M.I.S.M. v. M.K.M.

M.I.S.M. v. M.K.M.

The court concluded the matter was suitable for summary disposition under Rule 18A, dismissed the father's application for sole custody, found insufficient evidence that the child spends 40% or more of his time with the father so s.9 of the Guidelines does not apply, denied the mother's claim for retroactive support to April 1999 as unsupported and unfair, ordered joint custody with primary residence with the mother, approved holiday access as proposed by the mother (but refused to reduce the father's weekend access to three out of four), granted a Master Joyce guardianship order, and ordered child support of $283 per month from August 1, 2004, with parties to bear their own costs.

Citation
2004 BCSC 1297
Parties
Plaintiff (mother): M.I.S.M.; Defendant (father): M.K.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Divorce Custody and Support / Rule 18 a Hearing (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Mother's Rule 18A application partly granted (holiday schedule specified); father's sole custody application dismissed; parties granted joint custody with primary residence with the mother; father ordered to pay $283/month from August 1, 2004; retroactive support to April 1999 denied; Master Joyce guardianship order...
Legal Topics
Access, Holiday Access, Shared Custody Time Adjustment S.9, Retroactive Child Support, Master Joyce Guardianship, Rule 18 a Procedure
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Divorce Access Holiday Access Shared Custody Time Adjustment S.9 Retroactive Child Support +2 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.I.S.M.

Plaintiff (mother)

M.K.M.

Defendant (father)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Custody and Support / Rule 18 a Hearing (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father's sole custody application should succeed
  2. 2 Whether the matter is suitable for summary disposition under Rule 18A
  3. 3 Whether the son spends 40% or more time with the father such that s.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded the matter was suitable for summary disposition under Rule 18A, dismissed the father's application for sole custody, found insufficient evidence that the child spends 40% or more of his time with the father so s.9 of the Guidelines does not apply, denied the mother's claim for retroactive support to April 1999 as unsupported and unfair, ordered joint custody with primary residence with the mother, approved holiday access as proposed by the mother (but refused to reduce the father's weekend access to three out of four), granted a Master Joyce guardianship order, and ordered child support of $283 per month from August 1, 2004, with parties to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Mother's Rule 18A application partly granted (holiday schedule specified); father's sole custody application dismissed; parties granted joint custody with primary residence with the mother; father ordered to pay $283/month from August 1, 2004; retroactive support to April 1999 denied; Master Joyce guardianship order...

Orders

  • Parties granted permanent joint custody with the child primarily resident with the mother
  • Access by the father to continue as specified in the interim 1994 order, subject to the holiday modifications set out in the mother's Notice of Motion; the mother's request to reduce weekend access to three weekends out of four is denied