Evelyn Huber

Following an appeal decision that recalculated child and spousal support, the parties made further written submissions on calculation corrections and costs.

The Court of Appeal accepted both parties' submissions to correct the child support calculations based on clarified living arrangements and section 7 expenses.

On the issue of costs, the court affirmed the trial judge's costs award of $22,000 to the respondent, finding that the respondent's pre-trial offer remained considerably more generous than the final result obtained by the appellant.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses following separation.

The respondent argued that the parenting arrangement met the 40 percent threshold for shared custody under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that support should be set-off.

The court held there was no genuine issue regarding retroactive support prior to June 5, 2015 and fixed arrears based on the respondent’s income, rejecting attempts to offset household expenses or costs against support obligations.

However, the court found that whether the 40 percent threshold would apply going forward and whether claimed s. 7 expenses were reasonable required a trial.

The balance of the summary judgment motions was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order terminating child and spousal support and requiring her to reimburse the respondent for overpayments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination of spousal support, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had achieved self-sufficiency following an inheritance.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by failing to increase spousal support for the period after child support ended, and made several calculation errors regarding child support overpayments.

The appeal was allowed in part, adjusting the amounts owed between the parties.