Leitch v. Leitch

Leitch v. Leitch

The application to cancel or vary support orders was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a material, significant and long‑lasting change in circumstances since the 2012 order (and since Justice Gropper's 2018 decision), has been underemployed by choice, failed to provide full financial disclosure and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2020 BCSC 1061
Parties
Claimant: Michelle Lorraine Leitch; Respondent: Bruce Thomas Leitch
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Support Variation and Enforcement / Supreme Court Application for Variation/cancellation of Arrears (in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed except for agreed declaration regarding one child; costs awarded to claimant
Legal Topics
Variation of Support Orders, Cancellation/reduction of Arrears, Imputed Income, Underemployment, FMEP Enforcement, Hearsay/admissibility of Online Evidence
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Enforcement Variation of Support Orders Cancellation/reduction of Arrears Imputed Income Underemployment +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Lorraine Leitch

Claimant

Bruce Thomas Leitch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Support Variation and Enforcement / Supreme Court Application for Variation/cancellation of Arrears (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances warranting variation of child or spousal support orders
  2. 2 Whether arrears of child and spousal support should be reduced or cancelled under the 'grossly unfair' test
  3. 3 Whether payer's income should be imputed or he is underemployed by choice

Ratio Decidendi

The application to cancel or vary support orders was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a material, significant and long‑lasting change in circumstances since the 2012 order (and since Justice Gropper's 2018 decision), has been underemployed by choice, failed to provide full financial disclosure and therefore did not meet the heavy onus required to cancel or reduce arrears; however the court declared one son was no longer a child of the marriage as agreed by the parties.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed except for agreed declaration regarding one child; costs awarded to claimant

Orders

  • All orders sought by the applicant to cancel or vary spousal and child support arrears and to rescind provisions of the Final Order are dismissed
  • Declaration that Brandon is no longer a child of the marriage as of April 2019