In Guelck v Ballentine, 2025 ABCA 101, the appellant appealed part of a Variation Child Support Order, which set his income at $105,765 to calculate ongoing child support. He argued that the chambers judge erred by relying on Section 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which contemplates situations where a parent is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. He also argued that the chambers judge misapplied medical evidence which detailed his ongoing inability to work. The respondent argued that section 19(1)(f) of the Guidelines allows imputation where the spouse fails to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.
The Court of Appeal of Alberta made clear that the appellate court will only intervene where there has been a significant misapprehension of evidence, where there had been an error in principle, or if the award is clearly wrong. Siding with the respondent, the Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge correctly applied the Guidelines to the facts.
The appellant failed to comply with full financial disclosure, including underreporting income from his Airbnb business. Further, the chambers judge responded to his inability to work due to medical issues by averaging his reported income for the last six years to estimate his current income. The lack of mitigating effort the appellant took to address his medical condition through pain intervention supported the conclusion that he would not suffer undue hardship by having to pay retroactive child support.
This decision provides helpful analysis on how the courts interpret section 19 of the Guidelines, as well as undue hardship, in the context of child support. For further information on the Courts reasoning in Guelck v Ballentine, read the complete decision here.
