SiLaw Group Family Lawyers logo

Chartier v Chartier ([1999] 1 SCR 242)

Case at a glance
CaseChartier v Chartier
Citation[1999] 1 SCR 242
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Year1999
TopicChild Support
Central questionDo step-parents have to pay child support in BC?

Key takeaways {#takeaways}

  • A step-parent who treated a child as their own cannot simply walk away from child support after separation.
  • Courts look at how the family actually functioned, not what the step-parent says after the relationship ends.
  • In BC, the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act set different routes to step-parent support.

Chartier v Chartier at a glance {#summary}

Sometimes, yes. In BC, a step-parent can owe child support in two ways: under the Divorce Act, if they stood in the place of a parent, and under BC's Family Law Act, if they contributed to the child's support for at least a year. Chartier v Chartier is the Supreme Court of Canada case behind the first route.

Many people assume that when a blended family breaks up, only the biological parents owe support. Gerald Chartier assumed that too — a court-ordered conciliation report in October 1995 recorded his wish to sever his relationship with his stepdaughter Jessica. But he had earlier helped amend Jessica's birth registration to name himself, falsely, as her natural father. The Supreme Court of Canada held he could not walk away, and its test still decides step-parent support claims under the Divorce Act.

The facts {#facts}

Sharon and Gerald Chartier began living together in November 1989 and married on June 1, 1991. Their own daughter, Jeena, was born on August 29, 1990. Sharon also had a daughter from an earlier relationship, Jessica. The couple separated in May 1992, briefly got back together, then separated for good in September 1992.

While the family lived together, Gerald acted as a father to Jessica in every way. The couple talked about him adopting her, but never did. They went further in another way: they amended Jessica's birth registration to state, falsely, that Gerald was her natural father, and changed her surname to his.

In a March 17, 1994 consent judgment under Manitoba's family maintenance legislation, Gerald acknowledged both girls as children of the marriage and was granted access. That judgment said nothing about support for Jessica. When Sharon started divorce proceedings in February 1995, she asked for a declaration that Gerald stood in the place of a parent to Jessica. He fought the claim. An October 1995 conciliation report recorded that he wanted to cut ties with Jessica altogether.

The trial judge held that Gerald had repudiated — that is, backed out of — his parental relationship with Jessica and owed her nothing. The Manitoba Court of Appeal agreed, following its own earlier decision in Carignan v Carignan, which said a step-parent could withdraw from the role at any time.

The legal issues {#issues}

The Supreme Court framed the issue this way (at para 16): under what circumstances, if any, can an adult who is or has been in the place of a parent under s 2 of the Divorce Act withdraw from that position?

Behind that question sat two competing lines of cases. One line, from Carignan, said the role rests on the adult's intention, so the adult can end it by simply deciding to. The other line, from the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Theriault v Theriault, said the court must look at the nature of the relationship, and the adult cannot end it one-sidedly.

What the court decided {#decision}

A unanimous seven-judge Court, in reasons by Justice Bastarache, allowed the appeal. The core holding: a person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which they stand in the place of a parent (paras 1, 32). The Court approved Theriault and disapproved Carignan.

Three points from the reasons matter most:

The old Latin doctrine is out. The 19th-century common law idea of "in loco parentis" (Latin for "in the place of a parent"), built for wills and trusts, does not control the Divorce Act. The words in the Act get a modern, purposive reading focused on the interests of children (paras 18–20, 32). Spouses can divorce each other, but not the children who were part of the marriage (para 32).

Timing. Whether someone stands in the place of a parent is judged as of the time the family functioned as a unit — not at the date of the hearing. The breakdown of the parent–child relationship after separation is not relevant to whether the parental relationship existed (paras 36–37).

Applied here. Gerald was the only father Jessica had ever known. He held himself out to her, and to the world, as her father — including through the false birth registration. He stood in the place of a parent, so Jessica was a "child of the marriage" with the same support rights as Jeena (paras 46–47). The Court declared this, sent the case back to the Manitoba court to set the amount, and ordered interim support of $200 per month for Jessica (para 48).

The Court also answered two common objections. Fear that ordinary generosity toward a partner's children will create lifelong obligations? The Court dismissed it — parenting is more than money, and superficial generosity aimed at winning the parent's attention deserves no protection (para 41). Fear of "double support" from both the biological parent and the step-parent? Not valid: the obligations of everyone who counts as a parent are joint and several (each fully responsible), and contribution is sorted out between the adults, not taken from the child (para 42).

Where the law stands now. Chartier remains the governing test for step-parent support claimed under the federal Divorce Act. The current s 2(2) still defines a "child of the marriage" to include a child for whom a spouse "stands in the place of a parent" (verified against the current text; note the age element in s 2(1) now refers to the age of majority, not sixteen as in the version quoted in the judgment). For claims under BC's Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25 — the route for unmarried spouses, and an alternative for married ones — the legislature built a narrower scheme that does not simply copy Chartier: a stepparent owes support only if they contributed to the child's support for at least one year, a claim must be started within one year of the last contribution, and the duty is secondary to that of the child's parents and guardians (FLA ss 146, 147(4)–(5)). On amount, s 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines gives the court discretion where the payor stands in the place of a parent, having regard to the Guidelines and any other parent's legal duty to support the child.

Do step-parents have to pay child support in BC? {#the-test}

They can, and the answer depends on which statute applies and on how the family actually lived.

If you were married to the child's parent, the Divorce Act route is open. The question is the Chartier one: did you stand in the place of a parent? That is judged objectively, on all the facts, as of the time the family functioned as a unit. Your intention matters, but the court infers it from what you did, not just from what you said — and you cannot make the role conditional or time-limited (para 39). If the answer is yes, you cannot resign from it after separation, and the child has the same support rights as a child born of the marriage.

If you were not married, BC's Family Law Act applies. You are a "stepparent" if you are (or were) the spouse of the child's parent — married, or having lived in a marriage-like relationship for a continuous period of at least two years (FLA s 3) — and you lived with the parent and child. You owe support only if you contributed to the child's support for at least one year, and the claim is started within one year of your last contribution (FLA s 147(4)). An order can only be made against you once you and the child's parent have separated (FLA s 149(3)).

Either way, the step-parent's obligation does not erase the biological parent's. More than one adult can owe support for the same child at the same time.

The framework {#numbers}

Chartier does not set out a checklist with fixed weights. It lists factors a court considers, viewed objectively, in deciding whether someone stood in the place of a parent (para 39):

Factor What the court looks at
Family participation Does the child take part in the extended family the same way a biological child would?
Financial provision Does the person provide financially for the child (depending on ability to pay)?
Discipline Does the person discipline the child as a parent would?
Holding out Does the person represent — to the child, the family, the world, explicitly or implicitly — that they are responsible as a parent?
The absent biological parent What is the nature, or existence, of the child's relationship with the absent biological parent?
Intention Considered, but inferred from actions as well as words; it cannot be made conditional or time-limited (para 39).

Two guardrails frame the list. Not every adult–child relationship qualifies — each case turns on its own evidence (para 40). And once the threshold is met, the step-parent gains rights as well as duties, including the right to apply for what the Act then called custody or access (para 39).

What this means if you're separating in Surrey {#bc-impact}

Blended families are common, and so is the question at the centre of this case. If you are a step-parent — or the parent of a child with a step-parent — a few practical points follow.

First, which statute governs matters. Married spouses can claim under the Divorce Act, where the Chartier test applies with no fixed time limit tied to past contributions. Unmarried spouses use the Family Law Act, where the one-year contribution requirement and the one-year deadline after the last contribution can decide the case before anyone argues about the relationship. If you may have an FLA claim, the clock is a reason to get advice early. See our overview of child support in BC and divorce in BC.

Second, the evidence is everyday life. School and medical forms, who paid for what, discipline, how the child was introduced, photos and messages — these show whether someone acted as a parent while the family was together. What either adult says after separation carries much less weight.

Third, amounts work differently for step-parents. Under the Guidelines, s 5 lets the court set an appropriate amount having regard to the table amount and any other parent's duty. Under the FLA, a stepparent's duty is secondary to the parents' and is shaped by the child's standard of living during the relationship and how long the child lived with the stepparent (s 147(5)). A step-parent order rarely mirrors a biological parent's table amount automatically.

Finally, these issues can often be settled by agreement rather than a court fight — see separation agreements in BC and family mediation in Surrey. Support terms for a stepchild need care, because a court can still step in if an agreement departs from what the statute requires.

How a lawyer uses Chartier {#in-practice}

For the parent claiming support, a lawyer builds the Chartier factors from records of the family's life together, and answers "I changed my mind" arguments with para 37: the relationship is assessed as of when the family functioned as a unit, and later withdrawal does not undo it. Where both a biological parent and a step-parent are in the picture, para 42 supports pursuing either or both — the adults sort contribution out among themselves.

For the step-parent responding to a claim, Chartier also marks the limits. Not every relationship qualifies (para 40); a lawyer tests whether the evidence really shows parental holding-out, discipline, and financial provision, or something more casual. Under the FLA, the first questions are threshold ones: spouse status under s 3, one year of contribution, and whether the claim was started in time under s 147(4). On quantum, Guidelines s 5 and FLA s 147(5) give room to argue for an amount below the table figure, especially where a biological parent is paying.

Chartier cuts both ways one more time: a step-parent who stood in the place of a parent has standing to seek time with the child, not just a duty to pay (para 39). Examples of how these disputes resolve are in our case studies.

Frequently asked questions {#faq}

Can a step-parent avoid child support by cutting ties with the child?

No, not under the Divorce Act. Chartier holds that once a person stands in the place of a parent, they cannot unilaterally withdraw (para 32). Ending contact after separation does not end the obligation — the Court noted that natural parents who lose contact with their children must still pay support (para 45).

Does it matter that the biological parent should be paying too?

It matters to the amount, not to whether a duty exists. Under Chartier, the obligations of all parents are joint and several, and contribution is an issue between the adults (para 42). Under the FLA, a stepparent's duty is expressly secondary to the parents' (s 147(5)), and Guidelines s 5 directs the court to consider any other parent's legal duty when setting a step-parent's amount.

I never married my partner — can I still owe support for their child in BC?

Possibly. Under the Family Law Act you can be a "stepparent" if you lived with your partner in a marriage-like relationship for a continuous period of at least two years and lived with the child (ss 3, 146). But you owe support only if you contributed to the child's support for at least one year, and only if a claim is started within one year of your last contribution (s 147(4)).

References {#references}

Read the decision itself: Chartier v Chartier, [1999] 1 SCR 242