SiLaw Group Family Lawyers logo

Contino v Leonelli-Contino (2005 SCC 63)

Case at a glance
CaseContino v Leonelli-Contino
Citation2005 SCC 63
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Year2005
TopicChild Support
Central questionHow is child support calculated with 50/50 parenting?

Key takeaways {#takeaways}

  • With 50/50 parenting, support starts with the difference between the two parents' Guidelines table amounts — the set-off.
  • Equal time does not automatically reduce support: courts must weigh real budgets and each household's standard of living.
  • The Supreme Court rejected shortcut multipliers and set support in Contino at $500 per month on the evidence.

Contino v Leonelli-Contino at a glance {#summary}

When each parent has the children at least 40 percent of the time, support is calculated under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The court starts with the difference between the two parents' table amounts, then adjusts for the real costs of two homes and each parent's circumstances.

It's easy to assume that equal parenting time cancels out child support. Joseph Contino thought so: after his son began spending half his time at his house, he asked to cut his $563 monthly payment, and a judge reduced it to $100. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed. Equal time changed the method, not necessarily the money — after weighing both parents' budgets and the gap between their incomes, the Court set support at $500 a month. Four courts, four different numbers: that's what was at stake.

The facts {#facts}

Joanne Leonelli-Contino and Joseph Contino married in 1982. Their son Christopher was born in 1986. When they separated, their 1992 agreement gave them joint custody, with Christopher living day-to-day with his mother, and required the father to pay $500 a month in child support (para 6).

In 1998 the parties signed minutes of settlement raising support to $563 a month, based on the father's income of $68,712 at the time (para 6).

In 2000, the mother started a Tuesday-night course and asked the father to switch his usual Thursday night to Tuesday. He offered to take Christopher both nights (para 7). That extra night pushed the father's share of parenting time to 50 percent, and in March 2001 he applied to reduce his support payment under section 9 of the Guidelines (para 8).

The case then took a remarkable ride through the courts:

  • The motions judge treated it as arithmetic — "We're just doing math today" — and cut support to $100 a month (paras 9-11).
  • The Divisional Court went the other way and ordered the full table amount of $688 a month (para 13).
  • The Ontario Court of Appeal landed in between at $399.61, using a set-off plus a "multiplier" to account for the mother's fixed costs (paras 16-17).

The mother appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The legal issues {#issues}

The Supreme Court framed the questions this way (para 5):

  • Can a section 9 award be higher than the ordinary Guidelines amount?
  • Is the ordinary Guidelines table amount presumed to apply in shared parenting cases?
  • Do all three factors in section 9 carry equal weight?
  • Do "increased costs" mean the paying parent's new expenses, or the higher overall cost of running two homes for one child?
  • Can a court use a multiplier when there is no evidence of increased costs?
  • How do each parent's real conditions, means and needs affect the final number?

What the court decided {#decision}

Justice Bastarache wrote for an eight-judge majority; Justice Fish dissented alone. The appeal was allowed and support was set at $500 a month (para 83).

The majority's key holdings:

Section 9 is its own complete system. Once the 40 percent threshold is met, the court must determine support using the three listed factors. The ordinary table amount no longer applies automatically (paras 3, 24).

No presumption either way. There is no presumption that the recipient gets at least the full table amount — and no presumption that the payor gets a reduction. After weighing all three factors, a court may well conclude the table amount is still the right number (paras 30-31).

Factor (a): start with the simple set-off. Calculate each parent's table amount as if the other were the full-time parent, and subtract. But the set-off "has no presumptive value" — it is only a starting point (paras 44, 49). A rigid set-off can produce a "cliff effect": a small increase in parenting time triggering a drastic drop in support (para 41).

Factor (b): look at the real, global costs. Shared parenting usually makes raising a child more expensive overall, because many costs are duplicated across two homes. The court examines both parents' budgets and actual spending, then apportions the child's costs between the parents in proportion to their incomes (paras 52-53).

Factor (c): broad discretion, real evidence. The court looks at each parent's resources, the child's standard of living in each home, and each parent's ability to absorb costs. Financial statements and child-expense budgets are necessary (paras 68-70).

No multipliers, no guesswork. Courts should not make "common sense" assumptions about costs or apply a stock multiplier to inflate the set-off. If the evidence is thin, the court should demand better information from the parties (paras 57-62).

Context matters on a variation. Where a parent reasonably relied on an existing support arrangement — here, the mother had bought a home expecting $563 a month to continue — that reliance is a relevant circumstance (paras 55, 80).

Where the law stands now. The section the Court interpreted is still in force. In 2021 its wording changed from "shared custody" to "shared parenting time": section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines now applies where "each spouse exercises not less than 40% of parenting time with a child over the course of a year" (SOR/2020-247, s 5). The three factors — table amounts, increased costs, and each spouse's conditions, means and needs — are unchanged, so Contino's framework maps directly onto the current section. For unmarried parents in BC, section 150(1) of the Family Law Act requires child support to be determined in accordance with the child support guidelines. We verified the current statutory text against the official sources listed below; this commentary does not survey every later case applying Contino, so ask a lawyer how courts have applied it to facts like yours.

How is child support calculated with 50/50 parenting? {#the-test}

Under Contino, the calculation runs in steps — and none of them is automatic.

Step 1 — Threshold. Section 9 applies where each parent has the child at least 40 percent of the time over the year. A true 50/50 schedule clearly qualifies. Crossing the threshold changes the method of calculation, not necessarily the amount (paras 30, 37).

Step 2 — Set-off, factor (a). Work out each parent's table amount as if the other parent had the child full time. Subtract the lower from the higher, leaving the difference to be paid by the higher earner — but this number is a starting point only, with no presumptive value (paras 44, 49).

Step 3 — Increased costs, factor (b). Two homes for one child usually cost more than one. The court reviews both parents' budgets and actual child-related spending, asks whether the arrangement raised costs overall, and shares those costs in proportion to the parents' incomes (paras 52-53).

Step 4 — Conditions, means and needs, factor (c). The court steps back and asks: can each household actually give the child a reasonably comparable standard of living? It can move the number up or down — even above the full table amount — considering income gaps, net worth, reliance on past arrangements, and the child's needs (paras 51, 68-72, 79-80).

What the court will not do: apply a stock multiplier, assume unproven costs, or treat equal time as an automatic discount (paras 57-62). Evidence drives everything.

The numbers {#numbers}

All figures below are taken from the judgment itself.

Item Figure Source
Father's income $87,315 para 78
Mother's income $68,082 paras 10, 78
Father's table amount $688/month para 78
Mother's table amount $560/month para 78
Simple set-off (starting point) $128/month para 78
Father's monthly child-expense budget $1,814 para 78
Mother's monthly child-expense budget $1,916.95 para 78
Income ratio applied 56:44 para 78
Expense-sharing adjustment $275.33/month paras 78-79
Father's net worth / mother's net worth $255,750 / $190,651 para 78
Motions judge's award $100/month para 9
Divisional Court's award $688/month para 13
Court of Appeal's award $399.61/month para 17
Supreme Court's final award $500/month paras 80, 83

Notice the journey from a $128 set-off to a $500 order. That gap is factors (b) and (c) at work — duplication of fixed costs, the income difference, the mother's reliance on the prior arrangement, and the child's standard of living in her home.

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

Shared parenting schedules are common in BC, and Contino governs how support works when you have one. If you are married, the Federal Child Support Guidelines apply under the Divorce Act; if you were not married, section 150 of BC's Family Law Act requires support to be determined in accordance with the child support guidelines. Either way, the section 9 analysis is the same. See our overview pages on divorce in BC and child support in BC.

Three practical points follow from Contino:

Don't budget around the bare set-off. If you are the lower-income parent, the set-off is not the end of the story — your fixed costs and your child's standard of living count. If you are the higher-income parent, don't assume 50/50 time halves your payment.

Keep records. Contino makes financial statements and child-expense budgets central. Track what you actually spend on your child: housing, food, clothing, activities, school costs, savings plans.

Get the agreement right. If you are negotiating a separation agreement, the support number should reflect a genuine section 9 analysis, not a formula. A number built on real budgets is far more durable. Mediation is often a cost-effective way to work through the budgets together.

How a lawyer uses Contino {#in-practice}

A family lawyer reaches for Contino in almost every shared-parenting support file:

  • Building the evidence first. Because the case says courts should demand information rather than guess, a lawyer prepares detailed financial statements and child-expense budgets before any negotiation or hearing.
  • Framing the set-off correctly. For a paying client, counsel presents the set-off as the anchor. For a recipient client, counsel emphasizes that it has no presumptive value and points to fixed costs the set-off ignores.
  • Comparing households. Counsel puts the two homes side by side — incomes, net worth, standard of living — because that comparison is exactly what factor (c) invites.
  • Resisting shortcuts. If the other side proposes a multiplier or an assumed cost, Contino is the direct answer: no multipliers, no unproven assumptions.
  • Handling variations with care. Where a parent relied on an existing order or agreement — a mortgage taken on, a neighbourhood chosen — counsel raises that reliance under factor (c), as the mother's house purchase was raised in Contino itself.

For more worked examples from our files, see our case studies.

Frequently asked questions {#faq}

Does 50/50 parenting mean nobody pays child support?

Usually not. If the parents earn different incomes, the higher earner normally pays support built from the set-off between the two table amounts, adjusted for actual costs and circumstances. Support could approach zero where incomes and circumstances are truly similar, but Contino says there is no automatic reduction just because time is equal.

What is the "set-off" amount?

Each parent's Guidelines table amount is calculated as if the other parent had the child full time. The lower amount is subtracted from the higher, and the difference is the set-off. In Contino the table amounts were $688 and $560, so the set-off was $128 — but the final order was $500, because the court adjusted for real costs and circumstances.

What evidence do I need for a shared parenting support claim?

At minimum: income disclosure (tax returns, pay statements), a financial statement, and a budget showing what you actually spend on your child in your home. Contino tells courts to base the number on this material and to ask for more when it is missing, so thorough records directly affect the outcome.

References {#references}

Read the decision itself: Contino v Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63