Canada Case Law

Kohut v. Yagelniski

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The appeal is dismissed: the arbitrator acted within the scope of the parties' agreed last best offer process and did not exceed authority; because parties agreed no reasons would be provided and limited the arbitrator to selecting one complete offer, the court cannot infer or substitute findings to establish substantive legal error; DYD was a party to the arbitration; spreadsheets submitted did not introduce new evidence or cause material unfairness; clauses precluding child support review are unenforceable but severable and do not invalidate the award; costs awarded to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Last best offer arbitration
• Family relations act reapportionment
• Family law act arbitration review
• Child support variation
• Spousal support entitlement
• Procedural fairness/natural justice

Read case analysis

Townley v. Townley

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found no binding support agreement or waiver, but held the child’s residence change justified retroactive variation. It ordered offset child arrears and stepped-down spousal support.

• Child support variation
• Spousal support variation
• Retroactive variation
• Waiver and promissory estoppel
• Material change in circumstances
• Floors to ceilings exception

Read case analysis

Green v. Green

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court refused to dismiss the applicant's applications for procedural irregularities because there was no prejudice and proceeded to hear the matter despite the respondent's absence and persistent nondisclosure; given the respondent's blameworthy failure to disclose, the court accepted employer‑provided income evidence and imputed/incremented income for 2025, awarded retroactive table child support of $4,482.96 (payable within 30 days), ordered the respondent to pay $7,747 in outstanding clause 8 s.7 expenses, ordered the respondent to pay $9,818 as his share of the eldest child's 2025–202…

Source excerpt

• Child support variation
• Retroactive support
• Section 7 expenses
• Disclosure non-compliance
• Service issues
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

R.H. v L.N

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the mother wrongfully denied the father's parenting time beginning January 11, 2025; the mother failed to establish a reasonable belief in family violence or other lawful defence under s.40(3); the child's estrangement was primarily caused by the mother's manipulation (with contribution from chronic high conflict, the father's presentation when upset, and the child's developmental stage); interim variation to grant primary care to the mother was denied because it is contrary to the child's best interests; tailored enforcement and therapeuti…

Source excerpt

• Parenting time enforcement
• Variation of parenting order
• Parental alienation/manipulation
• Parental capacity assessment
• Reunification counselling
• Supervised parenting time

Read case analysis

Cho v. Jo

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the Korean condominium was not family property, divided the disclosed Canadian assets equally, kept support based on prior guideline incomes, and dismissed the child support variation.

• Family property identification
• Division of matrimonial assets
• Spousal support imputation
• Child support variation
• Asset disclosure and adverse inference
• Section 91 restraint

Read case analysis

Illingworth v. MacIntyre

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Award costs to Respondent MacIntyre in a lump sum of $6,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements because tariffs were inappropriate given mixed outcomes and the character of the proceedings; the need for litigation was substantially driven by Petitioner's rigid conduct and refusal to accept legal principles; the amount reflects the governing rules and precedents and justice between the parties.

Source excerpt

• Costs assessment
• Tariff vs lump sum
• Child support variation
• Party conduct
• Settlement offers

Read case analysis

J.C. v. B.W.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Because the Applicant failed to comply with court‑ordered disclosure and filing deadlines, thereby depriving the court of the financial evidence necessary to assess income from Carle Solutions Inc., the court drew adverse inferences and imputed income by applying an 8% increase to the Applicant's 2016 military income as judicially noticed, resulting in an imputed annual income of $71,014.32 and a monthly child support obligation of $1,417.28 effective December 1, 2023.

Source excerpt

• Child support variation
• Imputation of income
• Judicial notice
• Disclosure and filing deadlines
• Material change in circumstances
• Costs

Read case analysis

Evans v. Evans

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court partially granted a support variation application, ordering child support recalculation from January 1, 2020, confirming J remained a child of the marriage through 2019, and leaving spousal support for later disclosure.

• Child support variation
• Spousal support review
• Retroactive variation
• Child of the marriage declaration
• Income determination and imputation
• Treatment of rrsp withdrawals and signing bonuses

Read case analysis

Milley v. Milley

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the respondent breached a separation agreement on disclosure, cancelled the shared parenting term, ordered retroactive child support, and set ongoing support for E.A.

• Child support variation
• Disclosure obligations
• Retroactive child support
• Parenting time modification
• Status of child of the marriage
• Costs

Read case analysis

Walker v. Wilkie

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Pandemic-related loss of employment constituted a material change in circumstances for 2020 and 2021 but did not excuse failure to pursue remunerative work from 2022 onward; no imputation for 2020 or 2021, but income imputed at $100,000 for 2022 and 2023 resulting in child support under the Nova Scotia table for one child for those years; applicant must reimburse 50% of uninsured orthodontic expenses paid and pay 50% of future uninsured orthodontic expenses upon delivery of insurer statements.

Source excerpt

• Child support variation
• Imputation of income
• Section 7 orthodontic expenses
• Maintenance enforcement
• Costs

Read case analysis