K.M.M. v. D.R.M.

K.M.M. v. D.R.M.

The application was dismissed except for the child support issue because the respondent failed to provide required corporate financial disclosure under Guidelines s.21(1)(f), making it impossible for the court to assess true income and calculate prospective or retroactive child support; therefore the child support issue must be heard with the trial on division of family property where full disclosure and discovery can be conducted.

Citation
2017 BCSC 732
Parties
Claimant: K.M.M.; Respondent: D.R.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law — Child Support, Custody and Property Division / In Chambers Application to Vary Interim Child Support; to Be Heard With Trial for Division of Family Property
Outcome
Applicant's application dismissed except as to child support; child support issue to be determined at trial for division of family property
Legal Topics
Variation of Interim Support, Shared Custody Calculations, Retroactive Support, Income Determination From Corporate Structures, Mandatory Disclosure Under Guidelines S.21(1)(f), Re Opening Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody Property Division Corporate Disclosure Family Law Act Federal Child Support Guidelines Variation of Interim Support +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.M.M.

Claimant

D.R.M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law — Child Support, Custody and Property Division / In Chambers Application to Vary Interim Child Support; to Be Heard With Trial for Division of Family Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim child support order should be varied to reflect shared custody of S.M.
  2. 2 Whether retroactive child support from November 2013 should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether respondent's corporate financial statements are required for determination of income under Guidelines s.21(1)(f)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed except for the child support issue because the respondent failed to provide required corporate financial disclosure under Guidelines s.21(1)(f), making it impossible for the court to assess true income and calculate prospective or retroactive child support; therefore the child support issue must be heard with the trial on division of family property where full disclosure and discovery can be conducted.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application dismissed except as to child support; child support issue to be determined at trial for division of family property

Orders

  • Application dismissed except for issue of child support
  • Issue of child support to be heard with the trial for division of family property