2008 In Review, Part 3: Case Law Roundup

This is an overview of some of the more interesting cases decided in 2008. The summaries below aren't a proper digest of each case, they just focus on the one or two issues which made the case interesting.

H(SM) v. P(R), 2008 BCSC

This case is a nice update on the law of retroactive child support. The wife sought a retroactive order going back to 2002 based on undisclosed increases in the husband's income. The court said that the simple payment of child support, which the husband had been doing all along, creates a presumption that the payor had discharged his duty. Given the wife's delay in bringing her application and the absence of any evidence that the child had suffered, the court only made an order with retroactive effect commencing mid-2007, the date when the parties exchanged financial statements.

Gonabady-Namadon v. Mohammadzadeh, 2008 BCSC
In this case, the husband, who lived most of the time in Iran, had been sending about $12,000 a month back to Canada to support his wife and children here. Following separation, the husband stopped supporting his family, pleading poverty. The court found that the husband hadn't made sufficient disclosure and imputed income to him of $250,000 a year for the purposes of support. The moral? If you're trying to duck a support obligation, you must make full and complete financial disclosure.

Loesch v. Walji, 2008 BCCA

In this case, the husband was found at an interim application to have an income of $1,600,000 per year, which figure was used to calculate a spousal support obligation of $50,000 per month, even though the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested that only the first $350,000 of the husband's income should be used to calculate his support obligation. The decision was upheld on appeal, partly on the basis that appellate courts should be very, very reluctant to interfere with interim orders.

Sihota v. Sihota, 2008 BCSC

The court in this case confirmed the dire consequences to one parent when the other parent has sole custody and sole guardianship. The mother had previously obtained an order for sole custody and sole guardianship and decided to send the child to school overseas. The husband objected and the court held that as the mother was the only person with custody and guardianship she alone had the right to make decisions about the child's living arrangements.

Majhenic v. Majhenic, 2008 BCSC

This is case is important for its discussion of the idea of "foreseeability" in variation applications. Where an order has been made about support or the care and control of children, it is usually open to someone to try and change the order where there has been a unforseeable change in circumstances. In this case, the husband had agreed at age 62 to an order requiring him to pay spousal support of $1,000 per month. On the husband's retirement at age 66 he applied to cancel his support obligation. The court required his support payments should end in three years on the basis that the husband's retirement was plainly foreseeable and it was unreasonable for the wife to assume his support payments would be permanent.

Trif v. Trif, 2008 BCSC
This case is remarkable for its unsual parenting arrangements. After separation, the wife sought to move from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island to pursue a new relationship and she applied for sole custody of the child. The father opposed the application and said that either the child should live with him or they should share the child's time on a rotating weekly basis. The court, after seriously criticizing a custody and access report, said that the child's time would be shared on a rotating yearly basis.

Stein v. Stein, 2008 SCC

This case is a bit complicated, but essentially the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a judge at trial can allocate responsibility for debts relating to the marriage that may or may not come into existence in the future and be for an unknown amount. The debt in question related to a tax shelter the parties had invested in during the marriage which was subject to unknown future tax consequences.

Francis v. Logan, 2008 BCSC

This is another variation-of-spousal-support-on-retirement case. Unlike Majhenic, however, the husband applied to reduce or end his spousal support obligation on retirement at age 63. The court refused the application as the husband's early retirement was entirely discretionary and not due to some illness or economic cause, and was done in the face of his spousal support obligation. The court allowed the husband to reapply when he turned 65.

Label v. Albanese, 2008 BCSC

The interesting part about this case concerns an application for retroactive child support made after the child had ceased to be a dependent minor child. The court dismissed the claim, saying that a child had to be a "child" as defined by the Family Relations Act at the time an application for child support is made, including an application for retroactive child support.

Read More

New Random Answers to Random Search Terms

I am able to review the search terms that lead people to my website. Every now and then, a search term is particularly unusual or suggests an answer that doesn't, and perhaps shouldn't, appear in the website. In this irregular feature, I will randomly reply to these search terms. New Random Answers will reappear at unpredictable intervals.

(Remember, the law that's being applied here is the law of British Columbia, Canada, and the laws of one jurisdiction are often very different from the laws of the next.)

>> paying for university after separation

>> child support college special expenses

>> do I still pay child support if the child is at university in another town

These questions all deal with one of the more difficult issues in family law, the payment of child support and special expenses for adult children who are studying at university or college.

The law behind this issue is simple. The Divorce Act and the Family Relations Act say that child support is payable for all kids under the age of majority, and for kids older than the age of majority of they are "unable to withdraw from the charge" of their parents. "Unable to withdraw" usually means that the child is unable to support him- or herself because of illness or disability, or because the child is engaged in post-secondary studies.

On top of the base payment of child support, parents are often also required to pay towards the cost of the children's "special and/or extraordinary expenses." Where an expense qualifies as a special expense under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, both parents must contribute to paying the expense, and they contribute in proportion to their incomes. University and college costs almost always qualify as a special expense.

Here's where it can get a bit complicated.

Child Support

Normally, the table amount of child support is what gets paid for the support of an adult child.

Despite this, the court has the discretion to order that a different amount of child support should be paid, under s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, if there is some objective reason why a different amount should be paid. In Hickman v. Hickman (2003 BCSC 116), the court talked about this issue at length and said that good objective reasons might include income from things like RESPs, scholarships, student loans, trust funds or inheritances, or disability payments. Whether the court will allow an exception to the tables will always depend on the circumstances of the case.

The person who receives the child support payments is usually the same person who has received them all along, the other parent. This can sometimes seem unfair, especially when the child is going to school in another city and lives in that city.

It is possible for a parent to pay child support directly to an adult child. This usally happens where the parents agree such an arrangement is appropriate; the court rarely makes orders to this effect. In general, the court will require that child support be paid to a parent as long as that parent maintains a room in his or her home for the child and the child stays there from time to time during school holidays.

Special Expenses

There are two conflicting lines of cases on the circumstances in which parents must pay the costs of post-secondary education and which costs the parents must cover.

The strict line of cases say this: post-secondary expenses should only be paid if the child is enrolled in a full-time course of study, and even then the course of study must be targetted to employment (unlike philosophy, for example my undergraduate focus).

The less uptight line of cases make post-secondary expenses payable whenever the child is enrolled in post-secondary studies, regardless of what the child is studying. Under these cases, children can drop out and return to school, or take a part-time course load or switch majors every year, and still have their expenses covered.

The costs that qualify as special expenses under the strict line of cases are limited to tuition fees, student fees and textbook costs. Other expenses may qualify under the less uptight line of cases, including for things such as residence, meal plans and the like.

The amount of the special expenses which the parents must contribute to is the net cost of these expenses, after all contributions from other sources have been applied to reduce the over all cost, such as student loans, scholarships, bursaries, fellowships, awards, grants and the like. Under the strict line of cases, children have been required to contribute earnings from their summer employment to these costs, obtain student loans, and provide proof that all available scholarships and grants have been applied for.

Additional information about child support and children's expenses, including a child support calculator and a special expenses calculator, can be found at www.bcfamilylawresource.com.

Read More

Bad News for Legal Aid

The CBC has reported that the Legal Services Society is in dire financial straits and will be slashing the funding provided for family law and criminal cases, cutting 38 staff positions including lawyer positions, and closing the Vancouver family law clinic.

This is really quite tragic, as it seems that LSS was only just beginning to recover from the devastating budget cuts imposed by Gordon Campbell's government in 2002 which saw the entire board of LSS resign in protest. Over the last few years, LSS had begun to set up new community clinics, like the one being closed, establish a new family law duty counsel program and a special website devoted to family law issues, as well as training outreach workers and community advocates across the province on family law issues and procedures.

You should expect that the axe will fall heaviest on LSS's family law programs today as it did in 2002, as the provincial government has a cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government on funding legal aid for criminal matters - in part resulting from the federal government's constitutional obligations - which is not matched in family law matters.

Update: 14 January 2009

LSS posted a news release on the situation late yesterday which gives some more details about the nature of the cutbacks. Here are the highlights from a family law perspective:

• referrals for mediation are being eliminated and extended services will be scaled back beginning on 31 March 2009
• duty counsel services will be "reduced" at "some courthouses" at some point
• 16% of Lower Mainland staff will be cut, which will result in fewer LawLINE staff and fewer staff lawyers, and the reduction of LawLINE servicefurther changes will be announced in the summer

Further changes will be announced in the summer.

Read More

2008 In Review, Part 2: Non-Governmental Initiatives

Two of the more important developments in family law in 2008, outside of government-driven legislation and law reform, involved the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the BC Parenting Coordinators Roster.

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines

Professors Rollie Thompson and Carol Rogerson released the final version of their paper, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, in July, three and a half years after the release of their Draft Proposal.

Read More

Big Love Busted!

The CBC has today reported that Winston Blackmore and James Oler, the rival leaders of the religious community of Bountiful, British Columbia have each been charged with polygamy, an offence under the Criminal Code.

Read More

Best of Random Answers

Long-term users of my website will recall the surprisingly popular feature "Random Answers to Random Search Terms" which disappeared during the website's recent renovations. Random Answers had it origins in the odd, and sometimes downright bizarre, search terms which somehow managed to find my website and raised questions that I sometimes decided to answer. Here are a selection of some of my personal favourites.

Read More

2008 In Review, Part 1: Legislation and Rules Reform

Legislation and Rules Reform

There were two interesting developments in the laws and rules relating to family law litigation in British Columbia in 2008, and both related to the close of public consultations on significant potential reforms.

Read More

Pro Bono Law BC Expands Services

Pro Bono Law British Columbia has just announced an expansion of its services with the introduction of the Wills & Estates Roster Program. The new roster is a welcome addition to PBLBC's other programs, such as the Family Law Roster Program and the Court of Appeal Roster Program.

PBLBC is a non-profit organization funded by the Law Society, the Law Foundation and other groups. It operates as a referral destination from clinic-based services like UBC's Law Students' Legal Advice Program, the Salvation Army's Pro Bono Program and the Access Justice Society, and tries to link people in need of legal services with the roster lawyers volunteering to offer it.

Read More

The Melnick Model of Joint Custody

Regular readers and those who have had the misfortune of attending my presentations on the new Family Law Act will recall some of my concerns about how the provisions of the new provincial legislation with respect to the care of children will interact with provisions of the federal Divorce Act for custody and guardianship. Just such an issue arose in the recent Supreme Court case of C.K.B.M. v. G.M. 

In this case, Mr. Justice Melnick was asked to vary an order for custody and guardianship made before the introduction of the Family Law Act. The applicant applied to have sole custody and maintain joint guardianship but with joint guardianship being defined following the former Joyce model, so as to give her final decision-making authority in the event that she and the respondent were unable to reach an agreement on any important matters involving the child. As His Lordship summarized the dispute:

"[The applicant's] principal concern is what she alleges to be the parties' inability to agree on a course of diagnosis and treatment for their nine-year-old child's medical or behavioural condition which, according to the claimant, is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but which, according to the respondent, is probably not ADHD and may be related to anxiety or depression. The claimant wishes to have the child undergo a spectrum of tests and, if recommended, treatment which may include the use of medication. The respondent is philosophically opposed to treatments involving medication. He has refused to sign a consent form for the child to be examined and potentially treated at [a hospital]. The respondent says that the child should more properly be treated with cognitive behavioural therapy by a practitioner the respondent has identified.Thus the standoff."

The first stumbling block was that the order did not specify whether the order for custody was made under the Divorce Act or the Family Relations Act, and the original claim had been advanced under both acts. Applying the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the 2012 case of Yu v. Jordan, Mr. Justice Melnick concluded that in the absence of any indication as to the legislation under which the order had been made, the doctrine of paramountcy required the court to assume that the order had been made under the superior federal legislation.

Having concluded that the custody order was a Divorce Act order, the question then became whether it would be appropriate to grant sole custody to the applicant or somehow vary the order for joint custody to give the applicant the control over the child's health care she sought. Mr. Justice Melnick chose the latter approach.

"I conclude that this is a case where agreement between the parties on many issues respecting their child is still possible even though, at times, agreement is reached in a manner no doubt more frustrating for the claimant than it should be. Nevertheless, the respondent's recent intransigence in coming to agreements respecting the well-being of the child has now developed to the point of being a material change in circumstances allowing variation of the final order under the Divorce Act."

His Lordship then made an order for joint custody, adapting the Joyce model for application under the Divorce Act as follows:

The parties will have joint custody of the child of the marriage on the following terms:

1. in the event of the death of a party, the surviving party will have sole custody of the child; 

2. each party will have the obligation to advise the other party of any matters of a significant nature affecting the child; 

3. each party will have the obligation to discuss with the other party any-significant decisions that have to be made concerning the child, including significant decisions about the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction and general welfare of the child; 

4. the parties will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to try to reach agreement on those decisions; 

5. in the event that the parties cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, the party with the primary residence of the child will be entitled to make those decisions and the other party will have the right to apply for an order respecting any decision the party considers contrary to the best interests of the child, under s. 16(1) of the Divorce Act; and 

6. each party will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third-party caregivers.

My thanks to my friends and colleagues Morag McLeod, Agnes Huang and Angiola-Patrizia DeStefanis for bringing this interesting and extremely well-reasoned case to my attention.

Read More

Court Deals with Difficult Issue of Interim Orders for Access

In the recently released Provincial Court case of J.C.P v. J.B., the court addressed one of the most challenging problems arising from the transition from the Family Relations Act to the Family Law Act: what do you do when an interim order gives someone access without addressing custody or guardianship? The problem comes from s. 251 of the Family Law Act, which says this:

(1) If an agreement or order, made before the coming into force of this section, provides a party with

(a) custody or guardianship of a child, the party is a guardian of the child under this Act and has parental responsibilities and parenting time with respect to the child under this Act, or 

(b) access to, but not custody or guardianship of, a child, the party has contact with the child under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a party's parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with a child under this Act are as described in the agreement or order respecting custody, guardianship and access.

The purpose of this section is to help people apply orders and agreements made under the old act using the language and concepts required by the new act. In a nutshell, if you have custody or guardianship or both as a result of an agreement or order made under the old act, you are a guardian under the new act and have parental responsibilities and parenting time. If you have neither custody nor guardianship, you are not a guardian and have contact with a child. 

This section is very important because if you only have contact, you're not the guardian of a child and you don't have the right to participate in making decisions about how your child is raised, such as about where the child goes to school, how the child is cared for when sick, which activities the child participates in, where the child lives and with whom the child associates, and, most importantly, whether the child moves out of town or not. Ouch.

However, it often happened that when a court proceeding started, the court would only make orders about access under the Family Relations Act, and not deal with the sticky, sometimes explosive, issues of custody or guardianship. A simple interim order for access alone might be made:

• where the children had been withheld and the other parent's most immediate goal was simply to start seeing the kids again;
• where the conflict between the parties would be ignited by an argument on the flashpoint issues of custody and guardianship; or,
• where there's not enough evidence in front of the judge to allow him or her to make an informed decision of the issue.

That made lots of sense under the Family Relations Act. However, under the Family Law Act, a plain reading of s. 251(1)(b) would say that the only order made was for access, and therefore the parent with access was not a guardian and therefore not entitled to parental responsibilities or parenting time. This would have been a horrible result, as it would, in many cases, deprive someone who would normally be a guardian of an incredibly important role in a child's life, all because of the very expedient approach that was normally taken under the old law.

This problem is precisely what Judge Merrick was required to address in J.C.P. v. J.B. The father had obtained an order for interim access alone under the Family Relations Act, and when the matter came back before the court under the Family Law Act, the lawyer for the mother took the position that the father wasn't a guardian as a result of s. 251(1)(b). The father, quite reasonably, said that as he'd lived with the mother after the child's birth, he was a guardian because of the presumptions set out in s. 39 of the act — that's the part that says that the parents of a child are the guardians of a child while they are living together and after they separate.

However, Judge Merrick began his analysis not with s. 251 of the Family Law Act but with ss. 35 and 36 of the Interpretation Act — these are the parts that talk about how rights and entitlements under old laws are to be interpreted and applied under new laws. As a result, what became important was whether the father had any rights other than access under the old law. Here is how Judge Merrick solved the riddle, with the important bits in bold:

[9] The question, in my view, is before the repeal of the Family Relations Act, did [the father] Mr. P. have a substantive right; that is, did he have any guardianship rights with respect to the person of [the child] S.? If he did, was the right vested and, if it was, does the Family Law Act manifest an intention, either expressly or by implication, to take that right away? 

[10] There is no issue that for at least the last year, [the mother] Ms. B. has had the usual care and control of S. and, therefore, she was the sole guardian of the person of S., unless the court ordered otherwise. See s. 27 of the Family Relations Act. 

[11] I have concluded that my order of September 25, 2012, paragraph 4, that provides, "Both parties shall advise the other party promptly of any medical, alternative medical, or dental appointments or treatments of the child" vested limited guardianship rights to Mr. P. 

[12] Counsel for Ms. B. submitted that since the orders made so far only granted Mr. P. access and not custody or guardianship, pursuant to the provisions of s. 251, Mr. P. is not a guardian and he only has contact with S. 

[13] Read literally, s. 251 would seem to suggest that. 

[14] However, the court in this case so far has not ruled on the issues of custody and guardianship, except to the extent that limited guardianship rights were granted to Mr. P. in the September 25, 2012, order. To be clear, there has not been an interim hearing to decide issues of custody and guardianship. 

[15] Applying a purposive approach to the legislation, I am of the view that the purpose of s. 251 of the Family Law Act, as stated earlier, is really to translate terms from the old legislation to the new legislation. I have concluded it is not to be used to determine issues previously not adjudicated upon that are in issue. 

[16] Accordingly, given my determination that Mr. P. had been granted limited guardianship rights in the order of September 25, 2012, and my determination of the meaning of s. 251 of the Family Law Act, I have concluded that for the purposes of the Family Law Act, Mr. P. is a guardian of S.

I am very glad to and have this important decision on the books, in particular, the court's reading of s. 251 as translating old orders rather than determining claims that had never been before the court and therefore never been considered by a judge.

My thanks to my colleague, the most excellent Edna Ritchie, for bringing this case to my attention.

Read More