Burrows v. Burrows

Burrows v. Burrows

The court had no jurisdiction to award retroactive support for Michelle because she was not a 'child of the marriage' at the time of the application; the court did have jurisdiction to award retroactive support for Andrew because he remained a child at the time of application. Applying the D.B.S. factors the court found claimant's delay unreasonable but respondent's conduct not blameworthy and no hardship to respondent. Effective notice was the filing of the application on November 22, 2011, so retroactivity is limited to three years prior (from November 22, 2008). The court exercised its discretion to calculate retroactive quantum by using the Guidelines adjusted to account that prior...

Citation
2012 BCSC 874
Parties
Claimant: Alison Mary Burrows (now Alison Mary Sinclair); Respondent: Michael Burrows
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Retroactive Child Support Under Divorce Act and Family Relations Act / Reasons for Judgment (in Chambers)
Outcome
Application partly granted in favour of the claimant: retroactive child support awarded for Andrew; application for retroactive support for Michelle dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Retroactive Child Support, Jurisdiction, Calculation of Arrears, Notice and Delay, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Divorce Act Family Relations Act Retroactive Child Support Jurisdiction Calculation of Arrears Notice and Delay +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Mary Burrows (now Alison Mary Sinclair)

Claimant

Michael Burrows

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Retroactive Child Support Under Divorce Act and Family Relations Act / Reasons for Judgment (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has jurisdiction to order retroactive child support for a child who is no longer a 'child of the marriage' at time of application
  2. 2 Whether retroactive child support can be ordered for the younger child (Andrew) who remained a child at time of application
  3. 3 Appropriate period and quantum of retroactive support and proper method of calculation

Ratio Decidendi

The court had no jurisdiction to award retroactive support for Michelle because she was not a 'child of the marriage' at the time of the application; the court did have jurisdiction to award retroactive support for Andrew because he remained a child at the time of application. Applying the D.B.S. factors the court found claimant's delay unreasonable but respondent's conduct not blameworthy and no hardship to respondent. Effective notice was the filing of the application on November 22, 2011, so retroactivity is limited to three years prior (from November 22, 2008). The court exercised its discretion to calculate retroactive quantum by using the Guidelines adjusted to account that prior...

Court Disposition

Application partly granted in favour of the claimant: retroactive child support awarded for Andrew; application for retroactive support for Michelle dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • No retroactive child support awarded for Michelle Burrows for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Retroactive child support for Andrew ordered with retroactivity commencing three years before notice (notice = November 22, 2011) i.e. from November 22, 2008 and calculated by reference to the Guidelines as adjusted in reasons, resulting in a retroactive quantum calculated in the reasons (net amount computed in...