Wells v. MacLean

Wells v. MacLean

Applying D.B.S. factors the court found applicant delayed in filing but delay did not preclude retroactive relief because respondent engaged in blameworthy nondisclosure when his income rose; respondent failed to prove hardship from retroactive adjustment; therefore retroactive variation was appropriate only for three years prior to the application (retroactive to 2016) with specific income recalculations for 2016–2018, prospective adjustment effective March 1, 2020, and inclusion of a recalculation clause.

Citation
2020 NSSC 359
Parties
Applicant: Karlee Wells; Respondent: Daniel MacLean
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Child Support Variation / Variation Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application granted in part and denied in part: retroactive variation granted to 2016 and adjusted for 2017 and 2018; retroactive relief to 2014 denied; prospective reduction and recalculation clause ordered; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Retroactive Variation, Recalculation Clause, Arrears Adjustment, Blameworthy Conduct, Hardship
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Income Disclosure Maintenance Enforcement Retroactive Variation Recalculation Clause Arrears Adjustment Blameworthy Conduct +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karlee Wells

Applicant

Daniel MacLean

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Child Support Variation / Variation Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant retroactive variation of child support
  2. 2 Appropriate retroactive period to apply
  3. 3 Effect of failure to disclose income (blameworthy conduct) on retroactivity

Ratio Decidendi

Applying D.B.S. factors the court found applicant delayed in filing but delay did not preclude retroactive relief because respondent engaged in blameworthy nondisclosure when his income rose; respondent failed to prove hardship from retroactive adjustment; therefore retroactive variation was appropriate only for three years prior to the application (retroactive to 2016) with specific income recalculations for 2016–2018, prospective adjustment effective March 1, 2020, and inclusion of a recalculation clause.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and denied in part: retroactive variation granted to 2016 and adjusted for 2017 and 2018; retroactive relief to 2014 denied; prospective reduction and recalculation clause ordered; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Retroactive child support variation granted effective to 2016: 2016 support reduced to $0.00 per month under NS table.
  • Arrears adjusted to reflect recalculated table amounts for 2017 (obligation: $340.00/month for first 10 months and $344.00/month for last 2 months) and 2018 (obligation: $220.00/month plus childcare of $187.00/month).