The appellant sought a retroactive variation of a child support order under s. 152 of British Columbia's Family Law Act after the child beneficiary had reached the age of majority and the original order had been terminated.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that s. 152 of the Family Law Act confers jurisdiction on a court to vary a child support order retroactively regardless of whether the beneficiary remains a dependent child at the time of the application and regardless of whether the order is still extant.
The majority further held that the payor's sustained failure to disclose actual income over eleven years constituted blameworthy conduct justifying retroactive support dating back to the original 2001 consent order.
The concurring reasons of the Chief Justice and Martin J. articulated broader policy grounds rooted in the best interests of children, access to justice, and the gendered dimensions of child poverty.
