Foster v. Foster

Foster v. Foster

The appeal was dismissed because the chambers judge properly applied D.B.S.: the appellant provided no reasonable explanation for the significant delay in seeking variation, the record lacked sufficient evidence about the child's residence and custody between 2006 and 2010, and requiring repayment would likely cause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCCA 205
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Gloria Foster also known as Gloria Alcahuaman; Appellant (defendant): John Michael Foster
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Spousal Support Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (chambers Judgment) to Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Retroactive Variation, Material Change of Circumstances, Custody and Residence, Lump Sum Spousal Support, Delay and Laches
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Spousal Support Civil Procedure Retroactive Variation Material Change of Circumstances Custody and Residence Lump Sum Spousal Support +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria Foster also known as Gloria Alcahuaman

Respondent (plaintiff)

John Michael Foster

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Spousal Support Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (chambers Judgment) to Court of Appeal of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts should grant retroactive variation of a lump sum spousal support award
  2. 2 Whether the courts should grant retroactive variation of child support and order repayment
  3. 3 Whether appellant's delay barred retroactive relief and whether there was sufficient evidence of the child's residence and custody between 2006 and 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the chambers judge properly applied D.B.S.: the appellant provided no reasonable explanation for the significant delay in seeking variation, the record lacked sufficient evidence about the child's residence and custody between 2006 and 2010, and requiring repayment would likely cause hardship to the primary caregiver; accordingly, the court declined to order retroactive variation or repayment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No retroactive variation of the 2006 child support order.