T.J.G.L. v. C.L.L.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: T.J.G.L. v. C.L.L., 2005 BCSC 555 Date: 20050413 Docket: E42305 Registry: Nanaimo Between: T.J.G.L. Petitioner And C.L.L. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Maczko Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Petitioner J. Anthony No One Appeared for the Respondent Date and Place of Hearing: April 11, 2005 Nanaimo, B.C. [1] This is an application to vary an Ontario support order for two children. By order made May 20, 1983, in the Supreme Court of Ontario, the petitioner was ordered to pay support of $46 per week for two children and $11.50 spousal support. The petitioner now seeks to vary that order in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. [2] I have concluded that I can only make a provisional order which requires confirmation in Ontario to be effective. The respondent was served with this application in October, 2004. There has been no appearance. The respondent had a lawyer in Ontario and counsel for the petitioner informed me that notice of this hearing date was sent to the respondent's lawyer. Mr. Anthony was informed by the Ontario lawyer that he no longer acted for the respondent but the material had been forwarded to her. [3] The evidence on which I rely comes from the affidavit of the petitioner and there is no evidence to the contrary. [4] The parties were divorced on May 20, 1983. Support orders were made as described above. The respondent remarried in August, 1988, and the petitioner seeks to have the support order varied by cancelling it as of August, 1988. [5] There are two children of the marriage; C.M.L., born [ ], 1982, now 23; T.A.L.L., born [ ], 1979, now 26. C.M.L. [6] C.M.L. moved out of her mother's home in June, 1996, when she was 14 and she says in a letter which is an exhibit in these proceedings that she received no support from her mother after that date. When C.M.L. was 17, she came from Ontario to Nanaimo and lived with her father until May, 2000. After she moved out she obtained a support order for $138 per month, which the petitioner paid until she was 19. I therefore cancel any arrears that would have accumulated on behalf of C.M.L. from June, 1996, to the present. [7] In the alternative, I cancel arrears from May, 2000, to January, 2001, because the petitioner paid support in British Columbia for C.M.L.. In the alternative, I cancel arrears from September, 1999, to May, 2000, because C.M.L. was living with the petitioner for that period. I also cancel any arrears that may have accumulated on behalf of C.M.L. from [ ], 2001, to the present because she turned 19 on that date. T.A.L.L. T.A.L.L. turned 19 on [ ], 1998. She lived with her father from February, 1995, until May, 1995. She then moved back to her mother's home. When T.A.L.L. was 16 years old she left her mother's home and began living with her boyfriend and the petitioner believes that she continues to live with him. T.A.L.L. has not been in the charge of the respondent and the respondent has provided no care or support to her since September, 1995. I therefore cancel any arrears which have accumulated after September, 1995. Summary [8] The petitioner's obligation to pay spousal support ended as of the respondent's remarriage in August, 1988, and any arrears which would have accumulated after that date are hereby cancelled. [9] C.M.L. has not been dependent on the respondent since June 1996 and any arrears which have accumulated on behalf of C.M.L. from June, 1996, to the present are cancelled. [10] T.A.L.L. has not been dependent on the respondent since September 1995 and any arrears which have accumulated on behalf of T.A.L.L. from September 1995 to the present are cancelled. [11] There were two other applications in the notice of motion. One, to stay enforcement of the divorce order made May 20, 1983 and the other for an accounting of arrears penalties and interest are adjourned generally. "F. Maczko, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice F. Maczko April 15, 2005 - Revised Judgment Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment issued advising that paragraph 10 should read: "T.A.L.L. has not been dependent on the respondent since September 1995 and any arrears which have accumulated on behalf of T.A.L.L. from September 1995 to the present are cancelled."