The appellant appealed an order regarding child support adjustments, arguing the application judge erred in finding no material non-disclosure of corporate income, failing to claw back corporate payments to the respondent's current spouse, and failing to average the respondent's income over three years.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's findings on disclosure, the reasonableness of the spouse's remuneration, and the parties' agreed-upon mechanism for adjusting support.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, reducing the application judge's substantial indemnity costs award to partial indemnity, as the allegations of non-disclosure did not amount to egregious fraud-like conduct.
