Monteith v. Monteith

Monteith v. Monteith

Retroactive child support denied: respondent (applicant) unreasonably delayed pursuing relief after March 2017; claimant was not blameworthy and had made significant contributions (including providing housing and direct payments for S.); evidence did not establish that the children suffered unmet needs; a lump sum...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 BCSC 239
Parties
Claimant: Claudia Monteith; Respondent: Peter Douglas Monteith; Respondent: Monteith Moving and Storage Ltd.; Respondent: 0865922 British Columbia Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Family Law / Divorce / Summary Trial Application (rule 11 3)
Outcome
Application for retroactive child support dismissed; divorce granted; claimant awarded costs
Legal Topics
Retroactive Child Support, D.b.s. Factors, Child Support Guidelines, Adult Child Support (s.3(2)(b)), Settlement Agreement, Costs
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Divorce Civil Procedure Retroactive Child Support D.b.s. Factors Child Support Guidelines Adult Child Support (s.3(2)(b)) +2 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claudia Monteith

Claimant

Peter Douglas Monteith

Respondent

Monteith Moving and Storage Ltd.

Respondent

0865922 British Columbia Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law / Divorce / Summary Trial Application (rule 11 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant should be ordered to pay retroactive child support
  2. 2 If so, the quantum and period of any retroactive award

Ratio Decidendi

Retroactive child support denied: respondent (applicant) unreasonably delayed pursuing relief after March 2017; claimant was not blameworthy and had made significant contributions (including providing housing and direct payments for S.); evidence did not establish that the children suffered unmet needs; a lump sum award would cause undue hardship to the claimant and would effectively allow the respondent to claw back equalization payments — under D.B.S. holistic discretion the retroactive award was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for retroactive child support dismissed; divorce granted; claimant awarded costs

Orders

  • Respondent's application for retroactive child support is dismissed.
  • The parties are divorced; the divorce is to take effect on the 31st day after the date of this order.