C.F. v. E.R.F.

C.F. v. E.R.F.

The court found no need to vary primary residence for K.A.C.F. because that had already been ordered in the 2002 variation; awarded child support to the defendant for M.T.F. for the period August 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 and to the plaintiff from April 1, 2004 to January 2005 (when the child turns 19), determined...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCSC 1291
Parties
Plaintiff: C.F.; Defendant: E.R.F.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Access / Reasons for Judgment on Cross Applications for Variation and Access/support Orders
Outcome
Applications partly granted and partly dismissed; orders made as to child support periods, income determinations, access expansion, expense sharing, disclosure and notice; punitive enforcement clauses denied; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Variation of Support Orders, Child Support Calculation and Imputation of Income, Access and Visitation, Part 7 Expenses, Section 15 Access Report, Arrears Relief, Enforcement/penalty Clauses
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Custody and Access Variation of Support Orders Child Support Calculation and Imputation of Income Access and Visitation Part 7 Expenses Section 15 Access Report +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.F.

Plaintiff

E.R.F.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Access / Reasons for Judgment on Cross Applications for Variation and Access/support Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether primary residence for K.A.C.F. should be varied
  2. 2 Entitlement to child support for M.T.F. for specified periods
  3. 3 Whether retroactive variation can extinguish or reduce arrears

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no need to vary primary residence for K.A.C.F. because that had already been ordered in the 2002 variation; awarded child support to the defendant for M.T.F. for the period August 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 and to the plaintiff from April 1, 2004 to January 2005 (when the child turns 19), determined Guidelines incomes for both parties for specific time periods (imputing the defendant's Guidelines income at $57,400 and calculating the plaintiff's incomes including pension increments and later employment), refused retroactive extinguishment or reduction of arrears, denied the proposed arrest/enforcement clauses as inappropriate, ordered expansion of after-school access to...

Court Disposition

Applications partly granted and partly dismissed; orders made as to child support periods, income determinations, access expansion, expense sharing, disclosure and notice; punitive enforcement clauses denied; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • No further variation of primary residence for K.A.C.F. (already ordered by Madam Justice MacKenzie on December 12, 2002)
  • Defendant entitled to child support for M.T.F. from August 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004