Francis v. Baker (1999), 125 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.047
Thomas Bruce Baker (appellant) v. Monica Frieda Francis (respondent)
(26562)
Indexed As: Francis v. Baker
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
September 16, 1999.
Summary:
A couple separated following a six year marriage. They signed a separation agreement in 1985 and were divorced two years later. The couple had two children. After separation, the husband became a multi-millionaire with an annual income of $945,538. The wife commenced an action in 1988 to set aside the separation agreement. The issues to be decided were, inter alia, setting aside the separation agreement, quantum of child support (i.e., whether the husband should pay child support of $10,034 per month in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines) and entitlement and quantum of spousal support.
The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 30 O.T.C. 369, refused to set aside the separation agreement, awarded child support of $10,034 per month and lump sum spousal support of $500,000. The husband appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 107 O.A.C. 161, dismissed the appeal. The husband appealed again on the issue of child support.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Family Law – Topic 4021.5
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance and awards – Awards – Support tables – A couple separated following a six year marriage – The couple had two children – After separation, the husband became a multi-millionaire with an annual income of $945,538 and net worth of $78,000,000 – The wife was a teacher earning $63,000 per year – The wife sought child support – The trial judge ordered that the husband should pay child support of $10,034 per month pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines – The husband appealed – The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal – The husband appealed again – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Family Law – Topic 4045.1
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – General (incl. interpretation) – [See second
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
].
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – [See
Family Law – Topic 4021.5
].
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principles applicable to the interpretation of family law related legislation, in particular to the Federal Child Support Guidelines – The court applied these principles in interpreting s. 4 of the Guidelines which dealt with child support where a payor spouse had an income of over $150,000 – See paragraphs 34 to 41.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – A father of two children, who was a multi-millionaire with an annual income of $945,538, was ordered to pay child support of $10,034 per month in accordance with the Guidelines – The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision – The father appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal – The court held that although the appeal court erred in its interpretation of the word “inappropriate” in s. 4 of the Guidelines, the father failed to demonstrate that the trial judge erred in refusing to exercise her discretion to make a downward variation of the Guidelines figure in this case.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 4 and in particular the word “inappropriate” – The court stated that “… the word ‘inappropriate’ in this section must be broadly defined to mean ‘unsuitable’ rather than merely ‘inadequate’. Courts thus have the discretion to both increase and reduce the amount of child support prescribed by the strict application of the Guidelines in cases where the paying parent has an annual income exceeding $150,000.” – See paragraphs 34 to 41.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – The Ontario Court of Appeal in interpreting s. 4 suggested that child support awards could never be reduced under s. 4 -The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with this suggestion, holding that downward variation of the Guideline figures was permissible under s. 4 – See paragraphs 39 and 54.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – Where the court made such a determination, the Table amount was to be used for the first $150,000 of the payor’s income and an appropriate amount awarded with respect to the balance – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed how to establish “inappropriateness” for purposes of s. 4 – The court stated that there was a presumption in favour of the Table amounts – Accordingly, the Guideline figures could only be departed from if the party seeking such a deviation rebutted the presumption that the applicable Table amount was appropriate – See paragraphs 42 to 49.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – Where the court made such a determination, the Table amount was to be used for the first $150,000 of the payor’s income and an appropriate amount awarded with respect to the balance – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed how to establish “inappropriateness” for purposes of s. 4 – The court discussed the relevance of child expense budgets in determining “inappropriateness” – See paragraphs 45 to 49.
Family Law – Topic 4045.12
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance – Support Guidelines – Where income over $150,000 – The Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 4, provided that where the income of the payor spouse was over $150,000, the amount of child support was the amount determined in accordance with the Guideline Tables unless the court considered that amount to be inappropriate – A father of two children, who was a multi-millionaire with an annual income of $945,538, was ordered to pay child support of $10,034 per month in accordance with the Guidelines – The father argued that the sheer size of the Guidelines amount in this case rendered it inappropriate within the meaning of s. 4 – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the father’s argument – See paragraph 52.
Statutes – Topic 1806
Interpretation – Intrinsic aids – Bilingual statutes – Interpretation of one version by reference to the other version – The Supreme Court of Canada looked to the French version of s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in interpreting s. 4 of the English version – See paragraph 36.
Words and Phrases
Inappropriate
– The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this word as it appeared in s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines – See paragraphs 32 to 49.
Cases Noticed:
Paras v. Paras (1971), 2 R.F.L. 328 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
Dergousoff v. Dergousoff (1999), 177 Sask.R. 64; 199 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
Dergousoff v. Schille – see Dergousoff v. Dergousoff.
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].
Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242; 134 Man.R.(2d) 19; 193 W.A.C. 19, refd to. [para. 34].
R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378; 95 N.R. 149; 58 Man.R.(2d) 63, refd to. [para. 37].
Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 37].
Shiels v. Shiels, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. C51 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].
Plester v. Plester, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F07; 56 B.C.L.R.(3d) 352 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].
Lucia v. Martin, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1798 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].
Levesque v. Levesque (1994), 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
Bellenden v. Satterthwaite, [1948] 1 All E.R. 343, refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 26.1 [para 31].
Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 1, sect. 3, sect. 4(a), sect. 4(b), sect. 7, sect. 21(1), sect. 21(4) [para. 31].
Federal Child Support Guidelines – see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 35th Parl., vol. vii, p. 6197 [para. 38].
Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998), p. 712 [para. 36].
Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1994), pp. 87 [para. 34]; 163 [para. 37].
Hansard, House of Commons Debates – see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Robert & Collins Super Senior (4th Ed. 1995) [para. 36].
Counsel:
Stephen M. Grant and Megan E. Shortreed, for the appellant;
Nicole Tellier and Kelly D. Jordan, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Nicole Tellier, Toronto, Ontario and Watson & Jordon, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on April 27, 1999, before Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was delivered in both official languages, for the court, by Bastarache, J., on September 16, 1999.
