Date: 05 Nov, 2020| Author: Fred Streiman

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2020 released the important decision of Michel v. Graydon.

The court held that even after a child was no longer deemed to be a child of the marriage as defined under the Divorce Act, the support that was evaded by the payor failing to reveal his/her income increases, was still due and payable. In simple English and as an example; if you hid from your ex-wife the increases in the income you received after settling child support, she can chase you for the support you should have paid, even if the “child” is now a self-supporting adult.

This is a shift from the existing law in which one could successfully argue that discovering past income increase after the child had grown up and was no longer a dependent, time barred the recipient from chasing the payor for potential back support.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a father who concealed his significant income increases after a child support order was not immune to his former wife’s claims for the support that he should have paid in accordance with the child support guidelines had he revealed his increased income.

The court felt that there was no time limit to seeking the support that should have been paid and that to reward payors for not revealing their income increases was unfair, unjust and would not be permitted.

The moral of the story is that at one’s own peril, not revealing your true income to the recipient spouse can eventually come back to bite you.