Trademark Infringement and The Tort of Passing Off

, ,

In Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd. v. Dong, 2020 BCCA 323, the British Columbia Court of Appeal made it clear that unauthorized use of a trademark carries legal consequences. The Court found that the Defendant, Mr. Dong, had committed the tort of passing off, despite his arguments that he had proper consent from the Plaintiff, Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd., to use the Royal Pacific trademark. Mr. Dong had signed an agreement with the Plaintiff whereby he would work under the real estate group as an independently contracted real estate representative. The agreement allowed and even encouraged Mr. Dong to use the Royal Pacific trademark in this capacity, because the group is well-known for success in the Vancouver area, having arranged billions of dollars of sales. But Mr. Dong could only properly use the trademark for his work under the real estate group; he was not authorized to use the trademark for his other private businesses. One of these included his business named Bliip Box, which he’d hoped to have as a supplier of real estate websites.

Mr. Dong took several actions which constituted trademark infringement including making available the contact information of the Royal Pacific group on his personal website, such that the public would consider Royal Pacific to be endorsing or associated with Mr. Dong’s personal site. The Defendant also sent solicitation emails to various real estate agents, saying that Royal Pacific was seeking to endorse local businesses through his personal Bliip Box company, while Royal Pacific had no intent of this. Even after Royal Pacific lawfully terminated their agreement with the Defendant, and as such he no longer had authority to use the trademark whatsoever, he continued to do so. Bliip Box continued to display Royal Pacific’s trademark, and in launching this business relied on the Royal Pacific online domain name. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgement that Mr. Dong had committed the tort of passing off outlined under section 7 of the Trademark Act. The Court recognized that the three elements of passing off were present, being: The existence of reputation or goodwill, a misrepresentation leading the public to believe an association between the parties, and damage or potential damage to the Plaintiff, as outlined in Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc., 2017 BCCA 41.

The goodwill associated with familiar trademarks has commercial value, and companies such as Royal Pacific will not stand silent in the face of passing off. The Defendant passing off his goods and services as being endorsed by and associated with the trademarked name can be viewed as the unauthorized use of goodwill, and wrongful confusion of the public. While the trial judge only awarded nominal damages of $6,000 to the Plaintiff, an injunction restraining Mr. Dong from continued trademark infringement was also granted. The Court held that the Plaintiffs underwent considerable inconvenience, but that Mr. Dong hadn’t financially benefited from his conduct.

 

/by

Minority Shareholder Oppression Rights In British Columbia

,

In the recent case of Canex Investment Corporation v. 0799701 B.C. Ltd., 2020 BCCA 231, the British Columbia Court of Appeal showed its flexibility in offering oppression remedies for wronged minority shareholders. The case involved exceptionally high-handed conduct by the two directors of Canex Investment Corporation (“Canex”), leading to their personal financial gain at the expense of the minority shareholder Plaintiffs. Neither Canex nor its minority shareholders benefited from the $500,000 loan taken out and secured by Canex’s properties, rather, the loan was used to finance a related company (Flame Engineering & Construction) controlled by the Defendants. Further, the Defendants falsified financial records related to the Flame Engineering loan, manipulated Canex’s records to reduce the Plaintiffs’ investment through charging excessively high interest and management fees, and advanced arguments which Justice Harris termed as “bogus”.

Section 227 of the Business Corporations Act allows shareholders to apply for remedies when they’ve suffered harm that is typically, but not necessarily, separate from the harm suffered by the corporation as a whole. The remedy granted in this case was the return of the minority shareholders’ initial investment plus interest. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that punitive damages of $100,000 were appropriate, considering the egregious conduct of the Defendants. While the Defendants tried to assert that a derivative rather than an oppression action ought to have been brought by the shareholders, meaning that the Plaintiffs would have additional hurdles in order to obtain financial relief, the Court held that the oppression action was supported. Typically, if harm has been done to the company itself, a derivative action is appropriate. Oppression actions are brought when harm has been done to individual shareholders. But the Court held that the remedy of oppression will not be limited by mere corporate structure, and that the substantive reality of how a company is operated, instead of the legal from, is what matters.

On appeal, the Defendants argued that the trial judge had failed to recognize the formalities of corporate governance when imposing personal liability on the Defendants as directors. But based on the Defendants’ wrongful conduct and taking financial advantage, personal liability had to be imposed despite the separate legal personality of Canex as a corporation. Further, one of the Defendant’s personal liability survived beyond her declaration of bankruptcy because the fraud was committed while acting in a fiduciary capacity. While directors typically only owe fiduciary duties to a company itself rather than individual shareholders, the Court recognized the reality of this closely held corporation. Here, the two shareholders were in a special relationship of trust and dependency with the directors; the directors were expected to manage the company’s financial records honestly and in good faith, yet breached those duties. The Court brought home its disapproval of the Defendant’s oppressive conduct by imposing punitive damages. These types of damages are appropriate when conduct is so high-handed or malicious that it offends the Court’s sense of dignity. Particularly relevant for closely held corporations such as Canex, this case highlights the Court’s willingness to offer expanded remedies to minority shareholders based on the substantive conduct that occurred, and to turn down arguments based on technical corporate structure.

/by

Is a Strata Corporation Able to Disallow Residents Under a Certain Age?

, ,

Strata corporations (“stratas”) are legal entities with all the powers of natural persons at full capacity. They’re often created to divide buildings and/or parcels of land into individually owned pieces, while the common land and amenities are owned together. Stratas have certain responsibilities under the Strata Property Act and Regulations, including being responsible for common expenses and disclosing Rules and Bylaws which apply to occupiers. Stratas also have the power to provide Bylaws for the management and use of the lots, including prohibiting occupants under certain ages.

Age is not a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code in the context of property purchases, but race and gender, among other factors, are included. Stratas have the power to disallow would-be owners who are not of a certain age. The Human Rights Code gives broader protection covering age-based discrimination to tenants, as opposed to owners. Stratas may only require that tenants be at least 55 years of age. They cannot require, for example, that tenants be at least 19 years of age, but the strata could require that owners be at least 19 years of age. Individuals who resided within the strata before the time that an age restriction bylaw was passed are considered ‘grandfathered’ in and may continue residing despite the new provision.

Age-based requirements can occasionally make it challenging for young families to find housing for purchase, but the Condominium Homeowners Association of BC reported that buildings with 19-plus age restrictions represented only a small portion of the overall market. Affordable and accessible housing is a developing area and age-based provisions may undergo further legislative reform in the future.

 

 

/by

Hidden Tendering Terms

,

In Triton Hardware Limited v. Torngat Regional Housing Association, 2020 NLSC 72, the owners of a construction project (“Torngat”) sought to rely on a privilege clause in the project’s tendering documents to select its preferred bidder, not the lowest bidder. This case serves as a cautionary tale to owners that a general privilege clause does not afford them absolute discretion.

In the case, the plaintiff (“Triton”) made a material supplier bid to Torngat for the construction of a housing project. Triton’s bid was the lowest. Yet, Torngat selected another bidder with whom it had previously worked and preferred. In making this preferential selection, Triton relied on the following clause: The awarding of the contract will be based on the lowest average price for quality material. *The Lowest of Any Quotes Will Not necessarily Be Accepted.

At trial, Knickle J. interpreted the impugned privilege clause as allowing the owner to either select the lowest bidder or to select no bidder at all. The asterisk-qualification did not permit the owner to select from any of the bidders according to undisclosed criteria (para. 63). As a result, Triton was awarded $126,852.14 for its lost profits.

If general privilege causes were not read strictly but, instead, granted owners complete discretion when selecting bidders, the tendering process would be rendered meaningless. As the Supreme Court of Canada established in Martel Building Ltd., v. R., 2000 SCC 60, the tendering process must treat all bidders fairly and equally.

As such, there must be reasonable certainty regarding the terms of selection. If otherwise, all bidders would be prejudiced. That is, the losing bidders would expend resources in producing a hopeless tender, and the winning bidder’s tender would be arbitrarily reduced by fictional market competition.

/by

Signing a Will in British Columbia by Video Conference

,

Due to COVID-19, the Wills, Estates, Succession Act of BC (WESA) was amended in August 2020 to permit a Will-maker to sign a Will in the electronic presence of witnesses and the Will-maker and witnesses to sign by electronic signature.

Section 35.1 of WESA defines “electronic presence” or “electronically present” to mean the circumstances in which two or more persons in different locations communicate simultaneously to an extent that is similar to communication that would occur if all the persons were physically present in the same location. We believe this means that the Will-maker and the witnesses may sign by way of videoconference.

When witnessing a Will by videoconference, each of the Will-maker and the two witnesses must sign an identical Will, and those two (or three, if none of them are in the same place) documents compiled together form the Will. As a result, the Will could be two or three times as long because slipping in signature pages is not permitted. A copy of a Will is considered identical even if there are minor, non-material differences in the format between the copies.

We recommend that a Will signed electronically include a statement that the Will was signed in counterpart in the electronic presence of two witnesses while connected by Audio and Video Conference.

/by

Engineers’ Liability

, ,

Engineers have specialized skill and knowledge on which their clients rely. When engineers are found to be professionally negligent, this relationship of reliance limits an engineer’s ability to shield themselves from liability by operating their business as a corporation. To consider why this is the case, we review several key decisions that create a duty of care between engineers and their firm’s clients.

Employee’s Liability

In London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., 1992 CanLII 41 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada found that employees of a company, who performed the services for which their company has been hired to complete, may owe a duty of care to the company’s customer. That is, the individual employee may be liable for any damages arising from services they negligently perform on behalf of their employer. In the case, warehouse workers were found to have negligently handled the Plaintiff’s machinery resulting in significant damages. Because the Plaintiff’s contract with the Warehouse owner contained a limitation of liability clause which restricted recovery to $40, the Plaintiff sued the owner’s employees personally. The Supreme Court of Canada found that, although the employees owed a duty of care to the owner’s customers, the contract’s limitation of liability clause logically extended to the Owner’s employees, for they were the ones performing all of the contract’s enumerated tasks.

In the construction context, this principle of an employee’s liability arose in Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd., 1993 CanLII 67 (SCC). In the case, Edgeworth, the plaintiff company, was the successful tenderer on a provincial highway contract. Edgeworth claimed that it lost money on the project due to errors in the specifications and construction drawings prepared by the defendant engineers, N. D. Lea. Consequently, Edgeworth sued N.D. Lea and its individual engineers for negligent misrepresentation.

While the Supreme Court of Canada found that N.D. Lea was liable for negligent misrepresentation, it held that the firm’s individual engineers were not liable because they only affixed their professional seals to the impugned designs. Therefore, the Court found that the tenderers in the bidding process did not rely on any individual engineer’s representations because the seal merely represented that the designs were prepared by a qualified engineer, not that the designs were accurate. Since no representations were made by an individual engineer, there was no basis for finding that the engineers had a duty of care to the tenderers (viz. Edgeworth).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the Edgeworth decision in British Columbia v. R.B.O. Architecture Inc., 1994 CanLII 1740 (BC CA) and in Boss Developments Ltd. v. Quality Air Maintenance Ltd., 1995 CanLII 3213 (BC CA). In Boss, Gibbs J.A. distinguished the case from Edgeworth on the grounds that the engineer did more than simply affix their seal to a design. Instead, the engineer signed a report indicating that an aircraft was properly maintained when it was not. Despite the fact that the engineer’s employer had the inspection contract with the customer, the engineer was found personally liable. Gibbs J.A. justified his finding by writing: “only an individual can be qualified as an aircraft maintenance engineer in this field of special skill and knowledge, … it is the individual mechanic who certifies [and] whose skill is being relied upon.”

Boss was applied and extended to a firm’s engineering employees generally in Maritime Steel and Founderies Ltd. v. Whitman Benn and Associates Ltd., 1996 CanLII 5415 (NS SC) and Strata Plan No. VR 1720 (Owners) v. Bart Developments Ltd., 1999 CanLII 5428 (BC SC). In both cases, the engineers did not simply attach their seals to tendering materials –as in Edgeworth—but rather, they provided negligent services to the plaintiffs directly.

Concerning an engineer’s personal liability, Edwards, J. wrote in Bart:
It cannot be plausibly argued that a limited company purporting to offer professional services of “consulting engineers” and indicating that its employees have special skill and experience is not inducing its clients to rely on those individuals’ expertise. It is immaterial whether the client can identify that expertise with individual employees of the firm.
In other words, engineering firms cannot perform engineering services without qualified employees. As such, the firm’s employees must know that their specialized skill and knowledge is being relied upon by the customer, and therefore, they owe a duty of care to their firm’s customers generally.

In conclusion, individual engineers working for an incorporated engineering firm are not shielded from liability by virtue of their employer’s corporate structure. Likewise, engineering firms may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employed engineer.

To limit their liability, engineers have four options:

First, they may contractually limit their liability for damages, e.g. to the amount of fees paid. Second, they may place disclaimers on their designs to prevent other parties from unreasonably relying on them. Third, engineers can increase their professional liability insurance coverage. And fourth, engineers can supervise the construction process to ensure their designs are properly constructed.

 

/by

British Columbia’s New Arbitration Act

, ,

On September 1, 2020, British Columbia’s Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2 (the “New Act”) came into force. The New Act introduces important amendments that aim to improve the efficiency of the Province’s arbitral process. This will improve commercial dealings by clarifying ambiguities in the previous legislation and creating greater uniformity in arbitrations laws nationally. To that end, the New Act closely resembles The Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s Uniform Act. In turn, the Uniform Act is a national project that strives to harmonize Canada’s arbitration laws with the United Nations’ UNCITRAL Model Law. Generally, these national and international model laws seek to limit judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, and, thereby, create greater certainty in private dispute resolutions. The New Act strives towards this end as well.

The New Act introduces several important changes worth highlighting. First, Sections 21 and 22 impose a duty on the arbitrator and parties, respectively, to seek a “just, speedy, and economical determination of the proceeding based on its merits.” This explicit focus on the timely and economic resolution of disputes is the principle that underpins all of the New Act’s reforms. Appeals, for instance, are sent directly to British Columbia’s Court of Appeal on questions of law (s.59). Likewise, the time period for appealing an arbitral award or setting it aside due to an apprehension of bias has been shortened from 60 to 30 days (s.60).

In further regards to time limits, section 11 of the New Act reads: “the law with respect to limitation periods for commencing court proceedings applies to commencing arbitral proceedings.” This provision was absent from the previous legislation, creating an ambiguity because British Columbia’s Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13, does not specify that it applies to arbitrations and it contains court-centric language. Consequently, it is now clear that parties to an arbitration agreement will have two years from the date that they knew or ought to of known they have a potential claim against another party to pursue arbitration or their claim will be statute barred.

Arbitrators now have expanded authority.  Section 23 of the New Act empowers arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction. Where this power is exercised as a preliminary matter, either party may refer the issue to the Supreme Court of British Columbia within 30 days of receiving notice of the arbitrator’s ruling for a re-determination. In exercising their jurisdiction, arbitrators are now permitted under section 25 of the New Act to apply equitable principles, whereas the previous legislation limited their authority to the application of statutory law.

Turning to procedures, the New Act no longer specifies default rules. The British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre’s rules (“BCICA”) previously applied by default, unless the parties agreed otherwise. While the New Act removes any reference to the BCICA’s rules, it has incorporated some of their key elements. For example, section 29 allows arbitrators to subpoena non-party witnesses. Where parties have not specified and cannot agree on the applicable rules, arbitrators appear to have discretion under section 32 to make procedural orders that could include the selection of arbitral rules.

Where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the selection is made by the legislation’s designated appointing authority. Under section 2 of the New Act’s attendant Arbitration Regulation, BC Reg. 160/2020, this appointing authority is the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (“VIAC”).[1] Previously, such appointment disputes were resolved by application to the British Columbia Supreme Court. By creating the VIAC, the New Act increases efficiency by reducing arbitrations’ reliance on the courts. In addition, the VICA can set arbitrators fees and impose terms on awards whenever an arbitrator’s fees remain unpaid.

Finally, the New Act introduces three other significant changes that were previously absent from the legislation. First, a witness’s evidence is to be written, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Oral evidence is limited to cross-examinations. Second, section 68 requires confidentiality. The parties may not disclose information about the proceeding or its outcome. Third, arbitrators may grant interim orders, even on an ex parte basis. However, these orders do not constitute an arbitral award, nor are they enforceable in the courts.

The New Act applies to all arbitral proceedings commenced on or after September 1, 2020. However, it does not apply to proceedings that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233, nor does it apply to family law matters.

[1] The BCICA was re-branded as the VIAC.

/by

Secret Trusts – Alive And Well In British Columbia

, , ,

 

This article concerns the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Bergler v Odenthal, 2020 BCCA 175 [“Bergler”] The appeal concerned the validity of a “secret trust” that Ms. Stuhff, now deceased, had allegedly imposed on her common-law partner, Mr. Odenthal. Secret trusts contain two essential features: “communication by the deceased person to his or her devisee, legatee or intestate heir, and an acceptance by that person of the request that he or she will hold the property in trust for the stated person or purposes.”[1] Acceptance may occur in the form of silence. The secret trust must also meet the usual trust requirements of certainty of intention, objects, and subject-matter.

 

The trial judge held that Mr. Odenthal had accepted Ms. Stuhff’s request that her estate would go to her niece, Susanne Bergler. The trial judge determined the acceptance occurred at the hospital shortly before Ms. Stuhff’s death. Ms. Stuhff’s niece and sister testified that in the days leading to Ms. Stuhff’s death, Mr. Odenthal had told them that Ms. Stuhff told him that she wanted her estate to go to her niece, Susanne. Susanne did not have a career or a home and wanted to go back to school. Ms. Stuhff’s sister testified that Ms. Stuhff told her that Mr. Odenthal was to transfer her estate to the Bergler family when he started a relationship with a new partner.

 

A conflict arose concerning when the estate was to be transferred to the Bergler family. Mr. Odenthal claimed he was to hold Ms. Stuhff’s assets until his death (he was 51 years old). After Ms. Stuhff’s death, Mr. Odenthal received the entire estate as heir on intestacy. He later married and removed Susanne as a beneficiary under his will, leaving nothing to the Bergler family. A relative of Ms. Stuhff testified that he overheard Ms. Stuhff tell Mr. Odenthal that when he ‘had a new chick’, she wanted ‘all her money’ to go back to her family.[2] The relative said he did not hear Mr. Odenthal object to the request. The trial judge found the relative’s evidence to be reliable. According to Mr. Odenthal’s testimony, he told Ms. Stuhff that he would abide by her wishes concerning the distribution of her estate. The trial judge held that this constituted the requisite acceptance for the creation of a secret trust.

 

On appeal, Mr. Odenthal claimed there was no evidence of his acceptance of the secret trust. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in finding that Mr. Odenthal had accepted the secret trust. He was required to transfer the assets either upon death or upon entering into a new relationship, whichever came first. A secondary issue on appeal concerned a property owned in joint tenancy by Ms. Stuhff and Mr. Odenthal. Mr. Odenthal claimed it passed to him automatically upon her death and, as a result, never became part of her estate. The Court held that the creation of the secret trust severed the joint tenancy and that once the secret trust came into existence, “nothing was left to pass by the intestacy to the defendant”.[3] The Court upheld the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

[1] Bergler at para 2.

[2] Ibid at para 5.

[3] Ibid at para 40.

/by

Exclusion of Liability Clauses

, , ,

Ski-hill Lift Tickets – Liability, Unilateral Contracts, Negligence Exclusion

In certain situations, such as obtaining a lift ticket for a ski-hill, “unilateral contracts” are used by one of the parties to the contract (i.e., the ski hill) which set out specific conditions the other party (i.e., the consumer) must accept if the consumer wants to proceed with using the ticket.  Are all the terms and conditions of these unilateral contracts binding on the consumer even if the consumer did not sign or have any part in the formation of the contract?

A recent case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 [Apps] addressed the requirements for unilateral contracts to be binding when the consumer does not sign a contract.

The unfortunate facts of Apps are as follows.  The plaintiff was a snowboarder who became a quadriplegic after attempting a large jump at Grouse Mountain in Vancouver, BC.  The plaintiff was an Australian who was living, working and snowboarding in Whistler, he was only 20 at the time of his injury.

The plaintiff alleged that the jump was negligently designed, constructed, maintained and inspected by Grouse Mountain. Grouse Mountain, in defence, relied on an exclusion of liability waiver which it said constituted a complete defence. The British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The BCCA overturned the BCSC’s decision.

The type of waiver Grouse Mountain was relying on was an “own negligence exclusion”.  This type of exclusion not only excludes liability for the risks inherent in the use of Grouse Mountain’s product or service, but also liability for negligence caused by Grouse Mountain itself.

The BCCA stated that “own negligence exclusions” are among the more onerous conditions to be placed into contracts, meaning that for Grouse Mountain to rely on the exclusion it must have taken reasonable steps to bring the exclusion to the attention of the Plaintiff.

The BCCA concluded that not enough had been done by Grouse Mountain to bring the “own negligence exclusion” to the plaintiff’s attention before he entered into the contract. The exclusion was included in a posted sign above the counter where the lift tickets were sold, but the text was difficult to read, and the “own negligence exclusion” was not emphasized.  This would be considered the pre-contractual notice (before the ticket was purchased).  Post-contractual notice (after the ticket was purchased) of the “own negligence exclusion” appeared on the back of the lift ticket and on a sign in the terrain park.  The BCCA concluded that post-contractual notice has no bearing on whether Grouse Mountain gave sufficient notice to the Plaintiff.

Grouse Mountain also attempted to rely on the plaintiff’s knowledge of the presence of these types exclusions due to his previous employment at Whistler and having signed such an exclusion for his Whistler’s Season Pass.  The BCCA found that the plaintiff’s previous experience with “own negligence exclusions” from his experiences at Whistler did not mean he had actual knowledge of Grouse Mountain’s specific clause.

The BCCA therefore overturned the BCSC decision and allowed the plaintiff to continue his action.

For businesses that are concerned about what proper notice would look like, the BCCA provided some indicators of proper notice.  To rely on any type of waiver which will result in the consumer losing legal rights, a service provider should, before contract formation, ensure that the “own negligence clause” is clearly brought to the attention of the consumer by using large, colorful and bold text and literally mention the “own negligence clause” to the consumer.

/by

Does Shared Custody Mean No Child Support?

,

Does Shared Custody Mean No Child Support?

In Canada, child support obligations are usually dictated by the federal child support guidelines.  The guidelines work on the principle that both parents should share the same portion of their income with their children as if they lived together.  The guidelines set out monthly child support amounts in a table that uses the paying parent’s level of income and the number of children eligible for child support.

In almost all cases, judges are required to follow the guidelines when determining the amount of child support.  There are however exceptions one of which is when the parents have split or shared custody of the children.

Split custody refers to a child custody arrangement in which one parent has sole custody of one or more children while the other parent has sole custody of the remaining siblings.

In split custody situations the child support is guided by s.8 of the guidelines which states:

Where each spouse has custody of one or more children, the amount of a child support order is the difference between the amount that each spouse would otherwise pay if a child support order were sought against each of the spouses.

In other words, if parent A’s obligation to parent B for the children in B’s care is $1,000 per month, and that parent B’s obligation to parent A for the children in A’s care is $250 per month, A would pay $750 per month in child support, the difference between A’s obligation and B’s obligation, and B would pay nothing.

Shared custody refers to a child custody arrangement where a child spends about an equal amount of time in the care and home of each of the two separated parents, and the parents share the legal rights in regards to the child.

In shared custody situations the child support is guided by s.9 of the guidelines which states:

Child support must be determined by taking into account the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses, the increased costs of shared custody arrangements and the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

The analysis starts by determining each parent’s income, finding each parent’s support obligation amount under the applicable Guidelines tables then offsetting the two numbers to come up with a figure that the higher earning parent owes the other. If parent A would pay $940 per month under the guidelines, and parent B would pay $1,040 per month under the guidelines, then the set-off amount is $100.

Shared or split custody does not mean no child support but a different formula is used to determine what the child support obligation should be.

 

/by