Canada Case Law

Tanner v Arbuckle

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Award of lump sum costs of $55,540 (80% of reduced legal fees of $69,425) because the applicant was successful in all significant respects, the pre‑trial offer to settle aligned with the outcome and was properly considered, the court removed 15% of billed fees for unrelated work, respondent's claims of impecuniosity and child‑harm were unsupported, and alleged billing issues did not justify a larger reduction.

Source excerpt

• Costs award/quantum
• Offers to settle
• Decision‑making responsibility
• Mobility
• Impecuniosity
• Billing disputes

Read case analysis

I.A.M.M. v. H.F.S.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On costs after a family trial, the Court found the claimant substantially successful and awarded costs at Scale B, payable monthly over 24 months.

• Divorce
• Parenting arrangements
• Travel authorization
• Income imputation
• Child support and s.7 expenses
• Spousal support

Read case analysis

M.A.J. v. M.E.J.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law trial on divorce, parenting, support, and property division. The Court found family violence, fixed support incomes, ordered lump sum spousal support, and divided property largely equally.

• Parenting time
• Parental responsibilities
• Income imputation
• Lump sum spousal support
• Retroactive support
• Section 7 expenses

Read case analysis

Dirks v. Dirks

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court varied a separation agreement, imputed income to the respondent, found shared parenting from April 2020, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

• Variation of separation agreement
• Retroactive child support
• Imputation of income
• Shared parenting/time
• Undue hardship
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

Bogdanic v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a divorce, denied the respondent parenting time, fixed support arrears, vested remaining assets in the claimant, and awarded special costs.

• Sole decision-making and guardianship
• Parenting time and no-contact orders
• Imputation of income and support arrears
• Section 7 expenses allocation
• Asset dissipation and unequal division
• Failure of disclosure and contempt

Read case analysis

Vanderstelt v. Musselman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court declined retroactive private school contributions, set guideline incomes for 2021–2024, reallocated s. 7 expenses proportionately, and kept shared parenting responsibilities.

• S.7 expenses
• Retroactive child support
• Imputed income
• Extended health benefits access
• Private school expenses
• Parenting responsibilities

Read case analysis

d’Entremont v. d’Entremont

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The recording was admitted because the child, not the mother, made it and the probative value in the exceptional circumstances outweighed policy reasons against surreptitious recordings; the father’s undue hardship claim under s.10 of the Child Support Guidelines was denied for failure to provide sufficient financial disclosure, confirmation of travel expenses, and standard of living analysis; primary care awarded to the mother with parenting time for the father supported and at the mother’s discretion because the father’s mental health issues are significant, treatment is recent and inadequa…

Source excerpt

• Surreptitious recording admissibility
• Undue hardship under child support guidelines s.10
• Supported/supervised parenting time
• Best interests of the child
• Treatment evidence for mental health

Read case analysis

L.C.H. v. L.J.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On interim family-law applications, the court appointed a s. 211 assessor, continued counselling for the child, enforced parenting-coordination orders, and ordered compensatory parenting time.

• Section 211 assessment
• Parenting coordination
• Counselling for child
• Denial of parenting time
• Child support guidelines
• Contempt and enforcement sanctions

Read case analysis

NF v. JF

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On a balance of probabilities the court found NF should have primary care and sole decision-making for CF, JF bears the onus to disprove relocation because CF spends the vast majority of time with NF, statutory notice of relocation was not strictly complied with but was waived due to effective notice and risk of family violence, and relocation to California (or other continental US postings of NF's partner) was authorized. The court fashioned a specific block visitation schedule and ordered that, in lieu of monthly table child support, JF share CF's transportation expenses as specified. Each…

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Relocation/mobility
• Parenting time
• Sole decision-making
• Burden of proof
• Notice requirements

Read case analysis

KB v AT

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The mother was the more successful party because she prevailed on the central issue of family violence and obtained sole decision-making, supervision and counselling orders; given the three-day trial, eight witnesses and moderate complexity the court awarded Tariff A scale 2 (basic scale) totaling $10,000 (base $4,000 plus $2,000 per trial day). The requested 25% increase was refused because the settlement offer did not mirror the decision, the father had partial success and participated in settlement, costs are not meant to resolve maintenance enforcement, and the father's asserted financial…

Source excerpt

• Costs awards
• Impecuniosity
• Tariff assessment
• Counselling orders
• Supervised parenting

Read case analysis