Khoury v. Khoury
Because the parties expressly agreed in the Consent Variation Order to a fixed monthly spousal support amount and expressly barred any variation, and because the applicant failed to meet the burden to impugn or show a basis for variation, the court must dismiss the application to vary the order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 NSSC 58
- Parties
- Respondent: Denise Fern Anne Khoury; Applicant: Antoun Sadallah Khoury
- Court
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Family Spousal Support Variation / Application to Vary Consent Variation Order; Decision on Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Consent Order, Finality of Settlements, Burden of Proof, Enforceability Under Divorce Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Denise Fern Anne Khoury
Respondent
Antoun Sadallah Khoury
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Family Spousal Support Variation / Application to Vary Consent Variation Order; Decision on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a court can vary a consent order that expressly bars variation
- 2 Whether a change in the applicant's employment or financial circumstances justifies variation
- 3 Who bears the burden of proof when seeking variation
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties expressly agreed in the Consent Variation Order to a fixed monthly spousal support amount and expressly barred any variation, and because the applicant failed to meet the burden to impugn or show a basis for variation, the court must dismiss the application to vary the order.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application to vary the Consent Variation Order dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Khoury v. Khoury Court Supreme Court Date 2018-03-19 Citation 2018 NSSC 58 Docket 1201-068946; SFH-D97620 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Jollimore, Elizabeth (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Khoury v. Khoury - 2018 NSSC 58 - 2018-03-19 - Library Sheet Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Khoury v. Khoury, 2018 NSSC 58 ENDORSEMENT Denise Fern Anne Khoury v. Antoun Sadallah Khoury 1201-068946; SFH-D97620 March 19, 2018 Antoun Khoury, self-represented Mr. Khoury seeks to vary a Consent Variation Order granted in August 2017, which ordered him to pay monthly spousal support of $600.00 and stated the spousal support “shall not be varied by either party regardless of any change in either parties’ [sic] circumstances”. Decision: The variation application is dismissed: Mr. Khoury has shown no basis for varying the terms of the Consent Variation Order. Reasons: 1. The parties agreed to a Consent Variation Order which fixed the amount of spousal support Mr. Khoury was to pay to his former wife, and provided that once he met the obligation to pay monthly spousal support of $600.00 until September 1, 2022, he would have no further obligation to pay her any spousal support: his obligation would terminate absolutely. 2. The parties’ Order said that “spousal support shall be a fixed amount and shall not be varied by either party regardless of any change in either parties’ circumstances”. 3. Mr. Khoury says he would like to vary the Order until he gets a job and pays some bills. 4. Mr. Khoury is asking that I vary the Order based on changes to his circumstances. 5. The burden of proving the Order should be varied rests on the person asking for the order to be changed: Mr. Khoury. 6. Since the parties agreed that the Order could not be changed, even if there was a change in circumstances, changes to Mr. Khoury’s employment or debt situation (if they arose after August 2017, which has not been shown) would not permit me to vary the Order. 7. Each party was represented by counsel when they consented to this Order. 8. Mr. Khoury does not impugn the validity of the Order, the circumstances of its negotiation or its substantial compliance with the objectives of the Divorce Act: Miglin, 2003 SCC 24. 9. Mr. Khoury has failed to offer any reason for varying the terms of the parties’ Consent Variation Order of August 2017. 10. Mr. Khoury’s application is dismissed. An Order dismissing his application is enclosed. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)