Langille v. Jollymore

Langille v. Jollymore Court Supreme Court Date 2018-01-29 Citation 2018 NSSC 355 Docket SFHMCA-058769 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Cormier, Cindy G. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Langille v. Jollymore, 2018 NSSC 355 ENDORSEMENT January 29, 2018 Wayne Langille and Cynthia Jollymore File # SFHMCA-058769 Mr. Langille seeks to vary child support “backdated from July 2016” when the parties’ son, Brandon moved out of his mother’s home. Specifically, Mr. Langille has indicated he wishes to vary the Interim Order granted March 29, 2017. Decision: The variation application is dismissed: no material change in circumstances has been shown to have occurred since the Order was granted in March 2017. Reasons: 1. Before I can consider a variation application, I must be satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances that has occurred since the making of the last variation order: Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, subsection 17(4) child support; (4.1) Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160, section 37. 2. The Order sought to be varied was granted in March 2017. Mr. Langille filed a Notice of Variation Application on December 21, 2016. He sought a variation of child maintenance including a change in the number of dependent children, retroactive to July 16, 2016, and pursuant to ss. 15 and 46 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act, he also sought an order addressing arrears of support and maintenance. On January 31, 2017 he confirmed he was also seeking to vary custody with respect to the child, Brandon. On March 29, 2017, the matter was heard on the simplified docket. A without prejudice Interim Order was granted recognizing Brandon was residing with his uncle and the parties’ respective obligations for child support. Both respondents indicated they wished to retain legal counsel and the matter was adjourned to May 24, 2017. On May 24, 2017, the parties consented to an Order which confirmed the terms of the Interim Order granted in March 2017, with the exception of varying the access provision to require both parties to facilitate transportation for Brandon. 3. The burden of proving the change of circumstances rests on the person asking for the order to be changed: Mr. Langille expressed his consent to the terms of the May 24, 2017 Consent Order (which were adopted from the Interim Order granted in March 2017), with full knowledge of the details and circumstances of Brandon’s placement between July 2016 and March 2017. 4. At the appearances in March 2017 and in May 2017, both Mr. Langille and Ms. Jollymore were aware of the circumstances pertaining to Brandon's placement with his aunt in July 2016 and then his uncle in February 2017. They were also aware of the issue of Natasha’s return to Ms. Jollymore's care on October 1, 2015, which was addressed by Order dated March 9, 2016. 5. If there has been no material change proven, I do not have jurisdiction to vary the order. 6. Mr. Langille has failed to prove there is a material change in circumstances which has occurred since the Order was granted. The circumstances referred to in his affidavit were all known at the time the Consent Order was granted. Cindy G. Cormier, J.S.C.(F.D.)