A.D.J. v. T.D.P.

A.D.J. v. T.D.P.

s.9 did not apply because respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had physical custody or access at least 40% of the time over the course of a year; hours, not days, is the appropriate measure in these circumstances; therefore the application to vary child support based on shared parenting was dismissed, but the court varied guideline incomes effective April 1, 2017 and ordered retroactive child support and a 25%/75% split of special expenses by consent.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2360
Parties
Claimant: A.D.J.; Respondent: T.D.P.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support Variation / Application to Vary Child Support Final Order
Outcome
Application to recognize shared parenting and vary child support under s.9 dismissed; child support varied retroactive to April 1, 2017 based on updated incomes; by consent special and extraordinary expenses allocated 25% to respondent and 75% to claimant; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Section 9 Child Support Guidelines, Shared Parenting, Child Support Variation, Measurement of Parenting Time
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody and Access Section 9 Child Support Guidelines Shared Parenting Child Support Variation Measurement of Parenting Time

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.D.J.

Claimant

T.D.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support Variation / Application to Vary Child Support Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies (whether respondent has physical custody or access at least 40% over the course of a year)
  2. 2 Proper method to measure parenting time (hours vs days)
  3. 3 Whether respondent established a 50/50 parenting arrangement since January 2016

Ratio Decidendi

s.9 did not apply because respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had physical custody or access at least 40% of the time over the course of a year; hours, not days, is the appropriate measure in these circumstances; therefore the application to vary child support based on shared parenting was dismissed, but the court varied guideline incomes effective April 1, 2017 and ordered retroactive child support and a 25%/75% split of special expenses by consent.

Court Disposition

Application to recognize shared parenting and vary child support under s.9 dismissed; child support varied retroactive to April 1, 2017 based on updated incomes; by consent special and extraordinary expenses allocated 25% to respondent and 75% to claimant; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Application to vary child support under s.9 dismissed
  • Guideline incomes set effective April 1, 2017: $47,205 for T.D.P. and $150,865 for A.D.J.