Canada Case Law

MacKay v. MacKay

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Although the appellant succeeded on individual points (reduced the retroactivity period to March 13, 2023; ordered 50% of Jetta fuel costs added to Guidelines income; limited her liability for parenting coordinator retainer to $5,000 on behalf of both parties), her overall success on the appeal was limited and divided; therefore, under s.44 and established jurisprudence on substantial success, each party must bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Federal child support guidelines
• Guidelines income (add-backs)
• Parenting coordinator costs
• Entitlement to costs and substantial success

Read case analysis

Yee v. Yee

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to impute $250,000 income to Mr. Yee, accepted his reduced earnings and new business efforts, and adjusted support under the parties’ agreement.

• Child support
• Spousal support
• Imputation of income
• Variation of support
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Spousal support advisory guidelines

Read case analysis

S.K.W. v. C.M.W.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Post-trial family law applications largely failed, but the court granted limited variational relief, including C1 parenting changes, support adjustments, and costs to the father.

• S.7 expenses
• Federal child support guidelines
• Guideline income
• Parenting coordinator
• Equalization payments
• Ceba loan repayment

Read case analysis

L.E.S. v. C.A.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Summary trial in a family law dispute resolving parenting, child support, property division, disclosure, pension equalization, and divorce.

• Parenting time
• Shared parenting schedule
• Decision-making authority
• Holiday parenting schedule
• Federal child support guidelines
• Retroactive child support

Read case analysis

N.C.M. v. S.H.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imputed the mother's Guideline income, ordered retroactive child support from December 1, 2021, and varied spousal support to end on December 31, 2024.

• Federal child support guidelines
• Retroactive child support
• Imputation of income
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Family law act ss.160-162
• Child-support

Read case analysis

Hildebrand v. Hildebrand

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held an interim without prejudice support order had to be analyzed under Divorce Act variation principles, but upheld most of the chambers relief.

• Retroactive variation
• Interim without prejudice orders
• Arrears rescission
• Family maintenance enforcement
• Federal child support guidelines
• S.17 divorce act

Read case analysis

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

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court denied exclusive occupancy of the family home, set interim child and spousal support, imputed income to both parties, and ordered a $100,000 litigation advance.

• Exclusive occupancy
• Imputation of income
• Interim distribution of family property
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Family law act s.89
• Family law act s.90

Read case analysis

Chandler v. Chandler

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed in part. The Court upheld the 2020–2022 income findings for child and spousal support, but set aside the prospective 2023 income determination.

• Federal child support guidelines
• Section 16 vs section 18 income determination
• Imputation of income
• Personal services corporation
• Partnership income
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Popein v. Popein

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

British Columbia Supreme Court family judgment on child support, property division, spousal support, and divorce between Terri Lynn Popein and Lawrence Thomas Popein.

• Federal child support guidelines
• Section 7 expenses
• Income imputation
• Significant unfairness under fla s.95
• Excluded property
• Post-separation contributions

Read case analysis

T.M.V.D.L. v. P.A.M.T.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered the child to primarily reside with the Claimant, set aside the parenting-time portions of the parties’ agreement, and allowed supervised contact for the Respondent.

• Primary residence
• Parenting time
• Best interests of the child
• S.211 views of the child report
• Supervised access
• Parenting agreement variation

Read case analysis