Canada Case Law

Barnhart v. Murphy

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The child was found to have been exposed to family violence in the mother's home and the mother has not demonstrated adequate protective measures; under the best-interests framework of s.16 of the Divorce Act the court must prioritize the child's safety and therefore imposed interim modifications to the parenting schedule and safeguards (daytime block contact, specified schedule, exclusion of the alleged abuser, supervision/attendance requirements and geographic restriction) pending the scheduled variation hearing.

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Interim parenting order
• Variation application
• Family violence
• Custody and access
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

Rice v. Rice

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and denied the motion for fresh evidence because the proposed evidence failed the Palmer criteria (lack of due diligence, irrelevance, inadmissibility and inability to affect the outcome); the hearing judge correctly applied s.16(3) of the Divorce Act, her factual findings were supported by the record, and no reviewable error was shown to displace the high appellate deference owed in custody decisions.

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Fresh evidence (palmer test)
• Affidavit admissibility and hearsay
• Exhibit books and document proof
• Parenting time and decision‑making authority
• Withholding of children

Read case analysis

Morellato v. Morellato

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Applicant established a material change in circumstances (illness and reduced ability to work leading to sale of business); spousal support should not be terminated but reduced to the mid‑SSAG range and fixed for a term. Court set imputed incomes at $97,000 (applicant) and $50,000 (respondent), fixed duration 15 years from separation ending May 2029, calculated periodic support at $1,234/month and ordered the remaining support for the fixed term paid as a lump sum of $46,892 payable within one month.

Source excerpt

• Variation
• Material change in circumstances
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Lump sum spousal support
• Compensatory support
• Non-compensatory support

Read case analysis

Zigich v. Zigich

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The review is de novo; the parties qualify for shared parenting under s.9; the respondent was found under-employed and his Guidelines income was imputed at $75,000; the claimant's Guidelines income is fixed at $37,547 for 2024 and $66,320 for 2025; support is set on a set-off/shared basis with specified monthly amounts and arrears calculated; claimant entitled to reimbursement for childcare and dance expenses but must provide receipts; respondent's application to cancel FMEA default fee and statutory interest and to remove attachments was dismissed; FMEA must recalculate statutory interest an…

Source excerpt

• Imputation of income
• Shared parenting (s.9 guidelines)
• Section 17 variation
• Section 7 expenses
• Fmea default fees and statutory interest
• Set-off of support amounts

Read case analysis

S.K.R. v. K.S.D.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances; the Daum Report is an impermissible attempt to revisit a prior judicial income determination and the child's temporary residence and post‑secondary attendance were foreseeable and non‑continuing; therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction to vary the June 25, 2021 order, the variation application is dismissed, the interim suspension is set aside, and the existing child support order remains enforceable.

Source excerpt

• Variation of child support
• Material change in circumstances
• Imputed income under guidelines
• Section 7 extraordinary expenses
• Post‑majority support
• Arrears and rescission

Read case analysis

Crosby v. Crosby (Westhaver)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court found a non‑temporary material change in circumstances caused by the applicant's 2023 employment termination and concluded the applicant is intentionally unemployed without reasonable excuse; exercising discretion and considering earning capacity, assets, needs and SSAG/tax effects, the Court imputed annual income of $400,000 to the applicant and reduced spousal support to $7,500 per month effective October 1, 2023; underpayments from Feb 1, 2022 to Sep 30, 2023 and overpayments since Oct 1, 2023 were identified and left for calculation between the parties.

Source excerpt

• Material change in circumstances
• Intentional unemployment
• Income imputation
• Ssag analysis
• Underpayment and overpayment of support
• Variation orders objectives

Read case analysis

B.L.A.K. v. T.M.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court varied child support under the Divorce Act, ended support for K in December 2021, ordered direct support for L, and reallocated special expenses and parenting-time logistics.

• Retroactive variation
• Child of the marriage
• Guideline income calculation
• Allocation of special and extraordinary expenses
• Direct payment to child
• Insurance access

Read case analysis

Skraban v. Skraban

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application to vary child support and section 7 expenses. The court upheld per-child section 7 payments, found Noah and Emily ceased to be children of the marriage at different times, and imputed income to the respondent.

• Section 7 expenses
• Imputation of income
• Children of the marriage
• Retroactive child support
• Financial disclosure
• Child-support

Read case analysis

C.P. v. S.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Cross applications to vary parenting and support orders were mostly dismissed; the court kept the shared parenting regime, fined C.P. for wrongful denial of parenting time, and retained the bond.

• Variation of final orders
• Wrongful denial of parenting time
• Imputation of income
• Parenting coordinator
• Children's counselling and decision-making
• Contempt and sanctions

Read case analysis

Draheim v. Draheim

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court varied a 2019 consent order so two children would reside primarily with their father, ordered shared parenting responsibilities, and imposed disclosure sanctions on the father.

• Variation of parenting orders
• Views of the child (s.211)
• Parental responsibilities (s.41)
• Financial disclosure and enforcement
• Conduct orders
• Costs and special costs

Read case analysis