S.A.N. v. J.M.S.

S.A.N. v. J.M.S.

The court found the respondent's tax returns did not fairly reflect his income and s.17(1) applied. Section 17(1) limits consideration to the past three years and does not mandate a strict arithmetic average; the court must glean a pattern from the recent years. Applying s.17(1) to the relevant period and the registrar's findings, the court fixed the respondent's income for ongoing child support at $50,000 and set child support at $759 per month commencing January 1, 2011; no retroactive support was assessed for 2005 but retroactive deficits for 2006-2010 were recognized and are payable.

Citation
2011 BCSC 963
Parties
Claimant: S.A.N.; Respondent: J.M.S.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Child Support / Family Law / Judgment on Registrar Report and Child Support Order
Outcome
Claimant's application partially granted: registrar's report accepted; respondent held liable for retroactive child support for 2006-2010; ongoing child support fixed on income of $50,000 resulting in $759 per month from January 1, 2011; costs awarded to claimant on Scale B.
Legal Topics
Section 17(1) Federal Child Support Guidelines, Retroactive Support, Imputed Income, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Income Determination Section 17(1) Federal Child Support Guidelines Retroactive Support Imputed Income Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A.N.

Claimant

J.M.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Support / Family Law / Judgment on Registrar Report and Child Support Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether income from buying and selling houses (including owner-occupied properties) constitutes income for child support purposes
  2. 2 Whether the court should apply s.17(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and over what historical period
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of retroactive child support for 2005-2010

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the respondent's tax returns did not fairly reflect his income and s.17(1) applied. Section 17(1) limits consideration to the past three years and does not mandate a strict arithmetic average; the court must glean a pattern from the recent years. Applying s.17(1) to the relevant period and the registrar's findings, the court fixed the respondent's income for ongoing child support at $50,000 and set child support at $759 per month commencing January 1, 2011; no retroactive support was assessed for 2005 but retroactive deficits for 2006-2010 were recognized and are payable.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application partially granted: registrar's report accepted; respondent held liable for retroactive child support for 2006-2010; ongoing child support fixed on income of $50,000 resulting in $759 per month from January 1, 2011; costs awarded to claimant on Scale B.

Orders

  • Registrar's report and certification accepted and filed
  • No retroactive child support assessed for 2005