V.A. v. R.A.

V.A. v. R.A.

The father's income reduction was self‑induced and unreasonable (he left secure employment for an unrealistic business, failed to pursue viable alternative work, and failed to provide adequate disclosure); the court therefore refused to reduce or retroactively vary child support and dismissed the variation application, leaving the prior child support order and arrears intact.

Citation
2011 NSFC 23
Parties
Applicant/respondent: V. A.; Respondent/applicant: R. A.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Variation Application Under the Maintenance and Custody Act (child Support) / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Variation application dismissed; prior child support order maintained; arrears remain payable
Legal Topics
Variation of Child Support, Imputation of Income, Retroactive Reduction of Support, Licence Suspension by Enforcement Agency, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Maintenance Enforcement Variation of Child Support Imputation of Income Retroactive Reduction of Support Licence Suspension by Enforcement Agency Disclosure Obligations

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V. A.

Applicant/respondent

R. A.

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Variation Application Under the Maintenance and Custody Act (child Support) / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a change in circumstances warranting variation of child support since the last order
  2. 2 Whether the father's reduction of income was self‑induced or constituted intentional under‑employment allowing imputation of income
  3. 3 Whether a retroactive reduction of child support to March 1, 2009 is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The father's income reduction was self‑induced and unreasonable (he left secure employment for an unrealistic business, failed to pursue viable alternative work, and failed to provide adequate disclosure); the court therefore refused to reduce or retroactively vary child support and dismissed the variation application, leaving the prior child support order and arrears intact.

Court Disposition

Variation application dismissed; prior child support order maintained; arrears remain payable

Orders

  • Variation application by R. A. dismissed
  • Prior child support order maintained and arrears continue to be owing