Baker v. Webb

Baker v. Webb

Respondent failed to prove a circumstance amounting to undue hardship and, in any event, his household standard of living exceeded the applicant's; therefore no downward deviation from the s.3 table amount was warranted. The court ordered the table amount for child maintenance, apportioned child care and medical (epi‑pen) expenses proportionately to disposable incomes, and set combined monthly payments totaling $707.44, payable through Maintenance Enforcement Program beginning April 15, 2016.

Citation
2016 NSSC 367
Parties
Applicant / Sole Custodian: Kaitlin Baker; Respondent / Non Custodial Parent: Justin Webb
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Child Maintenance / Endorsement / Final Decision
Outcome
Undue hardship claim dismissed; application granted in part: child maintenance and proportionate contributions to child care and epi‑pens ordered.
Legal Topics
Undue Hardship, Child Maintenance Calculation Under Guidelines, Proportionate Sharing of Extraordinary Expenses, Standard of Living Comparison, Legal Duty to Support Other Children
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Maintenance Enforcement Child Care and Medical Expense Allocation Undue Hardship Child Maintenance Calculation Under Guidelines Proportionate Sharing of Extraordinary Expenses Standard of Living Comparison +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaitlin Baker

Applicant / Sole Custodian

Justin Webb

Respondent / Non Custodial Parent

Procedural Posture

Family Child Maintenance / Endorsement / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent proved undue hardship to justify deviation from table amount under section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines
  2. 2 Whether and how extraordinary expenses (child care and epi‑pens) should be apportioned between parents
  3. 3 Whether respondent has a legal duty to support his spouse's children that qualifies as a circumstance causing undue hardship

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent failed to prove a circumstance amounting to undue hardship and, in any event, his household standard of living exceeded the applicant's; therefore no downward deviation from the s.3 table amount was warranted. The court ordered the table amount for child maintenance, apportioned child care and medical (epi‑pen) expenses proportionately to disposable incomes, and set combined monthly payments totaling $707.44, payable through Maintenance Enforcement Program beginning April 15, 2016.

Court Disposition

Undue hardship claim dismissed; application granted in part: child maintenance and proportionate contributions to child care and epi‑pens ordered.

Orders

  • Beginning April 15, 2016 and on the 15th of each month thereafter Justin Webb shall pay child maintenance of $406.00 for Chayse and Cole Webb pursuant to section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines.
  • Justin Webb shall pay 36% of the net of tax child care cost: $294.24 per month beginning April 15, 2016 (clause 7(1)(a)).