Norman Murray Aitken

This case addresses the outstanding issue of retroactive child support for the child Bryce, from the parties' separation in September 2013 to an interim order in April 2017.

The court first formalized consent orders for joint custody, primary residence with the applicant, respondent's access, ongoing child support of $540 per month, proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, and annual income disclosure.

The respondent's argument for shared custody (s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines) was rejected as the child spent less than 40% of the time with him.

Applying the principles from S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by shirking support obligations, the applicant gave effective notice, and the child suffered hardship.

While the applicant initially credited the respondent for car payments, this was reversed when the respondent claimed they were for daycare.

Considering fairness for unquantified payments in kind, the court fixed retroactive arrears at $15,000, ordering a lump sum payment within 60 days.

The Creditor sought payment of $19,293.49 from the Debtor, comprising a lump sum payment ordered in prior matrimonial litigation and alleged spousal support arrears.

The lump sum payment was a condition precedent for the relinquishment of spousal support claims, but it was not made.

The court found that the Creditor's right to claim spousal support survived due to the unfulfilled condition.

However, the court dismissed the application for the specific spousal support amount, stating that entitlement and quantum needed to be established in Unified Family Court.

The Debtor was ordered to pay $7,817.49 on account of the original lump sum.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, an order for the sale of the former matrimonial home, and related relief.

The respondent brought a responding motion seeking child support, exclusive possession of the home, and entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit.

The court found insufficient evidence to impute income to the applicant or support a child support obligation under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Interim spousal support was ordered in the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the former matrimonial home was ordered listed for sale.

The respondent’s claims for child support and exclusive possession were dismissed, and the Child Tax Benefit was directed to be transferred to the respondent.

The applicant disputed a garnishment initiated by the respondent to enforce a lump-sum equalization payment and other obligations arising from a prior family law order.

The applicant argued the garnishment was premature and sought numerous offsets relating to alleged property damage, third-party debts, and other financial claims.

The court held that a garnishment hearing under Rule 29(19) of the Family Law Rules is limited to determining whether the underlying court-ordered debt exists and remains unpaid, and cannot be used to vary or expand the substantive order.

Most of the applicant’s alleged offsets were therefore rejected as procedurally improper, and the garnishment was permitted to stand.

The respondent’s motion for contempt was also dismissed, as the alleged breaches did not meet the high threshold for contempt and the order provisions were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal.

The husband appealed the trial judge's calculation of the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that monies advanced by the husband's late mother were not a loan.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in excluding a portion of the wife's jewellery from her net family property, as the wife failed to discharge her onus under s. 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the value of the jewellery she claimed was gifted by relatives.

The appeal was allowed in part to include the full value of the jewellery in the wife's assets.

Following the release of reasons in which the Court of Appeal fixed costs, the court received written submissions from counsel regarding costs.

After reviewing the submissions, the court declined to vary its original costs disposition, noting that the respondent's obligation is to pay net child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody and parallel parenting of the parties' four-year-old child.

She sought sole custody, arguing the trial judge erred in prioritizing the father's interests, presuming co-parenting was appropriate, and ordering joint custody despite parental conflict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal, finding the trial judge made no reviewable errors and that the child was thriving under the joint custody arrangement.

The Court varied the parenting schedule to align with a post-trial expert assessment and allowed the appeal regarding child support, ordering the respondent to pay support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.