Canada Case Law

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

H.H.L. v. A.C.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the limited interim record and taking a cautious approach, the court imputed income of $80,000 to the claimant and $20,000 to the respondent because of inadequate disclosure, questionable corporate expense deductions and respondent's current unemployment; a straight set‑off child support calculation produced a net payment of $633/month by the claimant; respondent established a prima facie entitlement to interim compensatory/needs spousal support given loss of her share and income disparity, and interim spousal support was set at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines mid range of $836/mon…

Source excerpt

• Guidelines income
• Section 7 expenses
• Imputation of income
• Spousal support entitlement
• Occupancy rent
• Interim orders

Read case analysis

Loehr v. Loehr

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imputed the respondent's 2024 Guideline income at $195,309 and his 2025 income at $180,000 (three-year average), imputed the claimant's Guideline income at $70,000, declined to grant the respondent a retroactive variation to January 1, 2024 or to terminate spousal support as of November 1, 2024, ordered spousal support payable in the SSAG mid-range based on imputed incomes from July 1, 2025 until June 2029, ordered child support to reflect the imputed incomes and the claimant's full-time parenting from February 1, 2024, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Variation/review of support
• Retroactive support
• Spousal support duration
• Parenting time impact

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

Shilo v. Vaisman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On an interim basis, given deficient disclosure and unexplained spending of $250,721.88, the court applied the expense gross‑up method rather than a forensic corporate analysis or reliance on a single year holding company revenue; the respondent's guideline income was imputed to $429,856 per annum, the claimant's guideline income was fixed at $45,000 per annum, and interim spousal support of $4,530/month and child support of $5,085/month were ordered commencing March 1, 2026.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Guideline income
• Corporate income method
• Expense gross-up method
• Shared parenting
• Spousal support advisory guidelines

Read case analysis

A.C.S. v. C.J.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded the GoFundMe donations from the claimant's Guideline income and found the claimant's Guideline income commencing October 1, 2025 to be CAD 32,552 (employment insurance). The court imputed annual income of CAD 175,000 to the respondent (CAD 100,000 employment income and CAD 75,000 dividends) because of inadequate disclosure, inconsistent lifestyle with reported income and evidence of income manipulation; applied the Guidelines and relevant authorities to compute ongoing support of CAD 2,821 per month from October 1, 2025. The review effective date is June 19, 2024; the court…

Source excerpt

• Child support guidelines
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive child support
• Section 7 expenses
• Disclosure obligations
• Review/variation of support order

Read case analysis

Wang v. Cao

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim family law decision imputing income to both parties, awarding child and spousal support, and allocating special expenses pending fuller disclosure.

• Imputation of income
• Interim support
• Guideline income determination
• Section 7 extraordinary expenses
• Property restraints and asset control
• Income-imputation

Read case analysis

Xu v. Yao

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim family-law ruling imputes $200,000 annual income to the respondent, declines to impute income to the claimant, orders private school tuition treated as s. 7 expenses, and grants interim spousal support.

• Imputing income
• Interim spousal support
• Special and extraordinary expenses under s.7
• Gifts from parents
• Credibility and adverse inference
• Private school tuition

Read case analysis

K.D.P.P. v. G.P.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court decided a family law trial on separation, property division, income imputation, child support, s. 7 expenses, parenting, and spousal support.

• Separation date determination
• Excluded property
• Family debt (post-separation debt)
• Imputation of income
• Section 7 special and extraordinary expenses
• Retroactive child support

Read case analysis

Last v. Clayton

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Judge found applicant credible and daughter lived primarily with applicant; line 15000 did not fairly reflect respondent's available income in each year 2020–2024; court adjusted/attributed corporate and other receipts (producing incomes of 198,130 (2020), 123,152 (2021), 166,179 (2022), 142,808 (2023), 114,216 (2024)), concluded respondent engaged in blameworthy nondisclosure and applicant had understandable delay, awarded retroactive child support of $57,245.86 less Maintenance Enforcement Program credits, ordered payment of $40,000 lump sum within 60 days and $400 monthly thereafter, payme…

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Imputation of income
• Shared parenting calculation
• Dbs factors
• Disclosure obligations
• S.16 s.18 s.19 child support guidelines

Read case analysis