L.A.B. v. M.L.B.

L.A.B. v. M.L.B.

Paragraphs of the 2017 CVO that purported to freeze child support and bar variation were unenforceable to the extent they prevented adjustment in response to material changes; the court set retroactivity to the presumptive three-year period (June 2020) because the recipient had means and disclosure and the payor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 BCSC 2160
Parties
Claimant: L.A.B.; Respondent: M.L.B.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child and Spousal Support Variation / Enforcement of Consent Variation Order / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Court set aside paragraphs 4-5 of the May 8, 2017 CVO to the extent they fixed claimant's income at $90,000 and barred variation; found S.B. primarily with respondent from Sept 1, 2019 and K.B. from April 1, 2020; held K.B. remains child of the marriage and ordered her support reduced by one-third under s.3(2)(b)...
Legal Topics
Consent Variation Orders, Non Variation Clauses, Retroactive Child Support, Imputation of Income, Section 7 Special Expenses, Adult Child Support, Pre and Post Judgment Interest, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Contract/enforceability of Consent Orders Procedure Interest Consent Variation Orders Non Variation Clauses Retroactive Child Support +5 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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.A.B.

Claimant

M.L.B.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child and Spousal Support Variation / Enforcement of Consent Variation Order / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Enforceability of non-variation clauses in consent orders
  2. 2 Determination of parenting arrangements dates
  3. 3 Whether adult child qualifies as child of the marriage and quantum of support

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs of the 2017 CVO that purported to freeze child support and bar variation were unenforceable to the extent they prevented adjustment in response to material changes; the court set retroactivity to the presumptive three-year period (June 2020) because the recipient had means and disclosure and the payor acted in good faith; claimant's Guidelines incomes were fixed per the court's findings and Schedule III deductions disallowed absent employer confirmation; K.B. remains a child of the marriage but support reduced by one-third under s.3(2)(b) effective Jan 1, 2025; s.7 expenses apportioned prospectively 84% claimant/16% respondent for 2025; arrears to be calculated and certified by...

Court Disposition

Court set aside paragraphs 4-5 of the May 8, 2017 CVO to the extent they fixed claimant's income at $90,000 and barred variation; found S.B. primarily with respondent from Sept 1, 2019 and K.B. from April 1, 2020; held K.B. remains child of the marriage and ordered her support reduced by one-third under s.3(2)(b)...

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4-5 of the May 8, 2017 CVO set aside to extent they fix Guidelines income at $90,000 and bar variation
  • Findings: S.B. primary with respondent from Sept 1, 2019; K.B. primary with respondent from Apr 1, 2020