Barry M. Tobin

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement varying the lower court's judgment in accordance with a consent order filed by the parties.

The appellant mother sought to increase the respondent father's child support obligation by imputing income to him under s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines based on his lifestyle and financial support received from his father.

The respondent suffered from severe personality disorders and was unemployable, relying entirely on his father for housing, career training, and a monthly allowance.

The trial judge dismissed the application and vacated an existing consent order for support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in refusing to impute the father's gifts as income, as they were intended to provide basic support and encourage self-sufficiency for a disabled adult child.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage during which they operated a tobacco farming business.

The husband appealed the trial judge's order requiring him to pay spousal support out of his capital while the wife retrained, and challenged several aspects of the post-separation accounting.

The Court of Appeal upheld the spousal support order, finding no error in principle in requiring both parties to encroach on capital to share the burden of the wife's retraining.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the post-separation accounting, varying orders related to the sale of soya beans, tobacco quota rental proceeds, and NISA accounts.