Does Shared Parenting Mean No Child Support? Alberta Court Provides Guidance
A recent Alberta Court of King's Bench decision provides helpful guidance for separated parents dealing with shared parenting, child support, section 7 child support expenses, income imputation, and post-separation financial issues.
In Offrey v Offrey, 2026 ABKB 335, the Court addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and division of family property following the breakdown of a long relationship. The parties had two children and had been sharing parenting on a 2/2/3 schedule since separation. While many parenting issues were resolved before the end of trial, the Court was still required to answer several important questions about child support, income, expenses, and family property.
Shared Parenting Does Not Cancel Child Support
One of the most important takeaways from Offrey is that shared parenting does not automatically mean no child support is payable.
Where each parent has the1ildren at least 40% of the time, section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines may apply. The Court does not simply cancel child support because parenting time is equal or close to equal. Instead, the Court considers each parent's income, the table amount each parent would otherwise pay, the increased costs of shared parenting, and the overall circumstances of the parents and children.
In Offrey, the parties had a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement. However, the Father's income was significantly higher than the Mother's income. The Court used the set-off approach under Section 3 as the stating point and ordered the Father to pay child support based on the difference between their respective child support obligations.
The Court also ordered retroactive child support back to May 2022, when the Mother served her Statement of Claim seeking child support. For 2022,2023,2024 the total retroactive child support owing was $37,212.00 with the 2025 amount to be calculated once the parities income were known. The practical point is simple: equal parenting time does not necessarily mean equal financial responsibility.
Imputation of Income Requires Evidence
Justice Mandziuk confirmed that the party seeking to impute income must provide 'credible and cogent' evidence. It is not enough to argue that someone could theoretically earn more in a different job. The Court must consider whether the person's actual employment choices are reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accepted that the Mother's work as a professor involved more than scheduled teaching hours. Her responsibilities included teaching, preparation, marking, research, writing, committee work, supervision, meetings, and other academic obligations. The Court also found that her employment provided stable income, benefits for the children, flexibility, and long-term career stability.
This is an important reminder for separated parents; child support is not based on speculation about the highest possible income someone might earn. A parent is not necessarily underemployed simply because they could potentially make more money in a different role.
Section 7 Expenses Are Usually Shared Based on Income
For Alberta families, this is a useful reminder that section 7 expenses are not automatically split equally. Unless the parties agree otherwise, or unless their incomes are relatively similar, these expenses are usually shared in proportion to income.
Family Property and Debt Are Context-Specific
Offrey also addressed several family property and debt issues, including student loans, RRSPs, mortgage payments, and credit card interest.
The Court declined to treat the Mother's student debt as something that should be carved out entirely from the family property analysis. Justice Mandziuk found that both parties benefited from the education each received during the relationship. Their careers, income, and family lifestyle were connected to that education. In those circumstances, the Mother's student debts were treated as family debts.
The Court also considered post-separation financial decisions. The Father had withdrawn funds from an RRSP after separation, made additional RRSP contributions, remained in the family home, and sought compensation for certain interest and mortgage-related expenses. The Court looked at these issues in context, including who benefited from the expense, whether the cost was avoidable, and whether the proposed result was fair overall.
The broader lesson is that family property cases are fact-specific. Courts generally do not look at one transaction in isolation. They consider the full financial picture, the evidence, the parties' agreements, and whether the proposed division is just and equitable.
Evidence Matters
A recurring theme in Offrey is the importance of evidence.
The Court rejected arguments that were not supported by clear and reliable proof. This was especially important in relation to income imputation, alleged underemployment, and post-separation financial claims.
Family litigation often involves frustration, mistrust, and strong disagreement. However, the Court still requires evidence. Assumptions about what the other party could earn, why they made certain financial decisions, or who benefited from a debt will not always be enough.
For separated spouses, this is a practical reminder to keep proper records, obtain advice early, and make sure that any position advanced in negotiation or litigation is grounded in both the facts and the law.
How We Can Help
At The Calgary Legal Team, we assist clients with parenting disputes, child support, spousal support, family property division, and post-separation financial issues.
Our team can help you understand how shared parenting may affect child support, whether income imputation is realistic, how section 7 expenses should be divided, and how family debts or assets should be addressed after separation.
If you are separating, already involved in family litigation, or unsure whether a proposed position is fair or legally supported, The Calgary Legal Team can help you understand your options and take your next step with clarity.
Comments