Calnen v. Gamble

Calnen v. Gamble

The 2005 partial separation agreement is binding and the respondent failed to prove the threshold for setting it aside (no proof of unconscionability or deliberate nondisclosure that would materially alter the division); therefore the CRA tax debt is not added to property division. On custody, joint decision‑making with primary residence and care to mother is appropriate given history and best interests of the children; a specific parenting schedule including Monday nights, alternating weekends and alternating Thursdays was ordered to increase paternal time. Because the respondent's disclosed income was unreliable and disclosure non‑compliant, the court imputed income at $40,000/year and...

Citation
2009 NSSC 190
Parties
Petitioner: Charlotte Ann Calnen; Respondent: David Andrew Gamble
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce (family Law) / Two‑day Trial; Oral Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Divorce granted; separation agreement enforced; property agreement not reopened; joint custody ordered with mother primary residence; parenting schedule set; income imputed and child support ordered; no formal section 7 order
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Separation Agreement, Reopening Settlements for Non‑disclosure, Best Interests of the Child, Joint Custody and Parenting Schedules, Child Support Guidelines and Imputed Income, Section 7 Expenses
Source Language
English
Family Law Custody and Access Child Support Property Division Spousal Support Income Imputation Disclosure Enforceability of Separation Agreement +5 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Ann Calnen

Petitioner

David Andrew Gamble

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce (family Law) / Two‑day Trial; Oral Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2005 partial separation agreement could be reopened to include a CRA tax debt
  2. 2 What parenting regime is in the best interests of the children
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's income should be imputed for child support and at what level

Ratio Decidendi

The 2005 partial separation agreement is binding and the respondent failed to prove the threshold for setting it aside (no proof of unconscionability or deliberate nondisclosure that would materially alter the division); therefore the CRA tax debt is not added to property division. On custody, joint decision‑making with primary residence and care to mother is appropriate given history and best interests of the children; a specific parenting schedule including Monday nights, alternating weekends and alternating Thursdays was ordered to increase paternal time. Because the respondent's disclosed income was unreliable and disclosure non‑compliant, the court imputed income at $40,000/year and...

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; separation agreement enforced; property agreement not reopened; joint custody ordered with mother primary residence; parenting schedule set; income imputed and child support ordered; no formal section 7 order

Orders

  • Divorce granted
  • Separation agreement (August 2005) upheld; respondent's CRA tax debt not added to property division