Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law 2026 BCSC 878

M.Y.G. v. G.K.F.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court corrected the clerical error in the entered Chan Order to restore the intended mechanism of a $125/month equalization payment with annual accounting (not a cap); it applied the 2021 Settlement Agreement and s.7 principles to hold specific items (soccer, guitar, physiotherapy, medical expenses and recommended tutoring) as extraordinary expenses, ordered the respondent to pay his 50% share of past shortfall ($1,111.47) and half of orthodontic cost ($2,500) based on demonstrated need, set new monthly extraordinary equalization at $150 commencing July 15, 2026, imposed monetary sanction…

Source excerpt

  • Section 7 extraordinary expenses
  • Child support set-off
  • Disclosure obligations
  • Fines and enforcement under the family law act
  • Communications protocols (our family wizard)
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 201

Faria v. Ramos

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the interests of justice did not favour granting leave: the order was an interim, highly discretionary 'rough justice' decision based on incomplete and contested disclosure, the proposed grounds were fact-specific and not sufficiently exceptional to justify appellate interference, and granting leave would unduly hinder progress of the underlying action.

Source excerpt

  • Imputation of income
  • Leave to appeal interim family orders
  • Primary caregiver determination
  • Interim child and spousal support
  • Closely held corporation income
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 135

Ferguson v. MacDougall

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Material change found: JNM's expressed wishes and increased time with father justified changing primary care to Respondent; approximately 34% of Applicant's 60% share of Arbour Dental Inc.'s pre‑tax net income (additional $30,435) was properly attributed to Applicant because business growth lacked convincing evidence that funds were required for legitimate retained business needs; retroactive support limited to effective notice date April 1, 2024 through December 1, 2024 (9 months) at set‑off table amount $705/month (total $6,345) payable by Respondent within 90 days; no variation of special…

Source excerpt

  • Variation of parenting order
  • Best interests of the child
  • Attribution of corporate income
  • Retroactive child support
  • Extraordinary/special expenses
  • Voice of the child
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 147

Hill v. Richards

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court retained a shared parenting regime because it is in the child's best interests given comparative evidence; imputed incomes ($25,000 for Mr. Hill from 2024, lower amounts earlier; specified incomes for Ms. Richards) justified a set-off calculation leading to prospective monthly set-off child support of $433 payable by Ms. Richards; retroactive child support was awarded based on set-off calculations and credits totaling $23,562 payable by June 15, 2026; limited spousal support $200/month for 24 months awarded to Mr. Hill based on relationship interdependence, his compromised earning c…

Source excerpt

  • Shared parenting
  • Joint family venture
  • Retroactive child support
  • Imputation of income
  • Set-off calculation
  • Maintenance enforcement
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 123

AL v. MW

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On balance of probabilities the court found AL credible and MW's allegations of sexual abuse and coercive control unproven; the child's best interests support shared parenting under AL's proposed eight‑day rotation with specific modifications; prospective child support set by shared‑custody set‑off to $475/month from April 1, 2026 and prospective s.7 expenses apportioned 63% AL/37% MW; retroactive table child support for Sep 2021–Aug 2022 was declined due to demonstrated burdens AL incurred to exercise parenting time, but AL was ordered to pay $31,536 by periodic payments of $350/month in add…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting arrangements
  • Best interests of the child
  • Retroactive child support
  • Section 7 special expenses
  • Coercive control
  • Alleged sexual assault
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 134

AD v. ZS

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Divorce granted. Shared parenting was denied due to ZS's minimal and inconsistent involvement; the court ordered supervised reintroduction via a Veith House program with a phased schedule and retained AD as primary caregiver. On child support the court found ZS intentionally under-employed and that his tax filings underreported income; arrears were calculated and set, ZS was credited $2,750 from sale proceeds, and ongoing support was set based on imputed income of $70,450 at $593.87/month from Jan 1, 2026 with s.7 expenses to be shared proportionally. On property, exceptional circumstances (c…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting arrangement
  • Imputation of income
  • Section 7 expenses
  • Unequal division of matrimonial property
  • Supervised access (veith house)
  • Third party information order
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 760

M.A.L. v. V.G.A.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

On credibility and best interests grounds the mother's evidence was preferred, the father was found not fully credible and responsible for escalatory conduct including a family violence incident (June 17, 2022); joint guardianship retained but the mother granted final decision-making for education and health; parenting time ordered on a 14-day rotation giving mother 9 nights and father 5 nights (approx 60/40) with specified summer and holiday arrangements; respondent's property and disclosure claims regarding Indian land and bank/mutual funds were dismissed for lack of reliable evidence; resp…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting time
  • Guardianship
  • Decision-making authority
  • Section 7 expenses
  • Family violence
  • Conduct orders
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 763

J.M.W. v. B.R.P.W.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court lacked jurisdiction under the Milman review clause and s.168 FLA to extend the duration of spousal support established at trial; the claimant failed to adduce admissible expert medical evidence to displace the imputed $30,000 income and therefore her imputed income remains; however, the respondent's substantial increase in gross (and tax-exempt) income and provision of rent-free housing constituted a material change of circumstances and nondisclosure that justified varying the quantum of child and spousal support, grossing up tax-exempt income under the Federal Guidelines and making…

Source excerpt

  • Variation and review of support orders
  • Retroactive support
  • Income gross-up for tax-exempt income
  • Imputation of income
  • Disclosure/non-disclosure
  • Admissibility of expert medical evidence
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 907

Den Duyf v. Den Duyf

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court declined to grant retroactive child support or otherwise reopen its final reasons, holding that its earlier order is final and any lacuna in those reasons is for the Court of Appeal to address; the application to vary the parenting schedule was dismissed because the court found the harm from significant parental conflict outweighed the harm from longer intervals between parental time and the change sought was not sufficiently shown to be in the child's best interests.

Source excerpt

  • Parenting time variation
  • Retroactive child support
  • Finality of judgments
  • Jurisdiction to reopen orders
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 105

Byrne v. Carlow-Byrne

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

22 Empire Loop is matrimonial property and the statutory presumption of equal division applies. The respondent's prior ownership, sole title, sole payment of mortgage/taxes/insurance, and prior division in an earlier divorce did not constitute the convincing evidence required under s.13 to justify an unequal division. Applicant's documented financial and non-financial contributions supported an equal split. Accordingly net sale proceeds are to be divided equally; no retroactive child support awarded; prospective child support set on current income of $95,533 at $814/month commencing March 1,…

Source excerpt

  • Unequal division under s.13
  • Matrimonial home
  • Retroactive and prospective child support
  • Administrative recalculation of support
  • Personal property claim
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.