Hollenbach v. Hollenbach

Hollenbach v. Hollenbach

The court upheld the chambers judge's approach to estimating the father's 1998 income using current data and found no error in declining to attribute Julia's retained earnings under s.18, but concluded the chambers judge erred in deviating from the Guidelines table amount without meeting the Francis threshold; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the child support order was varied to the applicable table amount corresponding to the father's income as found by the chambers judge.

Citation
2000 BCCA 620
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Irene Marie Hilde Hollenbach; Defendant (respondent): Klaus Hollenbach
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court Family Law Variation of Child and Spousal Support / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Chambers Variation Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; child support order varied to the applicable Guidelines table amount corresponding to father's income as found by the chambers judge; application to adduce fresh evidence refused
Legal Topics
Child Support Guidelines, Deviation From Table Amount, Imputing Corporate Income, Unrealized Capital Losses, Standard of Living, Burden of Proof, Fresh Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Income Determination Corporate Attribution Evidence Child Support Guidelines Deviation From Table Amount +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Marie Hilde Hollenbach

Plaintiff (appellant)

Klaus Hollenbach

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court Family Law Variation of Child and Spousal Support / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Chambers Variation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the judge use unreliable financial information in estimating the father's income for Guideline purposes?
  2. 2 Did the judge err in not attributing retained earnings in a company under the father's control when estimating his income?
  3. 3 Did the judge err in deviating from the table amount in the Child Support Guidelines?

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the chambers judge's approach to estimating the father's 1998 income using current data and found no error in declining to attribute Julia's retained earnings under s.18, but concluded the chambers judge erred in deviating from the Guidelines table amount without meeting the Francis threshold; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the child support order was varied to the applicable table amount corresponding to the father's income as found by the chambers judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; child support order varied to the applicable Guidelines table amount corresponding to father's income as found by the chambers judge; application to adduce fresh evidence refused

Orders

  • Allow appeal in part and vary the support order by substituting the applicable Child Support Guidelines table amount for child support corresponding to the father's income as found by the chambers judge (table amount noted in reasons at approximately $7,276.29 per month)
  • Refuse the father's application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal