Whittick v. Whittick

Whittick v. Whittick

Court found applicant's income had fallen to $17,366.28 per year composed predominantly of pension benefits and that this constituted a significant and apparently long‑lasting change effective January 1, 2012; accordingly varied the March 5, 2010 order by reducing child support for the youngest child to $140 per...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1597
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Edward Whittick; Respondent: Jane Croil Whittick; Enforcement Party / Intervener: Director of Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Variation of Support and Enforcement / Application (notice of Application Filed January 6, 2014)
Outcome
Application granted in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Variation of Support Orders, Abrogation of Arrears, Passport Hold Under Enforcement Statute, FMEP Enforcement Procedures, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Variation of Support Orders Abrogation of Arrears Passport Hold Under Enforcement Statute FMEP Enforcement Procedures +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Edward Whittick

Claimant

Jane Croil Whittick

Respondent

Director of Family Maintenance Enforcement Program

Enforcement Party / Intervener

Procedural Posture

Family Law Variation of Support and Enforcement / Application (notice of Application Filed January 6, 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a material, significant and long‑lasting change of circumstances justifying variation of child and spousal support orders
  2. 2 Whether arrears of support should be abrogated or reduced given alleged changed circumstances and the payor's conduct
  3. 3 Whether the Director properly placed a hold on the payor's passport under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act

Ratio Decidendi

Court found applicant's income had fallen to $17,366.28 per year composed predominantly of pension benefits and that this constituted a significant and apparently long‑lasting change effective January 1, 2012; accordingly varied the March 5, 2010 order by reducing child support for the youngest child to $140 per month effective January 1, 2012 and terminating spousal support effective January 1, 2012; court declined to abrogate pre‑2012 arrears because applicant had engaged in blameworthy conduct, delayed unreasonably, and failed to provide full disclosure; court upheld the Director's passport hold under s.67(1) of the enforcement statute as reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • March 5, 2010 order varied: child support for youngest child (Olivia Mary Whittick) fixed at $140 per month payable on the first day of each month commencing January 1, 2012 and terminating after January 1, 2015 (cessation Feb 1, 2015)
  • Spousal support terminated effective January 1, 2012