Canada Case Law

Volcko v. Volcko

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court found a material change in circumstances (recipient reached OAS eligibility, recipient's compensatory claim is diminishing, payor's income increased substantially and payor's retirement is not imminent) and concluded recipient retains compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement but those claims will predictably diminish by June 30, 2027; accordingly the Court varied the order to continue spousal support at the existing quantum until June 30, 2027, at which date the payor's obligation terminates.

Source excerpt

• Variation of spousal support
• Compensatory support
• Non-compensatory (needs-based) support
• Self-sufficiency
• Termination date for support

Read case analysis

Haagsman v. Haagsman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a father’s application to vary parenting and child support. Ben remained a child of the marriage, shared parenting was not proven, and support was set at $1,661 per month.

• Child of the marriage (withdrawal from charge)
• Shared parenting threshold under s.9 of federal child support guidelines
• Variation of final order
• Retroactive child support
• Onus of proof on applicant
• Child-support

Read case analysis

Richards v. Mader

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court found a material change in circumstances (both parties remarried, respondent eligible for CPP/OAS, and respondent has not made reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency) that diminished the respondent's compensatory entitlement; accordingly the spousal support order was varied to a nominal payment of $1.00 per month for four years (commencing Feb 24, 2023) with termination thereafter unless materially varied; effective date of change for variation is the filing date of the variation application (Aug 23, 2021); the court excluded weight of the applicant-retained expert for lack of demon…

Source excerpt

• Change in circumstances
• Compensatory spousal support
• Self-sufficiency
• Repartnering/remarriage
• Imputation of income
• Expert witness admissibility

Read case analysis

Link v. Lenskyj

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in a parenting relocation dispute. The Court upheld an order allowing the mother to relocate with the child to Australia and found no error in the trial judge’s best-interests analysis.

• Best interests of the child
• Burden of proof in relocation applications
• Interim orders and deference
• Section 16.93 and 16.94 of the divorce act
• Fact finding and palpable and overriding error
• Family-law

Read case analysis

Blacklock v. Tkacz

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

An application under s.17 of the Divorce Act to vary a child support order cannot be brought against a deceased payor's estate to bind the estate when the original order is silent as to binding the estate; absent an express order or agreement, the Divorce Act support obligation ends on the payor's death.

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Support binding on estate
• Motion to change under divorce act s.17
• Family law rules r.16(12)(a)

Read case analysis

Lucas v. Lucas

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The consent CRO's review triggers were met (retirement and income change) and the applicant's retirement was reasonably caused by health and not an impermissible voluntary attempt to avoid obligations, but because the parties' pensions had already been equally divided and continued support would amount to double dipping, the applicant's obligation to pay spousal support was terminated; the respondent must draw on her available pension resources and other available benefits to meet needs.

Source excerpt

• Variation of support
• Retirement and voluntary underemployment
• Material change in circumstances
• Consent order review clause
• Double dipping/pension division
• Entitlement to support

Read case analysis

Doncaster v. Field

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred as a matter of law by failing to consider and give effect to the mandatory maximum contact principle in s.16(10) of the Divorce Act and by treating the children’s wishes as determinative rather than as one factor among the children’s conditions, means, needs and circumstances; accordingly the appeal is allowed and limited access is ordered on terms consistent with maximizing contact as appropriate to the children’s best interests.

Source excerpt

• Voice of the child report
• Best interests of the child
• Maximum contact principle (s.16(10))
• Access orders
• Costs

Read case analysis

McPherson v McPherson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a पति's bid to end spousal support after voluntary retirement, finding no material change and ordering support to continue until the recipient turns 65.

• Material change in circumstances
• Voluntary retirement
• Compensatory support
• Review vs variation
• Inheritance and support
• Spousal-support

Read case analysis

Mohamed v. Martone

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court reviewed child support for an adult child attending university away from home and reduced support to four months per year, applying the Guidelines and the parties’ financial circumstances.

• Adult child support
• Section 3(2) of the federal child support guidelines
• Section 4 of the guidelines (high income payors)
• Section 7 special and extraordinary expenses
• Resp and trust funding
• Review versus variation

Read case analysis

T.N. v. B.N.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the claimant still entitled to compensatory spousal support, but reduced support to the low SSAG range, with retroactive relief offset by prior overpayments.

• Retroactive spousal support
• Spousal support advisory guidelines (ssag)
• Overpayment credit
• Reapportionment of assets
• Compensatory support
• Self-sufficiency

Read case analysis