What are the factors applicable to a court's exercise of discretion under s. 18 of the Child Support Guidelines?

The Court of Appeal discussed the factors applicable to the court’s exercise of its discretion under s. 18 in Kowalewich v. Kowalewich, 2001 BCCA 450. Those factors include the following: (a) The purpose of s. 18 is to allow the court to "lift the corporate veil" to ensure that the money received as income by the paying parent fairly reflects all of the money available for the payment of child support, particularly where a sole shareholder has the ability to control the income of the corporation. (Para. 43); (b) The Guidelines allow, but do not require a court to include all of the pre-tax income of a corporation for the most recent taxation year in a spouse's annual income for Guidelines purposes. (Para. 54); (c) “… [R]egard should also be had to the nature of the company’s business and any evidence of legitimate calls on its corporate income for the purposes of that business. Justice Drake cautioned about not killing the goose who lays the golden eggs. Monies needed to maintain the value of the business as a viable going concern will not be available for support purposes. (Para. 58); (d) The trial judge must have regard to the evidence of legitimate business needs in determining what portion of pre-tax corporate income to include in annual income for Guideline purposes. (Para. 59).

The payor spouse bears the onus of proving that pre-tax corporate income is not available for support purposes: Hausmann v. Klukas, 2009 BCCA 32 at paras. 51-52.