Canada Case Law

Hansen v. Hansen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the evidence and given the respondent's incomplete financial disclosure, the court imputed a 2022 and 2023 non-taxable income of $138,901 (grossed up to $196,977) to the respondent for support purposes; the court declared primary residence periods for K1 and K2 (K1 with respondent from July 2022 onward; K2 with claimant until December 2023 and with respondent from January 2024 onward); ordered retroactive child support adjustments (respondent owes net $4,800.74 for July–December 2022 and the parties' 2023 support offset is $15,830.15, with parties to set off actual payments against these a…

Source excerpt

• Variation of separation agreement
• Setting aside contractual spousal support
• Income imputation
• Financial disclosure and adverse inferences
• Primary residence/parenting time
• Suspension of enforcement of support

Read case analysis

S.L.D. v. W.A.D.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to enter a consent order that fixed child support and capped section 7 expenses, but upheld the spousal support lump sum and parenting terms.

• Variation of orders (s.17 da, s.47 fla)
• Consent orders/entry of settlement
• Reasonable arrangements for child support (s.17 da)
• Section 7 expenses
• Lump sum spousal support
• Unconscionability in domestic contracts

Read case analysis

Vale v. Vale

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was allowed in part: the motion judge correctly recalculated and quantified child support and arrears and had jurisdiction to make orders reflecting the child’s residence, but erred in converting an interim indication about residence/access into a final order without affording procedural fairness; costs were reduced by $2,000 and appellate costs awarded to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Child residence
• Child support guidelines
• Arrears
• Health insurance reimbursement
• Interim vs final orders
• Jurisdiction to vary parenting time

Read case analysis

S.K. v. G.R.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to vary a consent order to make private school tuition a shared child-support expense, but ordered limited corporate disclosure and granted anonymity for the child.

• Variation of consent orders
• Material change of circumstances
• Extraordinary expenses (s.7)
• Document production under guidelines (ss.21 and 25)
• Use of pseudonyms / anonymity for child
• Family-law

Read case analysis

Matthews v. Dobson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The documentary record and consistent drafts demonstrated the parties negotiated a five-year term for spousal support; the CRO's payment schedule misstated the termination year by a clerical or mathematical error. Under Civil Procedure Rule 78.08 the CRO is rectified to reflect termination of spousal support on December 15, 2015. The applicant succeeds and is entitled to costs of $7,250 inclusive, payable within 120 days.

Source excerpt

• Spousal support
• Rectification / slip rule
• Corollary relief order
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

Ward v. Ward

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judges order and declared the November 30, 2005 MOA a valid and binding domestic contract because the evidence did not establish significant non-disclosure or lack of understanding under s.56(4), the MOA contained essential terms and the parties conduct and preamble evidenced an intention to be bound notwithstanding later drafting of a formal separation agreement.

Source excerpt

• Validity of memorandum of agreement
• Non-disclosure under family law act s.56(4)
• Enforceability of settlement agreements
• Spousal and child support variation
• Collaborative family law process

Read case analysis

Santoro v. Santoro

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court varied a 1994 consent order for spousal support after finding a material and unforeseeable change in the applicant’s health and circumstances.

• Spousal support
• Variation of court order
• Separation agreement weight (miglin)
• Property division
• Consent order enforcement
• Spousal-support

Read case analysis

B.A.B. v. S.S.B.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the separation agreement on property division, but awarded the plaintiff a lump sum spousal support payment of $17,500.

• Separation agreement
• Pre-nuptial agreement
• Family relations act s.65
• Divorce act s.15.2
• Miglin test
• Hartshorne

Read case analysis

Horner v. Horner

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge’s spousal support quantum was clearly wrong because it was based on an understated income and did not reflect the applicant’s reasonable needs and contribution; the appellate court increased spousal support to $2,445/month effective from the month after the support request (May 1, 2001) but refused to set aside the time-limited nature of the agreement or to make spousal support retroactive beyond that date; with respect to child support the court found the trial judge erred by not considering retroactivity criteria, held the child’s interests requ…

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Variation of support orders
• Time-limited spousal support
• Financial disclosure
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Child support guidelines

Read case analysis

Sydor v. Sydor

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal held that reconciliation ordinarily voids a separation agreement, but specific property dispositions in a separation agreement can survive reconciliation if the parties evidenced an intention that those dispositions be final; the trial judge erred in treating a general release clause as sufficient to preserve the entire agreement, but was entitled to find that the specific Edgemore transfer and payment were intended to be final and thus excluded from equalization. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to calculate an equalization payment based on the parties' agre…

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Reconciliation
• Equalization of net family property
• Net family property statement
• Effect of domestic contract on family law act claims

Read case analysis