C.A.E. v. S.W.C.

C.A.E. v. S.W.C.

The court found Ms. E. liable for child support retroactive to August 1, 2014 but, after determining appropriate incomes for discrete periods and assessing ss.9(b) and (c), concluded there was insufficient evidence of increased costs or qualifying s.7 expenses and no basis to deviate from the table amounts; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 534
Parties
Claimant: C.A.E.; Respondent: S.W.C.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support (section 9 Guidelines Application) / Application Hearing (argument August 25, 2016); Reserved Reasons Delivered March 31, 2017
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Shared Parenting, Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, Section 7 Special Expenses, Imputation of Income, Retroactive Support, Variation
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Support Separation Agreement Shared Parenting Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines Section 7 Special Expenses Imputation of Income Retroactive 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.A.E.

Claimant

S.W.C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support (section 9 Guidelines Application) / Application Hearing (argument August 25, 2016); Reserved Reasons Delivered March 31, 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shared parenting engages s.9 and permits deviation from Guidelines table amounts
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's income should be imputed at $50,000 for table support purposes
  3. 3 Whether respondent is entitled to retroactive child support from August 1, 2014

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Ms. E. liable for child support retroactive to August 1, 2014 but, after determining appropriate incomes for discrete periods and assessing ss.9(b) and (c), concluded there was insufficient evidence of increased costs or qualifying s.7 expenses and no basis to deviate from the table amounts; the Separation Agreement did not require Mr. C. to remain sole payor if shared parenting resumed, and Mr. C.'s proposed revisions were allowed only to the extent set out in the reasons (including $2,001/month as of July 1, 2016).

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Ms. E. is liable for child support retroactive to August 1, 2014 with quantum determined according to the table amounts and the incomes set by the court for discrete periods as described in the reasons
  • No departure from table amounts under s.9(b) or s.9(c) due to insufficient evidence of increased costs or qualifying s.7 expenses