Canada Case Law

Fulton v. Harvey-Fulton

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Section 4.1(c) fixes spousal support for October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2028 based on the parties' incomes as of October 2012 and does not mandate automatic annual adjustments; adjustments require a review triggered by a material change in circumstances under ss.4.2 and 4.4 as constrained by ss.4.1(c) and 4.3, and the claimant complied with the insurance obligation so the respondent's enforcement application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement interpretation
• Spousal support review
• Life insurance obligation
• Mediation clause

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

Mazar v. Murray

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Ms. Mazar and Mr. Blattler were in a marriage-like relationship by April 2023, suspending spousal support under the separation agreement.

• Spousal support
• Cohabitation
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Marriage-like relationship
• Suspension of support
• Procedural requirements

Read case analysis

Matheson v. Matheson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Minutes of Settlement terminated the contractual $4,500 monthly payment at respondent's retirement but were silent on post‑retirement entitlement and expressly permitted a prospective review on pension division; a material change occurred when respondent delayed retirement, continued to earn substantially higher employment income and increased pension accruals and failed to provide annual disclosure, justifying a retroactive review; applicant was not entitled to prospective spousal support because pension division and other income materially removed her need post‑retirement; retroactive u…

Source excerpt

• Prospective spousal support
• Retroactive spousal support
• Variation/material change in circumstances
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Matrimonial debt
• Child's education costs

Read case analysis

Jinha v. Devji-Jamani

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal partly allowed a family law appeal, increasing child support arrears, but upheld the spousal support and costs orders.

• Miglin analysis
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Child support arrears
• Spousal support duration
• Standard of review for discretionary family decisions
• Family-law

Read case analysis

Botten v. Botten

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On appeal from a family law arbitration award, the Court confirmed most of the relocation order to Rome but set aside the school-selection term for lack of jurisdiction.

• Child relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Standard of appellate review
• Burden of proof in relocation cases
• Double bind provision
• Maximum contact principle

Read case analysis

S.K.S. v. A.A.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court varied child support and section 7 apportionment, accepted averaged Guidelines income due to fluctuating business earnings, and declined blanket disclosure orders.

• Variation of child support
• Retroactive child support
• Guidelines income calculation
• Section 7 expenses
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

A.E.E. v. M.T.E.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed a family arbitration appeal in part, setting aside a speculative spousal support termination date, adding arrears, and awarding costs.

• Spousal support termination
• Support arrears
• Standard of review for arbitration awards
• Separation agreement interpretation
• Allocation of business sale proceeds
• Costs entitlement

Read case analysis

Talotta v. Talotta

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge reasonably interpreted the separation agreement to entitle the wife to one‑half of the actuarial present value of the portion of the husband’s defined‑benefit pension attributable to the marriage; the uncontested actuarial evidence supported awarding $76,966 rollover plus trial costs and the appellant’s proffered affidavit was excluded and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement interpretation
• Pension division
• Actuarial valuation
• Enforcement of settlement
• Costs
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Reda v. Birch

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court directed that Mario attend Kalamalka High School for 2021/2022, applying the child’s best interests under s. 49 of the Family Law Act.

• Parental responsibilities
• Section 49 fla directions
• Best interests of the child (s.37 fla)
• School selection
• Views of the child
• Separation agreement interpretation

Read case analysis