David Kevin Haxell

Following an earlier judgment, the parties were unable to agree on the calculation of special or extraordinary expenses under s.7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court reviewed written submissions regarding credits owed to the father for periods when a child was not attending school or was living away from the mother while attending school.

The judge calculated credits for overpaid child support and applied them against outstanding s.7 expenses incurred for education, extracurricular activities, travel, and medical costs.

After deducting the credits, the court determined the remaining amount payable to the mother.

The court also directed that future disputes regarding s.7 expenses should be addressed through mediation pursuant to the parties’ agreement.

Following a family law trial involving spousal support, child support, and claims for section 7 expenses, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The respondent sought $52,000 in costs, while the applicant argued success was divided but conceded that $25,000 would be appropriate if costs were awarded.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed the relative success of the parties, their conduct, and their financial circumstances.

The court found the respondent was largely successful, particularly on the central issue concerning the applicant’s income and the resulting support obligations.

The court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $42,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The applicant sought to reduce spousal and child support obligations established in a separation agreement, alleging a material change in financial circumstances and asserting that income originally imputed for support purposes was overstated.

The respondent opposed the variation, sought enforcement of the agreement, claimed arrears for special and extraordinary expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and requested conversion of periodic spousal support into a lump sum.

Applying the framework from Miglin v. Miglin and subsequent Supreme Court authorities, the court held the separation agreement was fairly negotiated and continued to reflect the parties’ intentions.

The court found the applicant’s income disclosure unreliable and maintained the imputed income used in the agreement.

Spousal support was not reduced, child support for an adult child was terminated when he ceased full‑time studies, and retroactive s.7 expenses were partially awarded.