Canada Case Law

Zeggelaar v Zeggelaar

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court accepted reported business income (using 2022 as baseline given age and progressive arthritis), added back CCA and disallowed 50% of motor vehicle expenses, found inadequate disclosure and imputed unreported cash equal to 25% of reported receipted income for 2021–2022 (lower values for 2023–2024), applied gross‑up for tax, calculated adjusted incomes, awarded retroactive table and Section 7 child support netting credits totalling $19,993 for March 1, 2021–January 31, 2024, ordered prospective table child support $1,763/month for two children from Feb 1, 2024, allocated Section 7 expense…

Source excerpt

• Imputing income under child support guidelines
• Section 7 special expenses
• Retroactive child and spousal support
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Cca and business expense adjustments

Read case analysis

T.M.H. v. P.J.H.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

High-conflict family case: the claimant received sole custody, all parental responsibilities, child support and retroactive support, while the respondent’s parenting time was restricted and supervised.

• Sole custody and parental responsibilities
• Parenting time and supervised visits
• Imputing income under child support guidelines
• Retroactive child support and section 7 expenses
• Section 211 report
• Misuse of court process and s.221 leave

Read case analysis

J.K.S. v. H.G.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family-law trial on asset division, child support and spousal support. The court treated the spouses’ orthodontic practice interests as family assets, but excluded a premarital rental property.

• Division of family assets
• Imputing income under child support guidelines
• Spousal maintenance quantum and duration
• Valuation and apportionment of business interests
• Treatment of premarital property
• Matrimonial home sale timing

Read case analysis

Vermeulen v. Vermeulen

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed with respect to the $10,000 lump sum because the trial judge misapprehended the facts and no immediate need or specifics justified a lump sum; appeal dismissed on imputing income and periodic spousal support because imputation of $30,000 was reasonable under s.19 given historical draws and benefits from the farm and the periodic spousal support quantum and credit against it were supported by the unchallenged financial information and trial judge's findings.

Source excerpt

• Lump sum spousal support
• Imputing income under child support guidelines
• Variation of support orders
• Custody and access
• Asset valuation

Read case analysis