The hardship which the applicant must establish is “undue” hardship. As Prowse J.A. said in Van Gool v. Van Gool [1999] B.C.J. No. 683 at paragraph 51: Since the basic tables were designed to be a “floor” for the amount of maintenance payable, rather than a ceiling, it is not surprising that the authorities have held that the threshold for a finding of “undue hardship” is high. Hardship is not sufficient; the hardship must be “undue”, that is, “exceptional”, “excessive”, or “disproportionate” in all of the circumstances. The onus is on the party applying under s. 10 to establish undue hardship; it will not be presumed simply because the applicant has the legal responsibility for another child or children and/or because the standard of living of the applicant’s household is lower than that of the other spouse. The applicant must lead cogent evidence to establish why the table amount would cause undue hardship.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.