Canada Case Law

MacNeil v. Yeadon

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The judge found Mr. MacNeil failed to provide timely and meaningful financial disclosure, which constituted a change of circumstances and blameworthy conduct that prevented a fully informed agreement; applying s.9 of the Guidelines and Contino principles, the court imputed reasonable incomes to the respondent and to Dr. Harding for illustration, used set-off and economies of scale calculations, determined Mr. MacNeil underpaid child support for defined periods, and ordered specific retroactive and prospective increases (including a prospective $7,061/month from January 2021) while maintaining…

Source excerpt

• Section 9 federal child support guidelines
• Change of circumstances
• Set-off calculation
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive support
• Shared parenting

Read case analysis

Kreke v. Alansari

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal in a family law dispute over relocation, custody and spousal support. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge’s orders, finding no reviewable error.

• Mobility/relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Imputed income
• Fresh evidence
• Mootness
• Appellate deference

Read case analysis

Bailey v. Lenihan

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The judge exercised discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and, having regard to the duration of the hearing and the long history of related proceedings and unresolved parenting issues, found Mr. Lenihan was not successful on his substantive relief and therefore costs should be considered in the cause and reserved to be assessed at the final hearing.

Source excerpt

• Costs in the cause
• Emergency motion
• Parenting time
• Variation
• Enforcement

Read case analysis

A.M. v. K.W.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge applied correct legal principles, made factual findings on credibility, communication and cooperation that were supported by the record and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; shared parenting was not in the children's best interests on the evidence; the unjust enrichment remedy properly considered mutual benefits and did not require division of the respondent's pension/RRSP/TFSA; and the costs award was a lawful exercise of discretion given the parties' relative success and settlement history.

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Parenting plan
• Joint custody
• Shared parenting
• Maximum contact principle
• Unjust enrichment remedy

Read case analysis

Bradley v. White

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Primary residence and sole custody were awarded to the mother because she is better placed to provide day-to-day care and continuity, the father’s frequent absences and unreliable evidence undermined his claim of primary care, the father’s variation claim and retroactive claim were dismissed, prospective child support was set based on verified incomes and simplified tables, retroactive support to the mother was dated to January 2015 because the father increased income and failed to disclose and adjust support as ordered, and arrears were quantified and ordered payable by a deadline.

Source excerpt

• Variation of child support order
• Retroactive child support
• Parenting time and primary residence
• Credibility assessment
• Enforcement of maintenance

Read case analysis

Turkan v. Bennett

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Directions hearing in a family law dispute: the court set disclosure, questionnaire, and affidavit deadlines before a further hearing on contempt, travel documents, and child support.

• Federal child support guidelines
• Section 7 expenses
• Travel documents
• Parenting time
• Contempt for non-compliance
• Financial disclosure

Read case analysis

M.N. v. A.N.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court granted the divorce and name change, found M.N. to be the primary caregiver and rejected continuation of shared custody because of lack of cooperation; classified multiple listed properties held in both names as matrimonial assets (with certain company-held development assets classified as business assets); compensated M.N. under s.18 by quantifying her contribution as 21% of the companies' business assets ($176,127) and offsetting that against the property equity disparity; imputed A.N.'s income at $198,241.28 for child support based on salary plus corporate and rental income, orde…

Source excerpt

• Divorce
• Custody and parenting time
• Classification of business assets vs matrimonial assets
• Section 18 contribution claim
• Imputation of income for child support
• Property division and offsets

Read case analysis

E.L.(W.) v. E.L.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Given prolonged, entrenched animosity and repeated inability of the parties to communicate or cooperate, the children’s best interests are served by granting primary residence and custody to the father (Respondent) with final decision‑making authority for health, education and religion while preserving regular contact for the mother under a structured parenting schedule that recognizes the father’s significant family support and the settled status quo; the mother’s applications for primary care and unrestricted medical authority were denied due to credibility concerns and risk of ongoing conf…

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Shared parenting
• Parallel parenting
• Decision‑making authority
• Credibility findings
• Medical decision making

Read case analysis

Demers v. Shaver

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court made interim child-related expense orders, required updated financial disclosure, and adjourned retroactive support and severance-pay issues pending further information.

• Retroactive child support
• Severance pay as available income
• Special/extraordinary expenses
• Orthodontic treatment cost sharing
• Tutoring expense
• Cell phone expense

Read case analysis

Koerner v. Prindiville

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Effective notice occurred in February 2017 when applicant first requested financial contribution; applicable Guidelines require use of table amounts but permit reduction for hardship and conduct; given shared blame, the child's needs, parties' incomes and hardship, respondent must pay prospective table support of $370 monthly and a reduced retroactive award of $2,000 payable at $100/month for 20 months, and s.7 expenses allocated 45% applicant/55% respondent.

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Section 7 special expenses
• Child support guidelines
• Effective notice
• Costs

Read case analysis