Canada Case Law

M.S. v. E.O.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court found a change of circumstances: C.O. ceased to be dependent as of Sept 14, 2012, imputed and accounted for applicant's pension/temporary income and WCB payments as income from all sources, grossed up temporary/non-taxable amounts under s.19 to determine table income for 2016 and 2017, declined to vary maintenance retroactively for the period November 2006–2011 (and generally 2006–Aug 2016 except where evidence permitted) due to insufficient disclosure and fairness concerns, calculated net arrears/overpayments accordingly, set prospective monthly maintenance and ordered a repayment plan…

Source excerpt

• Variation of support
• Retroactive maintenance
• Income determination and imputation
• Arrears calculation
• Special/extraordinary expenses
• Grossing up non-taxable benefits

Read case analysis

Kanasevich v. Robinson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Oakley’s best interests require continuity, stability and frequent in-person contact with both parents; given the stronger day-to-day parenting relationship with his mother, the destabilizing effect of relocation to British Columbia on Oakley’s relationship with his father, and the high level of parental conflict that precludes joint decision-making, the child must remain in the mother's primary care and sole custody and relocation to British Columbia is denied; a structured parenting schedule with limited weekly transitions for the father is ordered.

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Relocation/permission to move
• Parenting time/schedule
• Joint custody vs sole custody
• Parental credibility
• Court-ordered conditions on access

Read case analysis

V.H. v. B.L.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Mother awarded sole custody because she was the primary caregiver, more attuned to the child's developmental and emotional needs, and had local family support; father found inconsistent and unsuitable as custodial parent. Relocation denied because mother failed to provide adequate, reliable evidence about how the child's needs would be met in * (partner's support was hearsay) and because relocation would be highly disruptive to child's relationship with father and grandparents. Father’s income was fixed at $34,000 for maintenance purposes and he was ordered to pay $300 per month commencing Ju…

Source excerpt

• Custody
• Access
• Child maintenance
• Relocation
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

Taylor v. Wanless

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The relocation application was dismissed because the mother failed to prove the move was in the children’s best interests: the move would significantly reduce the children’s face-to-face contact with their father, offered no demonstrated financial or medical advantage, and would disrupt the children’s established family and community ties in Halifax; consequently parents remain joint custodians, a detailed parenting schedule was ordered, and child maintenance set based on the father's EI income.

Source excerpt

• Mobility application
• Best interests of the child
• Joint custody vs sole custody
• Parenting schedule and access
• Application of child maintenance guidelines

Read case analysis

Leahy v. Donovan

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held that continuity of the child's established activity (Tae Kwon Do) served the child's best interests and must be maintained until March 2010 but the father is not required to transport the child to classes after that date and has no obligation to require attendance during Jun 15–Sep 15, 2009; the Respondent owes $1,485 for child care and must pay $300/month beginning June 30, 2009 with enforcement via Maintenance Enforcement; the Applicant is designated primary contact with reciprocal notification duties; RESP funds to be rolled into an RRSP for the child; respondent must not tr…

Source excerpt

• Shared parenting arrangements
• Parental decision making for child activities
• Child care expense contribution
• Summer access scheduling
• Primary contact for child
• Transportation and insurance compliance

Read case analysis

H.(U.V.) v. H.(M.W.)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal addressed child support where a stepfather and natural father both had obligations under the Guidelines, and varied the support orders on appeal.

• In loco parentis
• Child support guidelines s.5
• Presumptive rule s.3
• Shared custody s.9
• Retroactive child support
• Imputation and disclosure of income

Read case analysis

Thibeault v. Thibeault

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application to vary child maintenance granted in part. The court fixed the father’s guideline income at $101,700, adjusted support retroactively to January 2007, and set an allowance for extraordinary expenses.

• Child support guidelines
• Income determination
• Retroactivity
• Extraordinary (special) expenses
• Jurisdiction of a master
• Child-support

Read case analysis

P.L.M. v. D.J.T.

Court

Nova Scotia Family Court

Sole custody was awarded to the mother; the father was ordered to pay guideline table amounts because he did not establish undue hardship under the statutory test and the standard of living comparison; although the court has authority to award retroactive support, equity and the parties' conduct justified limiting retroactivity to the period beginning November 1, 2005; annual income disclosure by the father was ordered to permit future review.

Source excerpt

• Undue hardship
• Retroactive maintenance
• Child support guidelines
• Paternity
• Disclosure of income

Read case analysis

S.E.R. et al. v. S.J.W. et al.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court denied the grandparents’ bid for sole custody, kept joint custody with the parents, set alternating-week residence, and ordered child support and shared expenses.

• Custody and guardianship
• Access schedule
• Parental fitness and rehabilitation
• Special or extraordinary expenses
• Psychological assessment
• Family-law

Read case analysis