R.D.L.J. v. B.S.J.

R.D.L.J. v. B.S.J.

Applications were adjourned to be heard at the scheduled trial because the allegations about incomes and dividend arrangements were highly contested, required viva voce evidence, and did not present compelling urgent circumstances justifying variation of interim orders when trial was imminent; therefore the court would not exercise inherent jurisdiction to vary interim support orders on the record before it.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1566
Parties
Claimant: R.D.L.J.; Respondent: B.S.J.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Matrimonial (support and Contempt Applications) / Pre Trial/interim Applications (adjourned to Trial)
Outcome
Both the contempt and variation applications are adjourned to trial; each party to bear their own costs; Ms. J. ordered to resume interim weekly support payments immediately.
Legal Topics
Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Imputed Income, Interim Variation of Orders, Adjournment to Trial, Support Arrears
Source Language
English
Family Law Contempt of Court Spousal Support Child Support Procedural Law Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Imputed Income Interim Variation of Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.D.L.J.

Claimant

B.S.J.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Matrimonial (support and Contempt Applications) / Pre Trial/interim Applications (adjourned to Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim support orders should be varied prior to trial
  2. 2 Whether arrears should be cancelled or purged
  3. 3 Whether respondent should be found in civil contempt for non-payment of support

Ratio Decidendi

Applications were adjourned to be heard at the scheduled trial because the allegations about incomes and dividend arrangements were highly contested, required viva voce evidence, and did not present compelling urgent circumstances justifying variation of interim orders when trial was imminent; therefore the court would not exercise inherent jurisdiction to vary interim support orders on the record before it.

Court Disposition

Both the contempt and variation applications are adjourned to trial; each party to bear their own costs; Ms. J. ordered to resume interim weekly support payments immediately.

Orders

  • Adjourn both the contempt application and the application to vary interim support and cancel arrears to the trial scheduled to commence October 6, 2014; if trial does not proceed, either party may reset after October 6, 2014
  • Each party shall bear their own costs