontario FD560/00, [2000] O.J. No. 3239 (Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [338] See Pastway v. Pastway (8 May 1999), Kitchener 31010/99 (Sup. Ct. Just.); Fielding, supra note 336.
• [339] Bates v. Welcher (27 February 2001), Manitoba AF00-30-04559, [2001] MBCA 33 (C.A.).
• [340] Ibid. at para. 55.
• [341] Ibid. at para. 63.
• [342] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 6(1).
• [343] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 6(2).
• [344] Seidlikoski v. Hall (14 June 2000), Regina 14,744, [2000] S.J. No. 378 (Q.B.).
• [345] This paragraph reads «the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so".
• [346] Le Page v. Porter (2000), 7 R.F.L. (5^th) 335 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [347] Ireland, supra note 68.
• [348] Desjardins v. Desjardins (1999), 49 R.F.L. (4^th) 242 (B.C.S.C.).
• [349] See the review of section 4.
• [350] See the review of section 7 for more information.
• [351] See, for example, Hansvall, supra note 237; Stokes v. Stokes (26 November 1999), Ontario 8771/99, [1999] O.J. No. 5192 (Sup. Ct. Just.); Blain v. Blain (1998), 39 R.F.L. (4^th) 327 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [352] DiFabio, supra note 147.
• [353] Schroder v. Schroder (1998) 221 A.R. 395, 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 395 (Q.B.).
• [354] Corkum v. Corkum (1998), 166 N.S.R. (2d) 329, 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 367 (S.C.).
• [355] Griffiths v. Griffiths (1999), 242 A.R. 186, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 353 (Q.B.).
• [356] Rousseau v. Rousseau (1999), 181 Sask. R. 144 (Q.B.).
• [357] For a detailed review, see «Section 10: Undue Hardship."
• [358] See, for example, Shreeves v. Shreeves (1997), 161 Sask. R. 212 (Q.B.); Ness v. Ness (1998), 125 Man. R. (2d) 173, [1998] 6 W.W.R. 404 (Q.B.).
• [359] See, for example, Loosdrecht v. Loosdrecht (30 June 1998), New Westminster 98-13418, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1629 (B.C.S.C.).
• [360] See, for example, Hansvall, supra note 237.
• [361] Dalhousie University law professor D.A. Rollie Thompson, who has commented extensively on the test, has written: "Schedule II has been criticized as unduly complex, by myself and others: These elaborate calculations remind me of those old Rube Goldberg machines, many moving parts and much activity, for so little practical result." D.A. Rollie Thompson, "Spousal Support In, Around and After the Guidelines," Atlantic Courts Seminar, National Judicial Institute (Halifax, October 1997), p. 14.
• [362] D.A. Rollie Thompson, Of Camels and Rich Men: Undue Hardship, Part II (October 1998), Ottawa, Department of Justice, p. 29. This case law review includes cases until early September 1998.
• [363] D.A. Rollie Thompson, among others, argues that the test should be mandatory. In its June 1998 interim report on the Guidelines, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recommended that the government try to simplify and clarify both section 10 and Schedule II.
• [364] Queen's University law professor Nicholas Bala, in response to the Standing Senate Committee's recommendation that Schedule II be simplified, says that household standards of living must be compared, adjusting for household size and composition, and that this comparison is likely to be complicated. He argues that the provision must be narrow to ensure that children do not fall below the paying parent's standard of living. He recommends that the government provide access to software programs to help parents, either through court staff or through the Internet. Nicholas Bala, "Reforming the Child Support Guidelines" (February 1999) Ottawa, Department of Justice.
• [365] D.A. Rollie Thompson, The Second Family Conundrum: Technical Solutions or Fundamental Choices (March 2000) Ottawa, Department of Justice, p. 14. The case law review included cases from the inception of the Guidelines until March 2000.
• [366] Ibid., p. 14.
• [367] See, for example, Lauridsen v. Lauridsen (2 July 1998), Kenora 98-15096, [1998] O.J. No. 2948 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Pilotte v. Pilotte (5 February 1998), Kenora 97-075, [1998] O.J. No. 865 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Prov. Div.)).
• [368] Spanier, supra note 202.
• [369] Taylor v. Taylor (1 April 1998), Courtenay 98-12387, [1998] B.C.J. No. 937 (S.C.).
• [370] Hansvall, supra note 237.
• [371] Hansvall, supra note 237.
• [372] Woolhouse v. Jarosz (1998), 162 Sask. R. 314 (Q.B.).
• [373] Nagy, supra note 237.
• [374] See, for example, Feniak v. Gerhardt (1998), 171 Sask. R. 262 (Q.B.).
• [375] See, for example, Laraque, supra note 321.
• [376] See, for example, Nishnik v. Smith (1997), 162 Sask. R. 200 (Q.B.).
• [377] See, for example, Cuddie, supra note 332.
• [378] Ibid.
• [379] See, for example, Bala, "Reforming the Child Support Guidelines," supra note 364.
• [380] See, for example, Souliere v. Leclair, [1998] O.J. No. 1393 (Gen. Div.).
• [381] See Step 1.
• [382] Phillips v. Phillips (1997), 42 B.C.L.R. (3d) 218, 32 R.F.L. (4^th) 218 (S.C.).
• [383] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/97-563, s. 12.
• [384] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/2000-337, s. 8(1).
• [385] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/2000-337, s. 8(2).
• [386] Metzner, supra note 52.
• [387] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 13.
• [388] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 9.
• [389] Schick, supra note 61.
• [390] Mabbett v. Mabbett (1999), 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 157 (N.S. S.C.).
• [391] Metzner, supra note 52.
• [392] L'Heureux v. L'Heureux (12 November 1999), Regina, [1999] S.J. No. 748 (Q.B.).
• [393] Blair, supra note 136.
• [394] Garrison, supra note 80; Krislock, supra note 136.
• [395] See Chambers, supra note 64; Loughran v. Loughran (2000), 182 N.S.R. (2d) 143 (S.C.).
• [396] Chambers, ibid.
• [397] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/2000-337, s. 10.
• [398] See Kelly, supra note 308; Wilson, supra note 299; Addison v. Dornian (1998), 124 Man. R. (2d) 268, 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 335 (Q.B.).
• [399] See the review of section 17 for more information.
• [400] Mertler, supra note 208.
• [401] See the review of section 17 for more information.
• [402] See Omah-Maharajh, supra note 304; Cooke v. Colomy (1998), 38 R.F.L. (4^th) 342 (Man. Q.B.); Dancak v. Dancak (1998), 38 R.F.L. (4th) 227 (B.C.S.C.).
• [403] See Cornelius v. Andres (1999), 134 Man. R. (2d) 140, 170 D.L.R. (4^th) 254, 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 200 (C.A.); Tidball v. Tidball (1999), 45 R.F.L. (4^th) 437 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
• [404] Lamparski v. Lamparski (1997), 35 R.F.L. (4^th) 52 (B.C.S.C.).
• [405] Omah-Maharajh, supra note 304.
• [406] Andersen v. Andersen (1997), 32 R.F.L. (4th) 177 (B.C.S.C.).
• [407] Wilcox, supra note 334.
• [408] See, for example, Lepage v. Lepage (1999), 179 Sask. R. 34 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Lepage].
• [409] Merritt v. Merritt (11 May 1999), London F689/97, [1999] O. J. No. 1732 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [410] Guidelines, supra note 47, s. 11.
• [411] Rudachyk, supra note 314.
• [412] Wilson, supra note 299.
• [413] Ibid. at para. 33.
• [414] de Goede, supra note 35.
• [415] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/97-563, s. 14.
• [416] The income benefit is the fair market value of the shares at the time the option is exercised net of the cost of the shares (option price) and any amount paid to acquire the options. This benefit may be reduced by 25 percent when the option price was not less than the fair market value of the shares when the option was granted.
• [417] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/2001-292, s. 1.
• [418] Guidelines, supra note 47, SOR/2000-337, s. 12.
• [419] MacDonald v. MacDonald (1997), 209 A.R. 178, 57 Alta. L.R. (3d) 195 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 49.
• [420] Walker v. Walker (1999), 1 R.F.L. (5^th) 180 (Alta. Q.B.).
• [421] A.D. v. T.D., Droit de la famille-2950, [1998] R.J.Q. 1239 (Que. Sup. Ct. (Fam. Div.)).
• [422] R. S.C.  1985, c. O-3.
• [423] O.M., supra note 104.
• [424] See, for example, Ferguson v. Ferguson, [1949] 2 W.W.R. 879 (Alta. C.A.), where the court unanimously held that subsection 67(2) of the Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A., 1942, ch. 300, like section 35 of The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, ch. 85, provides jurisdiction in divorce proceedings to order support for children until age 21. See also Faustman v. Faustman, [1952] 7 W.W.R. 373 (N.S. Q.B.) and Firman v. Firman, [1951] O.W.N. 66 (Ont. H.C.J.), where the courts held that in divorce actions children over 16 may receive support in the appropriate circumstances.
• [425] See, for example, Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205 (1972) 8 R.F.L. 172, 29 D.L.R. (3d) 641.
• [426]
  • In Alberta, the Parentage and Maintenance Act,  are R.S.A. 1980, C.M-2, s.16 (2) provides that child support ends when a child reaches age 18. Note however, in the recent case of T.(P.) v B. (R) unreported, 2001 ABQB 739 August 9, 2001, Docket: Edmonton 8603-13035, Justice Watson of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench extended child support for the benefit of a 19-year-old daughter of unmarried parents in accordance with the Maintenance Order Act, R.S.A. 1980, C.M-1.
  • In British Columbia, section 88 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, creates an obligation for parents to support "the child", which is defined in section 87 as "a person who is 19 years of age or older and…unable, because of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life".
  • In Manitoba, the Family Maintenance Act, C.C.S.M., c. F20, para. 35(1)(b) provides that a "child" includes a person 18 years of age or over, under the charge of his or her parents, who "is unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life".
  • In New Brunswick, in accordance with section 113 (1) of the Family Services Act, 1997, c.59, s.2; 2000, c.44, s.1, support is available for a child the age of majority or over if he or she is "unable to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents or to obtain the necessaries of life by reason of illness, disability, pursuit of reasonable education or other cause".
  • In Newfoundland, under paragraph 37(7)(a) of the Family Law Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. F-2, a child at the age of majority or older may receive support if the child is under the charge of a parent and "is unable by reason of illness, disability, pursuit of reasonable education or other cause to withdraw from the parent's charge or to obtain the necessaries of life".
  • In Nova Scotia, support is payable to dependent children as defined in section 2 of the Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160. A dependent child includes a child "…the age of majority [who is] unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from the charge of the parents or provide himself with reasonable needs but does not include a child twenty-four years of age or older…".
  • In Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, section 57 of the Children's Law Act, S.N.W.T. 1997, c. 14, permits support for children «the age of majority or over, but who [are] unable, by reason of illness, disability, pursuit of reasonable education or other cause, to withdraw from a parent's charge".
  • In Ontario, section 31 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, creates an obligation to pay child support for the benefit of an «unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education…".
  • In Prince Edward Island, under the Family Law Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-2.1, as amended by An Act to Amend The Family Law Act (No.2), Stats. P.E.I. 1997, c.16, parents must support children if the children are "…eighteen years of age or over, are enrolled in a full-time program of education or are unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from the charge of their parents or to obtain the necessaries of life".
  • In Quebec, articles 585, 586, and 587 of the Civil Code permit children at the age of majority or older to receive support.
  • In Saskatchewan, subsection 4(2) of The Family Maintenance Act, R.S.S. 1997, c. F-6.2, states that "on the application of a parent of a person who is 18 years of age or older, the court may order the person's other parent to pay maintenance to the claimant for the benefit of the person if the person is: (a) under the claimant's charge; and (b) unable, by reason of illness, disability, or other cause to: (i) withdraw from the claimant's charge; or (ii) obtain the necessaries of life".
  • In Yukon, the definition of "child" in the Family Property and Support Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c. 63, does not specify an age limit.
• [427] Judith A. Frederick and Monica Boyd, The Impact of Family Structure on High School Completion (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Trends, Catalogue No. 11-008-XPE, 1998). See also Mary Stratton, Literature Review on Parental Funding of Post-Secondary Education with Recommendations for Further Research (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Child Support Team, BP06E, 1999).
• [428] For example, in subsection 1(1) of Ontario's Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, paragraph 1(1)(a) of P.E.I.'s Family Law Act, S.P.E.I., 1995, c. 12, and paragraph 2(1)(a) of Newfoundland's Family Law Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. F-2, a child includes "…a person whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family." In Manitoba, section 1 of The Family Maintenance Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. F-20, defines child as including "… a child to whom a parent stands in loco parentis". In New Brunswick, section 1 of the Family Law Service Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F.2.2, says the definition of child includes "(d) a child to whom a person stands in loco parentis, if that person's spouse is a parent of the child". Section 1 of British Columbia's Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, imposes a child support obligation on step-parents, biological parents, and adoptive parents. However, the obligation on step-parents is qualified by temporal factors such as the requirement that the step-parent has contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year.
• [429] A historical review of the doctrine of in loco parentis can be found in various cases, including Carignan v. Carignan (1989), 61 Man. R. (2d) 66, 22 R.F.L. (3d) 376 (C.A.) [hereinafter Carignan cited to Man. R.] and Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 149 A.R. 210, 2 R.F.L. (4^th) 157 (C.A.) [hereinafter Theriault cited to A.R.], and in numerous journal articles, such as A. Diduck, "Carignan v. Carignan: When is a Father not a Father? Another Historical Perspective" (1990), 19 Man. L.J. 580.
• [430] Carignan, supra note 429.
• [431] Andrews v. Andrews (1992), 97 Sask. R. 213, 38 R.F.L. (3d) 200 (C.A.).
• [432] Theriault, supra note 429.
• [433] [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242. The terms stepchild or stepchildren and step-parent or step-parents are used for ease of reference only in this document. A stepchild is a child for whom a spouse stands in the place of a parent. A step-parent is a spouse who stands in the place of a parent to a child.
• [434] Marud v. Marud (1999), 182 Sask. R. 50, 2 R.F.L. (5^th) 113 (Q.B.) [hereinafter Marud cited to Sask. R.].
• [435] See, for example, McDonald v. McDonald (7 December 1999), New Westminster D040243, [1998] B.C.J. No. 3150; McFarland v. McFarland (1999), 92 O.T.C. 177, [1999] O.J. No. 1392 (Crt. Just.).
• [436] See, for example, Henderson v. Henderson (7 December 1999), Penticton 14275, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2938 (S.C.); Bruvels v. Guindon (13 March 2000), Ontario 99-FL-25302, [2000] O.J. No. 875 (Sup. Crt. Just.); Tanner v. Simpson (2 July 1999), Yellowknife 6101-02512, [1999] N.W.T.J. No. 71 (S.C.).
• [437] R.M. v. P.M. (2000), 193 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273, 8 R.F.L. (5^th) 320 (Nfld. S.C.).
• [438] B.L.H. v. D.L.J.A. (2 April 2001), Chilliwack E1489, [2001] B.C.J. No. 642 (S.C.) [hereinafter B.L.H.].
• [439] Cox v. Cox (1999), 181 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 212 (Nfld. S.C.).
• [440] See, for example, B.L.H., supra note 438; Kotylak v. Kotylak (21 June 1999), Regina 015727, [1999] S.J. No. 430 (Q.B.).
• [441] Marshall v. Marshall (6 January 2000), Saint John FDSJ-799-99, [2000] N.B.J. No. 10 (Q.B.).
• [442] See v. See (1999), 94 O.T.C. 150, 44 R.F.L. (4^th) 306 (Crt. Just.).
• [443] Cook v. Cook (2000), 182 N.S.R. (2d) 299, 3 R.F.L. (5^th) 373 (S.C.).
• [444] Ibid. at para. 28.
• [445] Baker v. Peterson (29 January 2001), Halifax 001154, [2001] N.S.J. No. 52 (S.C.).
• [446] Dutrisac, supra note 134
• [447] V.A. v. S.F. (11 December 2000), Montreal 2001-0012, [2000] J.Q. no. 5556 (C.A.) [hereinafter V.A.].
• [448] The Quebec Court of Appeal stated that the concept of "standing in the place of a parent" does not exist under Quebec civil law and has never been incorporated in the Quebec Civil Code. The court stated that the concept is therefore an exception that is in addition to Quebec civil law and must therefore be interpreted restrictively, like any other exception.
• [449] T.A. v. R.C.A. (1999), 48 R.F.L. (4^th) 205 (B.C.S.C.).
• [450] Marud, supra note 434.
• [451] V.A., supra note 447 at page 42.
• [452] Zarebski v. Zarebski (1997), 29 R.F.L. (4^th) 93 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
• [453] Cole v. Cole (2000), 183 N.S.R. (2d) 176 (S.C.).
• [454] Ibid. at para. 5.
• [455] See the clause-by-clause review of section 17 of the Divorce Act, and of section 14 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for further analysis.
• [456] For any child support order or agreement made after April 30, 1997, child support payments will neither be included in, nor deducted from, income for income tax purposes.
• [457] See "Provinces and Territories That Have Adopted the Federal Child Support Guidelines Under Provincial or Territorial Laws" for more information.
• [458] See the comparison of Quebec and federal guidelines for more information.
• [459] Fung-Sunter v. Fabian (1999), 69 B.C.L.R. (3d) 18, 48 R.F.L. (4th) 95 (C.A.).
• [460] Smith v. Smith (14 November 2000), Woodstock 6081/98, [2000] O.J. No. 5017 (Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [461] Rogers v. Rogers (17 March 2000), Ontario 1158/99, [2000] O.J. No. 1621 (Sup. Ct. Just.) [hereinafter Rogers].
• [462] Sherman, supra note 279. This decision was subsequently questioned in Bates, supra note 51.
• [463] Rogers, supra note 461 at para. 9.
• [464] Close v. Close 215 N.B.R. (2d) 383, 50 R.F.L. (4th) 342 (Q.B.).
• [465] Ibid. at para. 13.
• [466] Hainworth, supra note 290, p.7-8.
• [467] R.S.Q. 1996, c. 68.
• [468]K.G. v. L.L., Droit de la famille-2702, [1997] R.J.Q. 1960 (S.C.).
• [469]M.F. v. V.M., Droit de la famille-2761, [1999] R.J.Q. 1337 (C.A.). 
• [470]Droit de la famille-2784 (19 September 1997), Hull 550-04-002110-969, 1997 Carswell Que 965 (Sup. Ct.);  C.M.U.D.C. (Droit de la famille - 3136), [1998] R.D.F. 605 (C.A.).
• [471] Isabelle v. Gauvin (29 May 1997), 500-12-000692-939 (Que. S.C.); Droit de la famille-2794 (25 September 1997), Longueuil 505-12-016512-967, 1997 Carswell Que 1119 (Sup. Ct.).
• [472]E.F. v. Y.S., Droit de la famille-2789 (11 September 1997), Montreal 98-01234, [1997] A.Q. no. 3120 (C.A.).
• [473] Ibid. at para. 15 [translated by author].
• [474] Hall v. Hall (1997), 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 377, 30 R.F.L. (4^th) 333 (B.C.C.).
• [475] See, for example, Wallace v. Wallace (1998), 36 R.F.L. (4^th) 428, 156 D.L.R. (4^th) 762 (B.C.S.C.).
• [476] Demonte v. Demonte (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4^th) 57 (B.C.S.C).
• [477] Duncan v. Duncan (1999), 178 D.L.R. (4th) 760, 1 R.F.L. (5th) 46 (B.C.C.A.).
• [478] Gill v. Gill (3 November 1999), Chilliwack E635, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2572 (S.C.); Andrews v. Andrews (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 577, 50 R.F.L. (4th) 1 (C.A.); L.W. v. M.E., Droit de la famille-2974, [1998] R.D.F. 261 (S.C.); Clausen v. Clausen (12 May 2000), Courtenay E0339, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1024 (S.C.); M. (S.A.J.) v. M. (D.D.) (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4th) 95, 127 Man. R. (2d) 78 (Q.B.), rev'd on other grounds (1999), 45 R.F.L. (4th) 301 (C.A.).
• [479] Droit de la famille-2797, [1997] R.J.Q. 2990 (Sup. Ct.).
• [480] Yeo v. Yeo (1999), 49 R.F.L. (4th) 450 (P.E.I. S.C.).
• [481] Galliford v. Galliford (9 January 1998), New Westminster 98-04327, [1998] B.C.J. No. 268 (S.C.).
• [482] Lyttle v. Bourget (1999), 178 N.S.R. (2d) 1 (S.C.); Kaderly v. Kaderly (1 August 1997), Prince Edward Island 98-06270, [1997] P.E.I.J. No. 74 (S.C.(T.D.)) [hereinafter Kaderly].
• [483] See Miller v. Miller (30 May 1997), Victoria 98-05573, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1322 (S.C.), where the court concluded that extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities were beyond the means of the family because of a paramount need for spousal support.
• [484] Nataros v. Nataros (1998), 40 R.F.L. (4th) 308 (B.C.S.C.).
• [485] Ibid. at para. 38.
• [486] Shentow v. Bewsh (31 July 1998), Toronto 97FP236869, [1998] O.J. No. 3142 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
• [487] Jackson v. Jackson (5 August 1999), Edmonton 4803 108902 [1999] A.J. No. 985 (Q.B.); Hernon v. Renaud (5 November 1999), New Westminster D042079, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2509 (S.C.); Mancini v. Mancini (2 June 1998), Hamilton D226/96, [1998] O.J. No. 5699 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
• [488] Rupert v. Rupert (1999), 207 N.B.R. (2d) 177 (Q.B.).
• [489] Lepage, supra note 408.
• [490] Kaderly, supra note 482.
• [491] (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 349, 1 R.F.L. (5th) 119 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 36.
• [492] Casabona v. Niochet (26 February 1998), Ontario 98-10524, [1999] O.J. No. 1793 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Long v. Long (1998), 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 355 (S.C. (T.D.)).
• [493] Schick, supra note 61.
• [494] Richter v. Vahamaki (18 May 2000), Ontario 99-FP-249172FIS, [2000] O.J. No. 5282 (Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [495] Lockyer v. Lockyer (2000), 10 R.F.L. (5th) 318 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [496] Lepage, supra note 408.
• [497] Pitt v. Pitt (20 August 1997), Victoria 97-14797, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1949 (S.C.).
• [498] Tauber, supra note 102.
• [499] Ibid. at note 102.
• [500] Erickson v. Erickson (1999), 175 N.S.R. (2d) 185, 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 326 (S.C.); McLean v. McLean (29 December 1997), Barrie 98-05998, [1997] O.J. No. 5315 (Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)); Cusack v. Cusack (25 November 1999), Prince Edward Island 1101/3922, [1999] P.E.I.J. No. 90 (S.C.(T.D.)).
• [501] Smith v. Smith (1998), 36 R.F.L. (4th) 419 (Ont. Ct. Just. (Gen. Div.)).
• [502] Davis v. Davis (21 February 2000), Halifax 1201-49518, [2000] N.S.J. No. 86 (S.C. (Fam. Div.)).
• [503] Krill v. Krill (2000), 4 R.F.L. (5th) 249 (Alta. Q.B.).
• [504] See the case of McCowan v. McCowan (1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 707, 14 R.F.L. (4^th) 325 (C.A.), where the issue of support entitlement was found to be res judicata.
• [505] Comeau v. Comeau (9 October 1997), Halifax 1201-43928, [1997] N.S.J. No. 409 (T.D.); Young v. Young (1999), 175 N.S.R. (2d) 113, 49 R.F.L. (4^th) 455 (S.C.).
• [506] Chambers, supra note 64.
• [507] Ibid. at para. 35.
• [508] Ibid. at para. 35.
• [509] Since May 1, 1997, child support has not been subject to any tax treatment, but a paying spouse can still deduct spousal support and the recipient must still pay tax on it.
• [510] Also, the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1(5^th Supp.), states that if an order or agreement provides for a blended support payment that does not distinguish spousal from child support, the entire payment is deemed to be child support.
• [511] Marks v. Marks (24 October 2000), Edmonton 4803 115800, [2000] A.J. No. 1247 (Q.B.).
• [512] Thompson v. Scullion [2000] N.B.R. (2d) (Supp.) No. 73, 7 R.F.L. (5th) 440 (Q.B.).
• [513] Halliday v. Halliday (1998), 164 Sask. R. 12 (Q.B.).
• [514] Hope v. Hope (28 February 2000), Ontario 7785/95, [2000] O.J. No. 853 (Sup. Ct. Just.).
• [515] See the clause-by-clause review of section 14.
• [516] When section 15.1 of the Divorce Act came into effect, it constituted a change in circumstances that could be a reason for varying a child support order made before May 1, 1997, under paragraph 14(c).
• [517] See Wang, supra note 51; Sherman, supra note 51; Parent, supra note 279; Laird, supra note 279.
• [518] See Dergousoff, supra note 51; Bates, supra note 51; Vandal, supra note 280.
• [519] Montalbetti, supra note 82.
• [520] Ibid. at para. 16.
• [521] O'Donnell, supra note 284.
• [522] Cholodriuk, supra note 285.
• [523] Ibid. at para. 3.
• [524] Turner, supra note 287.
• [525] Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (6 April 2000), Edmonton 9803-0329-AC, [2001] A.J. No. 1170 (C.A.).
• [526] Hainsworth,supra note 290.
• [527] Electronic filing has certainly decreased turnaround times for filing applications for tracing, interception, and licence denial. However, problems have arisen in the tracing service when applications have been filed in "batches" via file transfer protocol (FTP). A designated officer must examine each application singly to swear an affidavit, a process that decreases the efficiency of FTP. Department officials are studying ways to overcome the problem. FTP use is important for the provinces and territories, especially the larger ones, as it eliminates the need for "double entry"-the federal applications are filed automatically from their automated systems.
• [528] Focus Consultants, Measuring the Degree of Impact of the Addition of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Databases to Part I (Main Study) (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, forthcoming).
• [529] SOR/88-181, (1988) 122 Can. Gaz., Part II, 1851, ss. 7(2)
• [530] R.S.C., (1985), C. S-9.
• [531] R.S.C., (1985) c. A-2 and R.S.C., (1985) c. S-9.
• [532] SOR/87-315, (1987) 121 Can. Gaz., Part II, 2233, s. 4(2).
• [533] Alderson-Gill and Associates Consulting Inc. Research on Compliance/Default with Child Support Orders and Agreements in Prince Edward Island (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Family, Children and Youth Section, 2002, forthcoming).
• [534] Government of Canada. Budget 1996: The New Child Support Package (Ottawa: Canada Communications Group, 1996).
• [535] Sharon Moyer and Tina Hotton, Phase I Report of Feasibility Study on New Hire Programs for Canada: New Hire Programs in the United States (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Child Support Team, CSR-1999-4E, 1999).
• [536] Child Support Team, Phase II: New Employee Tracing Program-Examination of Federal Databases Having Potential Use for Canadian New Employee Tracing Program (Ottawa: Department of Justice, forthcoming).
• [537] Lothar Goetz, A Comprehensive Review of Administrative/Operational Procedures for Handling REMO Cases in Canada (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Family, Children and Youth Section, 2002, forthcoming).
• [538] B. Bacon and B. McKenzie, Best Practices in Parent Information and Education Programs After Separation and Divorce: Final Report (Winnipeg: Child and Family Services Research Group, February 2001).
• [539] British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General, Mandatory Parenting after Separation Pilot: First Evaluation Report (Victoria: Ministry of the Attorney General, July 1999); British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General, Mandatory Parenting after Separation Pilot: Final Evaluation Report (Victoria: Ministry of the Attorney General, October 2000).
• [540] J. Sieppert et al., An Evaluation of Alberta's Parenting after Separation Seminars (Canadian Institute for Law and the Family, Calgary, December 1999).
• [541] B. McKenzie, For the Sake of the Children: An Evaluation of a Parent Education Program for Separating and Divorcing Parents-Phase II Final Report (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, Child and Family Study Series, July 2000).
• [542] B. Bradford, Positive Parenting from Two Homes: Final Report Evaluation of Pilot Parent Education Program in Prince Edward Island (Background Paper) (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Child Support Team, BP28E, 2000).
• [543] Elizabeth A. Wilkie, Historical Reflections and Future Directions: Saskatchewan Justice Mediation Services: Family Programs Evaluation (January 2000). s
• [544] B. McKenzie, Evaluation of Comprehensive Co-Mediation and Mediation Internship Pilot Project: Interim Report (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, Child and Family Study Series, July 2000).
• [545] Praxis, Final Report on the Evaluation of the Court of Queen's Bench Child Support Centres (Edmonton: Alberta Justice, March 2000).
• [546] R. Birnbaum and D. Moyal, Visitation Based Disputes Arising in Separation and Divorce: Differential Intervention (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2000).
• [547] The Final Evaluation Report: Support Application Worker Program (St. John's: Department of Human Resources and Employment, 2000).
• [548] Elizabeth A. Wilkie, Historical Reflections and Future Directions: Saskatchewan Justice Mediation Services: Family Programs Evaluation, January 2000.
• [549] See Vicki Schmolka, How to Provide Hard-to-Reach Audiences with Information About the Child Support Guidelines: A Summary of Findings from the Needs Assessment Research, Phase II (Ottawa: Department of Justice, BP 27E, 2000).

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents