Does Schedule 1, the Formula and s. 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines violate the human dignity of the Respondent?

These contextual factors demonstrate to me that Schedule 1, the Formula and s. 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines do not violate the respondent’s human dignity. Child support payors, such as the respondent, have typically not experienced any pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice or vulnerability. To the contrary, it is the recipient children and receiving spouses who are generally members of disadvantaged or vulnerable classes and who bear the financial consequences of divorce. The respondent has adduced no evidence to establish otherwise. Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at 854-855. Any distinction made by s. 19(1)(a) is sensitive to the actual needs and circumstances of children and aims to ameliorate the situation of this historically vulnerable group. Furthermore, the court is not required to impute income under s. 19(1)(a); the provision merely confers a discretion to do so where the court finds it appropriate. Section 19(1)(a) is necessary to achieve the overall purpose of the Guidelines and the legal obligation for parents to support their children. Francis v. Baker, supra at para. 39.