Difrancesco v. Couto 2001 CanLII 8613 (ONCA)
Introduction
In the case of DiFrancesco v. Couto, the father, Mr. Couto, was initially ordered to pay child support in the amount of $250 per month for each of their two children. This order was made based on the father's financial capacity at the time. However, as time progressed, Mr. Couto found himself ensnared in a web of financial difficulties. His struggles with alcoholism and a persistent inability to generate income led to a significant reduction in his financial capacity. Given his new financial reality, he sought the court's intervention for a reduction in his child support payments and the rescission of outstanding arrears. The court, recognizing the unique circumstances that Mr. Couto found himself in, acknowledged that he did not have the earning capacity to meet the arrears or pay the original support order.
Consequently, the court saw it fit to reduce the ongoing child support payments and rescinded all outstanding arrears of child support.
However, this decision didn't go unchallenged. Ms. DiFrancesco, the mother of the children, appealed the court's decision. Upon review, the court allowed the appeal in part.
The court acknowledged that there had indeed been a significant change of circumstances since the initial child support order was given, which warranted a reduction in the amount of child support that Mr. Couto was required to pay. However, the court did not agree with the total rescission of arrears. Instead, the court upheld that Mr. Couto was still legally responsible for paying the arrears, although the payment terms may be reevaluated based on his current financial situation.
Future Capacity to Pay
An important factor that the court weighed in this case was the father's future capacity to pay the arrears. The court articulated that a present incapacity to pay does not necessarily mean the individual will never be able to pay in the future.
In other words, just because a parent is currently unable to pay child support, it doesn't mean they will always be unable to do so. This perspective encourages flexibility and the notion that the court can revisit and adjust its orders to reflect the realities of the parent's financial situation.
Conclusion
This case underscores a key principle in child support cases: a parent's present inability to pay does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future payments. This principle acknowledges that a person's financial situation can evolve over time, and therefore, the ability to pay child support is not fixed but is dynamic. It provides a critical perspective on how courts handle the delicate balance between acknowledging a parent's financial ability and upholding the child's right to support. It underscores the importance of considering all factors and evidence before making a decision that could have a significant impact on the lives of all parties involved.
THIS BLOG IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF LAILNA DHALIWAL LLP.
The Content is offered free of charge strictly on an "as is" basis and is intended to provide users with general information only. Lailna Dhaliwal LLP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness or fitness of the Content for any particular purpose.
The material provided on the Lailna Dhaliwal LLP/JSDLAW PC website is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind, and does not constitute legal advice.
No one should act, or refrain from acting, based solely upon the materials provided on this website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice.
Sending or receiving of these materials does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Do not provide any confidential information to Lailna Dhaliwal LLP unless and until we have given you a written retainer agreement confirming that we can represent you.