L.E.M. v. K.R.M.

L.E.M. v. K.R.M.

The court fixed Guideline incomes (Ms. M $36,600; Mr. M $65,500), found the father liable for retroactive support from October 2004 to 2006 because his income increased and he failed to disclose, excluded a one-time $25,000 signing bonus from income due to its extraordinary nature and undue hardship, set off...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 1885
Parties
Plaintiff (mother): L.E.M.; Defendant (father): K.R.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Child Support Variation / In Chambers Oral Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Judgment varying child support and awarding retroactive support to the plaintiff; costs awarded to the plaintiff; certain extraordinary income excluded from Guideline income; ME declared not a child of the marriage as of Sept 1, 2006.
Legal Topics
Variation of Child Support, Retroactive Child Support, Guideline Income Determination, Financial Disclosure, Undue Hardship, Treatment of Extraordinary Income
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Divorce Act Costs/disclosure Variation of Child Support Retroactive Child Support Guideline Income Determination Financial Disclosure +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.E.M.

Plaintiff (mother)

K.R.M.

Defendant (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Child Support Variation / In Chambers Oral Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Guideline incomes for parties should be varied
  2. 2 Whether retroactive child support is payable and for what period
  3. 3 Whether a one-time signing bonus constitutes income for support purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The court fixed Guideline incomes (Ms. M $36,600; Mr. M $65,500), found the father liable for retroactive support from October 2004 to 2006 because his income increased and he failed to disclose, excluded a one-time $25,000 signing bonus from income due to its extraordinary nature and undue hardship, set off retroactive obligations between the parties, and awarded limited costs to the plaintiff pursuant to the Guidelines.

Court Disposition

Judgment varying child support and awarding retroactive support to the plaintiff; costs awarded to the plaintiff; certain extraordinary income excluded from Guideline income; ME declared not a child of the marriage as of Sept 1, 2006.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's Guideline income fixed at $36,600
  • Defendant's Guideline income fixed at $65,500