Canada Case Law

Wright v. Nunn

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found no material change of circumstances warranting retroactive variation to the date of the 2012 Consent Order because the payor knew of his knee injuries when he signed the Consent Order, income had been imputed at $26,500 in that Consent Order and the payor failed to prove he was reasonably unable to work from October 2012 onwards. The court did find a material change from December 15, 2015 (due to back and musculoskeletal conditions) and varied the Consent Order prospectively: child maintenance set at $0 from December 15, 2015, subject to conditions (reasonable job-seeking, dis…

Source excerpt

• Variation of child maintenance
• Retroactive variation
• S.7 special or extraordinary expenses
• Imputed income
• Administrative recalculation of child support program
• Medical coverage for dependent

Read case analysis

R.A.B. v. C.W.R.

Court

Nova Scotia Family Court

In a shared parenting arrangement the court applies s.9 of the Guidelines as self-contained authority; it may impute income where a parent is reasonably under‑employed; child support is calculated by applying table amounts to each parent and setting off obligations to yield a net monthly payment; retroactive support is appropriate from date of effective notice (here separation) and s.7 extraordinary expenses are to be shared proportionally to incomes; applying these principles produced a net monthly payment of $333.51 from respondent to applicant and 18 months retroactive arrears.

Source excerpt

• Imputing income
• Undue hardship in shared parenting
• Retroactive child support
• Section 9 analysis
• Section 7 extraordinary expenses
• Set-off calculation

Read case analysis

A.W.M. v. B.V.B.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On an interim basis the child's best interests required maintaining the mother as primary caregiver for stability while expanding the father's unsupervised access because the child had formed a sufficient bond with him; child maintenance is payable by the father based on his assessed income using the simplified tables and specific interim payment amounts and reporting requirements are warranted.

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Supervised vs unsupervised access
• Paternity testing
• Maintenance calculation
• Best interests of the child
• Parental mental health and substance use

Read case analysis

Robichaud v. MacKay

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applicant proved a material change in circumstances: the respondent repeatedly failed to treat applicant as joint custodial parent, restricted parenting time, excluded her from events, provided misleading information, and undermined cooperation; given those facts and the best interests analysis (including cultural, familial supports, and respondent’s unwillingness to foster the mother–child relationship), joint custody is retained but primary residence is changed to the applicant and she is granted final decision-making authority for major issues; child maintenance of $170/month is ordered ba…

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Change in circumstances
• Joint custody
• Parenting time / access
• Child support

Read case analysis

J.L.T. v. K.L.H.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to end child support for two adult children, finding both remained children of the marriage and requiring continued payments with conditions.

• Cessation of child support
• Child of the marriage
• Majority children
• Views of the child
• Disclosure of educational records
• Farden factors

Read case analysis

Joynt v. Darby

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court declined to impute substantially higher income to a self-employed father, refused retroactive child support, and ordered proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.

• Imputation of income
• Section 7 expenses
• Retroactive child support
• Costs
• Imputation-of-income
• Section-7-expenses

Read case analysis

Parnell v. Hubley-Parnell

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Apply the Child Maintenance Guidelines: fix parties' incomes (applicant $29,745 for 2011 and $27,500 for 2012; impute respondent $19,000 annually), classify which claimed expenses meet s.7(1) necessity and reasonableness and s.7(1A) extraordinary tests, calculate net after-tax/net-of-subsidy costs, and apportion share proportionately under s.7(2); resulting determinations produced specified arrears and a revised ongoing monthly payment as ordered by the court.

Source excerpt

• Variation of child maintenance order
• Imputation of income
• Extraordinary/special expenses under guidelines
• Proportionate sharing of expenses
• Health and dental insurance contribution
• Calculation of tax credits and net cost

Read case analysis

Grandy v. Grandy

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with one-week alternating periods and a nesting order under Matrimonial Property Act s.11(4)(b) because maintaining the children's status quo and minimizing disruption served their best interests; exclusive occupation could not be ordered under the Maintenance and Custody Act absent a spousal maintenance order; the home would remain the children's primary residence while parents alternate exclusive occupation weekly, with specified safeguards and directions for assessment and financial disclosure.

Source excerpt

• Interim custody
• Shared parenting
• Nesting order
• Exclusive occupation
• Maintenance orders
• Child support guidelines

Read case analysis

Poehlke v. Poehlke

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted retroactive child support from October 1, 2008 to April 1, 2011, maintained ongoing support at $750 monthly, and ordered contributions to EP’s post-secondary expenses.

• Retroactive child support
• Effective notice
• Consent orders
• Extraordinary expenses
• Adult dependent with disability
• Life insurance for support

Read case analysis

Smith v. Wilkins

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Shared parenting denied because parents lack cooperation and consistent parenting; primary care awarded to mother; mother permitted to relocate with child to Montreal because remaining with primary caregiver outweighed disruption and loss of paternal contact; father’s income imputed to $30,000/year as under-employment not justified, producing guideline maintenance of $268/month which was reduced to $0 after finding access travel costs would cause undue hardship; retroactive maintenance denied.

Source excerpt

• Shared parenting
• Primary care
• Mobility application
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive maintenance
• Access schedule

Read case analysis