Clarke v. Babensee

Clarke v. Babensee

The chambers judge correctly applied the contextual s.9 analysis and the Willick test for material change under s.14(b), concluding that changes asserted by the appellant were either foreseeable under the consent agreement, not sufficiently material/substantive/continuing, or not proven with precise evidence; no error of law or significant misapprehension of evidence was shown, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2009 BCCA 122
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Ronald William Clarke; Respondent (defendant): Susan Elizabeth Babensee
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Child Support Variation Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Shared Custody, Variation of Support, Material Change of Circumstances, Federal Child Support Guidelines S.9 and S.14(b)
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Appeal Shared Custody Variation of Support Material Change of Circumstances Federal Child Support Guidelines S.9 and S.14(b)

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald William Clarke

Appellant (plaintiff)

Susan Elizabeth Babensee

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Child Support Variation Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant demonstrated a material change in circumstances under s.14(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines sufficient to vary child support in a shared custody situation under s.9.
  2. 2 Whether the chambers judge committed an error of law or a significant misapprehension of the evidence warranting appellate intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge correctly applied the contextual s.9 analysis and the Willick test for material change under s.14(b), concluding that changes asserted by the appellant were either foreseeable under the consent agreement, not sufficiently material/substantive/continuing, or not proven with precise evidence; no error of law or significant misapprehension of evidence was shown, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent