George F. McFadyen

The applicant sought retroactive child and spousal support, challenging a 2002 separation agreement that terminated spousal support when the youngest child turned 18.

The court applied the Miglin framework, finding the termination clause failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act given the 20-year traditional marriage.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at $1,000 per month.

Applying the D.B.S. framework for retroactive child support, the court imputed income to the applicant and calculated a net overpayment by the respondent of $10,802.

Retroactive spousal support was fixed at $13,900, resulting in a net payment of $3,102 to the applicant.

In a family law proceeding following separation after a long marriage, the remaining issue concerned the appropriate imputation of income to both parties for purposes of determining spousal support.

The applicant alleged that the respondent had intentionally reduced his income after separation, while the respondent argued that the applicant was underemployed and capable of earning more than her reported income from retail work.

The court accepted evidence of broader economic factors affecting the respondent’s earnings and declined to find intentional income reduction.

However, the court found the applicant’s reported income unrealistically low and imputed a higher earning capacity to her.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines midpoint, the court ordered spousal support of $2,000 per month effective November 1, 2010 with arrears payable and a four‑year review period.

The parties separated after a ten-year traditional marriage.

The separation agreement provided for time-limited spousal support and child support.

The father's income subsequently increased substantially, and the parties' son moved in with the father while the daughter remained with the mother.

The father drafted an amending agreement reducing child support, which the mother signed without financial disclosure or independent legal advice.

The mother later applied to vary spousal and child support, seeking retroactive increases.

The trial judge increased support but declined to make it retroactive to the date the father's income increased.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, increasing the quantum of spousal support to reflect the mother's economic disadvantage and making the child support increase retroactive due to the father's financial non-disclosure and blameworthy conduct.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court of Justice judgment regarding the quantum of support and arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusions as there was no misappreciation of the evidence.