David P. Gray

This addendum to reasons for judgment formally terminated the respondent father's child support obligation, effective May 1, 2017, a point counsel agreed had been inadvertently omitted from the original judgment.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligation, while the Applicant Mother sought a retroactive increase in child support and Section 7 expenses dating back to 2001.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's significantly increased income and the children's independence.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court determined that the mother's delay in seeking variation was unreasonable, but the father was blameworthy for not voluntarily disclosing his increased income.

The court ordered the father to pay $25,000 in retroactive child support for the three years prior to the motion, rejecting both parties' calculations.

However, the mother's new claim for Section 7 expenses was dismissed, as the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a new claim for relief after the children were no longer 'children of the marriage' and no prior order for such expenses existed.

This hearing confirmed a provisional order from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that varied spousal support.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support, while the respondent requested refusal of confirmation or a variation to $900 per month.

The court confirmed the provisional order but varied it to nominal support of $1 per year, rather than complete termination, citing the long marriage and economic disadvantage to the respondent.

The court also ordered ongoing income disclosure between the parties.

The applicant father sought to vary child support and access orders.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court dismissed the mother's motion regarding child support, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the father's income and the proper amount of support.

The court adjourned the motion regarding access, ordering an updated report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the 13-year-old child's current wishes before determining if a genuine issue for trial exists.

A family law motion addressed spousal support sought by the applicant and a cross‑motion by the respondent seeking child support and other relief, including claims for retroactive child support and special expenses.

The court had previously issued an endorsement awarding the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support and leaving other financial issues to the trial judge.

After the respondent filed a supplementary affidavit concerning past special expenses before the formal order was issued, the court confirmed it was not functus and reviewed the new material.

The additional affidavit did not change the court’s conclusions and the remaining financial issues were left for determination at trial.

The court approved the draft order with a minor wording variation.