Phillips v. Kulal

Phillips v. Kulal

The respondent failed to prove a material, significant and long‑lasting change in circumstances and provided inadequate and deficient financial disclosure inconsistent with evidence of an active, potentially lucrative entertainment career; accordingly it would not be grossly unfair to refuse cancellation or variation of the arrears, and the respondent's applications are dismissed; a DNA order is denied as not pursued and existing test evidence supports paternity.

Citation
2017 BCSC 1834
Parties
Claimant: Dawn Nicole Phillips; Respondent / Applicant: Dean Imani Kulal also known as Dean Kulal also known as Shane Dean also known as Dean Marshman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law – Divorce and Child Support Variation/arrears / Application Decision (chambers Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Child Support Arrears, Variation of Child Support, Paternity/dna Testing, Substitutional Service, Family Maintenance Enforcement
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Divorce Enforcement Child Support Arrears Variation of Child Support Paternity/dna Testing Substitutional Service +1 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawn Nicole Phillips

Claimant

Dean Imani Kulal also known as Dean Kulal also known as Shane Dean also known as Dean Marshman

Respondent / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Family Law – Divorce and Child Support Variation/arrears / Application Decision (chambers Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (applicant) established a material change in circumstances to vary or cancel child support arrears
  2. 2 Whether it would be grossly unfair to refuse cancellation of arrears
  3. 3 Whether a court‑ordered DNA test should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove a material, significant and long‑lasting change in circumstances and provided inadequate and deficient financial disclosure inconsistent with evidence of an active, potentially lucrative entertainment career; accordingly it would not be grossly unfair to refuse cancellation or variation of the arrears, and the respondent's applications are dismissed; a DNA order is denied as not pursued and existing test evidence supports paternity.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent's applications dismissed.
  • Respondent to pay costs to the claimant in the amount of any disbursements incurred in these applications.