M.E.L. v. B.G.L.

M.E.L. v. B.G.L.

Respondent failed to prove undue hardship under s.10 because debts largely arose post‑separation, claimed access costs were overstated and access had not occurred as assumed; respondent has the higher standard of living; therefore variation of basic child support and sole allocation of s.7 expenses to claimant was denied. Court nonetheless found respondent had deliberately failed to comply with support obligations and, given enforcement difficulty from Australia, granted claimant security: $20,000 to be held in trust for guideline child support and s.7 expenses, withdrawable when payments are 30+ days in arrears; child support ordered per Guidelines based on respondent income of $78,144...

Citation
2012 BCSC 1841
Parties
Claimant: M.E.L.; Respondent: B.G.L.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Variation Application / In Chambers Application for Variation, Security and Disposition of Sale Proceeds
Outcome
Application dismissed in part and granted in part: respondent's undue hardship claim dismissed; claimant's request for security granted; child support ordered under Guidelines; certain s.7 expenses denied.
Legal Topics
Undue Hardship Under Federal Child Support Guidelines, Section 7 Extraordinary Expenses, Security for Child Support, Variation of Child Support, Access Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Enforcement/interjurisdictional Undue Hardship Under Federal Child Support Guidelines Section 7 Extraordinary Expenses Security for Child Support Variation of Child Support Access Costs

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

Parties

M.E.L.

Claimant

B.G.L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Variation Application / In Chambers Application for Variation, Security and Disposition of Sale Proceeds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent established undue hardship under s.10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines warranting variation of basic child support and sole responsibility for s.7 expenses
  2. 2 Whether certain claimed s.7 expenses qualify as extraordinary and are payable by respondent
  3. 3 Whether lump sum security for future child support should be ordered given respondent's arrears and residence in Australia

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent failed to prove undue hardship under s.10 because debts largely arose post‑separation, claimed access costs were overstated and access had not occurred as assumed; respondent has the higher standard of living; therefore variation of basic child support and sole allocation of s.7 expenses to claimant was denied. Court nonetheless found respondent had deliberately failed to comply with support obligations and, given enforcement difficulty from Australia, granted claimant security: $20,000 to be held in trust for guideline child support and s.7 expenses, withdrawable when payments are 30+ days in arrears; child support ordered per Guidelines based on respondent income of $78,144...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part and granted in part: respondent's undue hardship claim dismissed; claimant's request for security granted; child support ordered under Guidelines; certain s.7 expenses denied.

Orders

  • Child support payable in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines for the three children based on respondent income of $78,144 per annum effective July 1, 2012.
  • Section 7 extraordinary expenses shall exclude martial arts expenses for D. and music lessons for H.