|
Family - Support (2). Scheibler v. Scheibler
In Scheibler v. Scheibler (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal discussed adjusting a support order for it's tax consequences:[17] The appellant’s third submission, in the alternative, is that, at a minimum, the trial judge erred by failing to take account of the income tax consequences to the appellant of having to pay a lump sum order for spousal support, which is not tax deductible, as compared to ongoing support, which is tax deductible. The appellant submits that we should therefore reduce the support award by 17.5%, a tax rate which we should be able to discern by examining the appellant’s income tax returns.
[18] We do not accede to this submission. The trial judge determined the amount of support he concluded the respondent should receive for transitional retroactive non-compensatory spousal support. The trial judge was not asked to reduce that amount to reflect tax consequences. The failure to do so does not reflect an error in principle. In any event, we are not satisfied that the record before us would permit us to properly assess the potential income tax consequences. . Scheibler v. Scheibler
In Scheibler v. Scheibler (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal addresses the appellate SOR for spousal support issues:[10] A high level of deference is owed to a trial judge’s determination of appropriate spousal support because of its fact-based and discretionary nature. This level of deference is appropriate because it “recognizes that the discretion involved in making a support order is best exercised by the judge who has heard the parties directly.” Moreover, “it avoids giving parties an incentive to appeal judgments and incur added expenses”. Further, “this approach promotes finality in family law litigation and recognizes the importance of the appreciation of the facts by the trial judge”: Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, at paras. 10 and 12.
|
