The husband submits that he should not have to pay support on those additional draws of capital, as they can be viewed as the fruits of his post-separation labours which are independent of his life with the wife. His position is, in essence, that all of the income derived from the post-separation assets should not be included in his income for Guideline purposes. In making this submission, he refers to the fact that a payor does not have to include all of his post-separation income increases for support purposes where he has changed positions since separating (often making lifestyle sacrifices to do so). Moreover, as noted in Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2004 SCC 22, the husband submits that such increases are not to be included where the payor has been given new career opportunities by virtue of luck or personal connections. This, he maintains, is consistent with the decision in Pendleton, where a reduction was made in the payor’s Guideline income to reflect the fact that some of the income was due to post-separation efforts.
"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.