Skip to content

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

The calculation of child support can be a complicated issue for divorcing parties and forms the basis of many family law conflicts. The provincial or Federal Child Support Guidelines serve as the main source of information when calculating how much child support a given party will be expected to pay. Income is determined by the Court in accordance with sections 16 to 20 of the Guidelines. A parent’s annual income is determined using the income sources set out under the heading, “Total income” in the T1 General Form issued by the CRA. This includes income from all sources which are then adjusted in accordance with Schedule III of the Guidelines. The resulting calculation is referred to as “guideline income.”

The implications of capital gains and losses can introduce confusion and potential conflict into the guideline income calculation. Section 6 of Schedule III of the Guidelines states that a party should, “Replace the taxable capital gains realized in a year by the spouse by the actual amount of capital gains realized by the spouse in excess of the spouse’s actual capital losses in that year.”  Commonly, only 50% of capital gains are subject to income tax, but for guideline income purposes, the full amount is included, not just the taxable portion. This begs the questions of whether unrealized capital gains factor into an income calculation under the Guidelines, and if they don’t, why not?

The Courts have consistently held that only realized, actual income could be represented as “total income” on the T1 General Form was applicable to a guideline income calculation. In Richardson v Richardson, 2013 BCCA 378, a mother was appealing an order requiring her ex-husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support. The mother claimed that the father had deliberately concealed his income in various ways, including unrealized capital gains on corporate real estate holdings to prevent paying appropriate child support. The Court found that this unrealized capital was not applicable to the Federal Child Support Guidelines calculation, holding that the appreciation in value of an asset does not represent income available for support. Similarly, in T. (D.M.C.) v. S. (L.K.), 2008 NSCA 61, the Court held that, although unrealized capital gains exist on paper, until they are realized through a disposition of the asset, they are excluded from the guideline income calculation.

The Court appears reluctant to interfere with unrealized capital gains in an income calculation unless there is evidence that the party is attempting to hide their income (Richardson). This hesitancy likely results because (a) these gains may be difficult to quantify, (b) these gains are subject to market fluctuations, and (c) there are absent nefarious intentions – parties are generally free to structure their financial affairs as they deem appropriate. To ensure clarity, these gains are ultimately likely to be considered in a party’s guideline income but only once realized.

Furthermore, and as noted in Emslie v Emslie, 2015 ABQB 581, the consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances is an objective of the Guidelines, per section 1(d). It could be unfair to include capital gains that are unrealized due to their inherent uncertainty and the potential for a present unrealized gain to turn to capital loss over time.

The situation is further complicated by section 17 of the Guidelines. Section 17(1) states that, if the Court determines a spouse’s income pursuant to section 16 is not a fair representation of their income, the Court can determine an amount that is fair and reasonable based on their income over the last three years. This section may be used by parties seeking to exclude non-recurring realized gains earned by their spouse that otherwise may be included in a guideline income calculation. However, section 17 also has the potential to support arguments for judicial leaning towards the inclusion of unrealized capital gains in these calculations when their exclusion makes for an unrepresentative income, or if a spouse is attempting to hide their income through unrealized capital gains. Generally speaking, however, unrealized capital gains are not included as part of a spouse’s total income for child support purposes.

It is important to remain aware that just because a particular write off is permissible when filing taxes, that deduction could still be included as guideline income for child support purposes, and vice versa: the Guidelines are clear that an allowable deduction from the perspective of the Canada Revenue Agency is not necessarily determinative in the context of a guideline income analysis. If you have questions about your income sources that will inform your child support obligations, contact a family lawyer at SVR.


[Janet] thanks for letting me know of your retirement… I’m sad to see you go but hope for your rest and enjoyment for all you’ve done for my family and others… With all my thanks I want to express all my appreciation for all you’ve done for us and all the grief it was to deal with! You were the right fit.
A.W., Client
I write this review based on my experience when working with Stacey Lee as my legal representative. Simply put, Stacey is attentive (or vigilant if you prefer), knowledgeable, professional, fair, and personable. It was important for me to have someone that was responsive and competent. I never waited more than 24 hours for a reply and am very happy with the resulting agreement that was created, as it represented a solution that was best for all parties involved – which was important to me. Stacey likes to say I was the ideal client, but the reality is that she was the ideal representative, providing legal advice, while keeping me abreast of the big picture. Based on my experience with Stacey, I highly recommend her.
S.N., Client
From the moment we met, Janet had not only a business approach to my situation but also a level of compassion and friendliness. I’ve worked now with Janet for years and not one time did she fail to meet my expectations. I have always felt at ease just hearing her voice. If she didn’t have the answer immediately, she has always provided one promptly. She has been my Rock and Sounding Board. I’ve referred her to others. If anyone is in need of a GREAT family lawyer, Janet Russell in my view is the lady to contact.
N.M., Client
Stacey, Thank you once again for all your help with my file. I can’t express how much I appreciated you having my back yesterday and you do it so calmly. Your perspective and guidance helped me a lot – thank you. It felt like a whirlwind of numbers but you helped me keep perspective as we went along…Thank you again for helping us bring things to closure.
B.F., Client
Very satisfied with the services provided by the lawyers at SVR Lawyers! It was a long and convoluted divorce process, but Abram Averbach, Cindy Lee and their assistants have helped me to navigate through it and finalize it. I highly recommend them!
J.B., Client
Stacey Lee handled the sale of my business and separation from a spouse attending to both my corporate and family law matters. Stacey provided a calm and realistic voice when tensions and emotions were high. Stacey approached the resolution of my files with opposing counsel in a collaborative way, seeking to reduce court appearances and conflict between all parties involved. I would work with Stacey again and recommend her to anyone requiring assistance in family or corporate matters.
H.S., Client

Find the right lawyer for you