Philibert v. Webber

Philibert v. Webber

Application dismissed: respondent failed to demonstrate a qualifying change in circumstances or undue hardship to justify reducing child support; commuting/travel costs and post‑separation indebtedness did not amount to 'unusually high' expenses or debts for s.10 purposes; no change of circumstances proved to vary access; arrears will not be cancelled or reduced because cancellation would not be required to avoid gross unfairness and respondent failed to provide full sworn financial disclosure; payment schedule not fixed for lack of notice and current disclosure.

Citation
2011 BCSC 623
Parties
Claimant: Nicole Marie Philibert (formerly Webber); Respondent: Ryan Patrick Webber
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce Act Variation Application (child Support and Custody/access) / Application Heard April 19, 2011; Reasons Delivered May 10, 2011
Outcome
Respondent's application dismissed in full; dismissal of payment schedule application without prejudice to future application; claimant awarded costs
Legal Topics
Child Support Guidelines, Undue Hardship, Arrears, Access Expenses, Financial Disclosure
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody and Access Variation of Court Orders Child Support Guidelines Undue Hardship Arrears Access Expenses +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicole Marie Philibert (formerly Webber)

Claimant

Ryan Patrick Webber

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Act Variation Application (child Support and Custody/access) / Application Heard April 19, 2011; Reasons Delivered May 10, 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent demonstrated a change in circumstances under the Child Support Guidelines justifying variation of child support
  2. 2 Whether respondent demonstrated unusually high access expenses justifying deviation under s.10
  3. 3 Whether arrears of child support should be cancelled or reduced

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed: respondent failed to demonstrate a qualifying change in circumstances or undue hardship to justify reducing child support; commuting/travel costs and post‑separation indebtedness did not amount to 'unusually high' expenses or debts for s.10 purposes; no change of circumstances proved to vary access; arrears will not be cancelled or reduced because cancellation would not be required to avoid gross unfairness and respondent failed to provide full sworn financial disclosure; payment schedule not fixed for lack of notice and current disclosure.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dismissed in full; dismissal of payment schedule application without prejudice to future application; claimant awarded costs

Orders

  • Application to vary child support dismissed
  • Application to vary access provisions dismissed