D.B.S. v. S.R.G., (2006) 351 N.R. 201 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateFebruary 13, 2006
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2006), 351 N.R. 201 (SCC);EYB 2006-108061;61 Alta LR (4th) 1;377 WAC 297;149 ACWS (3d) 626;351 NR 201;[2006] ACS no 37;JE 2006-1543;AZ-50385583;[2006] SCJ No 37 (QL);[2006] 10 WWR 379;[2006] CarswellAlta 976;31 RFL (6th) 1;25 CR (6th) 31;270 DLR (4th) 297;391 AR 297;2006 SCC 37;[2006] 2 SCR 231

D.B.S. v. S.R.G. (2006), 351 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. JL.050

D.B.S. (appellant) v. S.R.G. (respondent)

T.A.R. (appellant) v. L.J.W. (respondent)

Daryl Ross Henry (appellant) v. Celeste Rosanne Henry (respondent)

Kenneth Hiemstra (appellant) v. Geraldine Hiemstra (respondent)

(30808; 30809; 30807; 30837; 2006 SCC 37; 2006 CSC 37)

Indexed As: D.B.S. v. S.R.G.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

July 31, 2006.

Summary:

Four separate appeals which originated in Alberta raised the issue of retroactive child support. Two appeals dealt with retroactive awards claimed under the federal govern­ment's jurisdiction over divorce, while the other two related to Alberta's provincial re­gime under the Parentage and Maintenance Act.

In D.B.S. v. S.R.G., a mother's request for retroactive child support was denied. The mother appealed. The Alberta Court of Ap­peal, in a decision reported at 361 A.R. 60; 339 W.A.C. 60; 2005 ABCA 2, allowed the ap­peal and remitted the matter to the cham­bers judge to determine the extent and man­ner of payment of any retroactive sup­port owed. The father appealed.

In T.A.R. v. L.J.W., the mother's request for retroactive child support was denied. The mother appealed. The Alberta Court of Ap­peal, in a decision reported at [2005] A.R. Uned. 002; 2005 ABCA 3, allowed the ap­peal and returned the matter to the cham­bers judge for consideration of retroactive sup­port. The father appealed.

In Henry v. Henry, a father was ordered to pay retroactive child support from July 1, 1997 to January 31, 2003 based on the Guide­lines. The father appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 357 A.R. 388; 334 W.A.C. 388; 2004 ABCA 5, dismissed the appeal. The father appealed.

In Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, the mother was awarded retroactive support from January 1, 2003. The father appealed from the retroac­tive award. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 363 A.R. 281; 343 W.A.C. 281; 2005 ABCA 16, dismissed the ap­peal. The father appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered the issues of whether a court could make an order for retroactive child support and, if so, in what circumstances it would be appropri­ate to do so. The court allowed the fathers' appeals in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., and T.A.R. v. L.J.W. and restored the original orders which refused to order retroactive support. In Henry v. Henry and Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, the court dismissed the fathers' appeals from the orders requiring them to pay retroactive sup­port.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the follow­ing case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 2211

Maintenance of wives and children - Gen­er­al principles - Retrospective or retroac­tive orders - [See all Family Law - Topic 2353 ].

Family Law - Topic 2341

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - General - Four ap­peals which originated in Alberta raised the issue of retroactive child support - Two appeals dealt with retroactive awards claimed under the federal government's jur­isdiction over divorce, while the other two related to Alberta's provincial regime under the Parentage and Maintenance Act -The Supreme Court of Canada stated that Al­berta courts, under the Parentage and Main­tenance Act, had the discretion to adopt the paradigm espoused by the federal regime - However, the court stated that it did not support a general approach that pur­ported to follow the Federal Child Support Guidelines whenever a court's dis­cretion under applicable provincial law was invoked - The provincial power to regulate child support matters in contexts not in­volving divorce remained unfettered - With­in constitutional limits, provincial governments were free to adopt a different approach than the one found in the Di­vorce Act and the Guidelines - When an ap­plication for retroactive support was made, it was incumbent upon the court to analyze the statutory scheme in which the application was brought - See paragraphs 50 to 54.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Four appeals which originated in Al­berta raised the issue of retroactive child support - Two appeals dealt with retroac­tive awards claimed under the federal gov­ernment's jurisdiction over divorce, while the other two related to Alberta's provin­cial regime under the Parentage and Main­tenance Act - The Supreme Court of Can­ada stated that the regimes enacted by Par­lia­ment and the province of Alberta were ap­plication-based regimes - Accord­ingly, a parent's child support obligation would only be enforceable once an appli­cation to a court had been made - How­ever, the court held that the fact that the current regime was application-based did not pre­clude courts from considering retro­active awards - While an application was a neces­sary trigger to the court's jurisdiction, the court could still retain the power to make a retroactive order once it was prop­erly seized of a matter - See paragraphs 56 to 60.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a court order awarding a certain amount of child support had to be con­sid­ered presumptively valid, the presump­tion was not absolute - The court stated that "a payor parent who diligently pays the child support amount ordered by a court must be pre­sumed to have fulfilled his/her support obligation towards his/her children. Acting consistently with the court order should pro­vide the payor parent with the benefit of predictability, and a degree of certainty in managing his/her affairs. However, the court order does not absolve the payor par­ent - or the recipient parent, for that matter - of the responsibility of continually ensur­ing that the children are receiving an ap­propriate amount of sup­port. As the cir­cumstances underlying the original award change, the value of that award in defining parents' obligations necessarily diminishes. In a situation where the payor parent is found to be deficient in his/her support ob­ligation to his/her children, it will be open for a court, acting pursuant to the Divorce Act or the Parent­age and Maintenance Act [Alta.], to vary an existing order retroac­tively" - See para­graphs 62 to 74.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Four appeals raised issues respecting awards of retroactive child support - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the awards contemplated in the appeals were not truly retroactive - A retroactive child sup­port order did not involve imposing an obligation on a payor parent that did not exist at the time for which support was being claimed - The court stated that "In or­dering that an award be calculated retro­active to a certain date, a court would therefore be acting consistently with the law that existed at the relevant time. While the order itself would be varied with retro­active effect, the obligation that formed the basis of the court's decision would not be im­posed after the fact" - The support re­quested was not truly retroactive and the presumption against retroactive application could not apply - See paragraphs 67 to 70.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Four appeals which originated in Al­berta raised the issue of retroactive child support - The Supreme Court of Canada con­sidered the issue of awarding retroac­tive support where there had already been a court order for child support to be paid -The court stated that both the Divorce Act and the Parentage and Maintenance Act (Alta.) allowed courts to make retroactive child support orders where appropriate - Section 17 of the Divorce Act unambigu­ously stated that an award may be varied "prospectively or retroactively" - The sit­u­a­tion under the Parentage and Mainten­ance Act was less clear - Section 18(1) of that Act simply stated that an "application to vary or terminate an order or a filed agree­ment may be made to the court" - The court concluded that on a contextual read­ing of the statute, that grant of juris­diction was broad enough to include retro­active variation orders - See paragraphs 71 to 73.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada con­sidered the issue of awarding retroac­tive child support in a situation where child support obligations had previously been set out in an agreement between the parties - The court stated that "In most circum­stances, however, agreements reached by the parents should be given considerable weight. In so doing, courts should recog­nize that these agreements were likely con­sidered holistically by the parents, such that a smaller amount of child support may be explained by a larger amount of spousal support for the custodial parent. Therefore, it is often unwise for courts to disrupt the equilibrium achieved by parents. However, as is the case with court orders, where cir­cumstances have changed (or were never as they first appeared) and the actual sup­port obliga­tions of the payor parent have not been met, courts may order a retroac­tive award so long as the applicable statu­tory regime permits it" - See paragraphs 75 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Four appeals which originated in Al­berta raised the issue of retroactive child support - The Supreme Court of Canada con­sidered the issue of awarding retroac­tive support in a situation where there had not already been a court order for child sup­port to be paid - The court held that "jurisdiction to award retroactive child sup­port in this circumstance is found in s. 15.1 of the Divorce Act and s. 16 of the Parentage and Maintenance Act [Alta.]. In the Alberta statute, the legislature simply decrees that an order may be made for pay­ments for the maintenance of the child. Similarly, in the Divorce Act, Parliament allows a court to make 'an order requiring a spouse to pay for the support of any or all children of the marriage': s. 15.1(1). There is therefore no restriction in either statute as to the date from which the court may order that the award take effect. In my view, the legislatures left it open for courts to enforce obligations that predate the order itself" - The court concluded that courts had the power to order original re­tro­active child support awards in appro­priate circumstances - See paragraphs 80 to 84.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Parentage and Maintenance Act (Alta.) gave courts the power to order sup­port only for children under the age of 18 or, for certain expenses, within the two years after they were incurred (s. 16(3)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "where support (including retroactive sup­port) is only requested pursuant to the Par­entage and Maintenance Act, a court will not have the jurisdiction to order support if the child in question was over 18 at the time the application was made, or if cer­tain expenses occurred more than two years in the past" - See paragraphs 86 to 87.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada dis­cussed the factors that a court should con­sider in determining whether retroactive child support should be ordered - Those fac­tors included: whether there was a rea­son­able excuse for why support was not sought earlier; the conduct of the payor parent; the past and present circumstances of the child; and any hardship occasioned by a retroactive award - The court stated that none of the factors was decisive and a court should strive for a holistic view of the matter and decide each case on the basis of its particular factual matrix - See paragraphs 94 to 116.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Having established that a retro­active award is due, a court will have four choices for the date to which the award should be retroactive: the date when an ap­plication was made to a court; the date when formal notice was given to the payor parent; the date when effective notice was given to the payor parent; and the date when the amount of child support should have increased" - The court stated that it adopt­ed the date of effective notice as a general rule - The court further stated that "By 'effective notice', I am referring to any indication by the recipient parent that child support should be paid, or if it al­ready is, that the current amount of child support needs to be re-negotiated. Thus, effective notice does not require the recipi­ent parent to take any legal action; all that is required is that the topic be broached. Once that has occurred, the payor parent can no longer assume that the status quo is fair, and his/her interest in certainty be­comes less compelling" - See paragraphs 118 to 121.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, as a general rule, it adopted the date when effective notice was given to the payor parent as the date to which a retro­active award of child support should be retro­active - However, the court stated that "Once the recipient parent raises the issue of child support, his/her responsibility is not automatically fulfilled. Discussions should move forward. If they do not, legal action should be contemplated ... a pro­longed period of inactivity after effective notice may indicate that the payor parent's reasonable interest in certainty has re­turn­ed. Thus, even if effective notice has al­ready been given, it will usually be inap­pro­priate to delve too far into the past. The federal regime appears to have con­tem­plat­ed this issue by limiting a recipient par­ent's request for historical income informa­tion to a three-year period: see s. 25(1)(a) of the [Federal Child Support] Guidelines. In general, I believe the same rough guide­line can be followed for retro­active awards: it will usually be inappro­priate to make a support award retroactive to a date more than three years before formal notice was given to the payor par­ent" - See para­graph 123.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, as a general rule, it adopted the date when effective notice was given to the payor parent as the date to which a retro­active award of child support should be re­troactive - However, the court stated that "The date when increased support should have been paid, however, will sometimes be a more appropriate date from which the retroactive order should start. This situ­ation can most notably arise where the payor parent engages in blameworthy con­duct. Once the payor parent engages in such conduct, there can be no claim that (s)he reasonably believed his/her child's support entitlement was being met. This will not only be the case where the payor parent intimidates and lies to the recipient parent, but also where (s)he withholds in­formation. Not disclosing a material change in circumstances - including an increase in income that one would expect to alter the amount of child support pay­able - is itself blameworthy conduct. The presence of such blameworthy conduct will move the presumptive date of retroactivity back to the time when circumstances changed materially" - See paragraph 124.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Four appeals which originated in Al­berta raised the issue of retroactive child support - With respect to the issue of the determination of the quantum of retroactive awards, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "This determination will need to be ascertained consistent with the statutory scheme that applies to the award being or­dered. While the Divorce Act provides courts with discretion in deciding whether or not a child support award should be or­dered, the same cannot be said for the quan­tum of this award. Both s. 15.1(3) for original orders, and s. 17(6.1) for variation orders, stipulate that a court making an or­der 'shall do so in accordance with the applicable guidelines'. Therefore, so long as the date of retroactivity is not prior to May 1, 1997 - i.e., when the Guidelines came into force - the Guidelines must be fol­lowed in determining the quantum of sup­port owed. The Parentage and Mainten­ance Act [Alta.], on the other hand, does not fetter courts' discretion in determining the quantum of child support awards: see s. 18. Courts awarding retroactive support pursuant to this statute will have greater discretion in tailoring the award to the cir­cumstances" - The court concluded that, un­less the statutory scheme clearly directed another outcome, a court should not order a retroactive award in an amount that it con­sidered unfair, having regard to all the circumstances of the case - See paragraphs 126 to 130.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Parents had three children during a common law relationship - After they sep­a­rated, the father was granted sole interim custody under the Parentage and Main­tenance Act - The parents later entered into a shared custody relationship - The mother subsequently sought retroac­tive child sup­port for 36 months - She had apparently been unaware that she could have sought sup­port during the years of shared custody - A chambers judge declined to order re­tro­active support - The mother appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the ap­peal and remitted the matter to the cham­bers judge to determine the extent and manner of payment of any retroactive sup­port owed - The father appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the ap­peal and restored the cham­bers judge's or­der - Retroactive support was not justi­fied in this case - While the mother stated that she did not know sup­port might have been owed, parents had a responsibility to in­quire into such matters - The household in­comes of the parents were roughly equal - The chambers judge found no threatening or dominating behav­iour by the father or a failure to reveal income - Most impor­tant­ly, the chambers judge held that a retroac­tive order would not necessarily benefit the children - That finding was crucial where the court could not find any blameworthy con­duct on the part of the payor father, and where the chambers judge held that a re­troactive award would be inappropriate and ineq­uitable - See paragraphs 137 to 142.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Parents had three children during a common law relationship - After they sepa­rated in 1991, the children lived with the mother - The father paid support of $50 per month per child pursuant to a main­tenance agreement - The mother had asked the father for more financial help, but he had refused on the basis that he could not afford to pay more - In March 2003, the mother applied for retroactive child support to January 1, 1999, for the dif­ference between the amount that she was paid and the Guidelines amount - The chambers judge refused to grant retroactive support - The mother appealed - The Al­ber­ta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the chambers judge for consideration of retro­active sup­port - The father appealed - The Su­preme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and re­stored the decision of the chambers judge which refused to grant retroactive support -The chambers judge had attached particu­lar significance to the hardship that could be caused by a retroac­tive award - The cham­bers judge also found that the father did not act deceitful­ly, but had "honoured his obligation faith­fully" - The chambers judge took a holistic view of the matter and con­cluded that it would not be appro­priate to order retroac­tive support in the cir­cum­stances - That conclusion merited defer­ence - See para­graphs 143 to 145.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - Pursuant to a 1991 divorce judg­ment, a father paid child support of $700 per month for two children - In February 2000, the father increased support to $1,050 - In March 2003, he started paying $1,186 - However, unknown to the mother, the father's income had increased from $73,500 at the time of the divorce petition to a peak of $235,034 in 2001 - Although the father was aware of the mother's finan­cial difficulties, he had refused to provide financial assistance when requested - The mother sought retroactive support based on the father's increased income - A chambers judge ordered the father to pay retroactive support from July 1, 1997, to January 31, 2003, based on the Guidelines - The father ap­pealed from the order for retroactive sup­port - The Alberta Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The father appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - There was no unreasonable delay - The mother had broached the topic of increasing the father's child support obligations to the best of her ability, given her lack of legal knowledge, her ignorance of the father's actual income, and the in­timidation she felt from the father - The father had acted in a blameworthy manner - Although he complied with the obligation in the child support order, that did not im­ply that he reasonably believed that his children's entitlements were being fulfilled - His conduct fell well short of what was ex­pected from a parent - The children had lived in conditions far below what they should have for substantial periods of time - See paragraphs 146 to 151.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - A father appealed from an order which required him to pay retroactive sup­port for his two children from July 1, 1997 to January 31, 2003 based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The court further stated that although the eldest child was no longer a child of the marriage when the Notice of Motion for re­tro­active support was filed, in the cir­cumstances of this appeal, that fact had no effect on the jurisdiction of the court to make a retroactive child support order un­der the Divorce Act - Since the father did not disclose his income increases to the mother earlier, she was compelled to serve him with a Notice to Disclose/Notice of Motion in order to ascertain his income for the years relevant to this appeal - That formal legal procedure, contemplated in the Guidelines and a necessary antecedent to the present appeal, sufficed to trigger the jurisdiction of the court under the Di­vorce Act - Because it was completed prior to the time the eldest child ceased being a child of the marriage, the court was able to make a retroactive order for that child - See paragraph 150.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Main­tenance of children - Retroactive mainten­ance - After parents divorced in 1996, the parties' son and daughter lived with the father and the mother paid child support - In November 2000, the son moved in with the mother and the child support payments ceased - On April 3, 2003, the mother sent the father an e-mail that broached the topic of "financial responsibilities" - The father did not start paying support - By February 2004, the daughter had moved out, with the consequence that the mother supported both children - On May 28, 2004, the mother filed a notice of motion seeking re­troactive child support for both children - The chambers judge awarded retroactive support from January 1, 2003 - The father appealed from the retroactive award - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the ap­peal - The father appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The chambers judge properly weighed rele­vant considerations in deciding upon the award - See paragraphs 152 to 155.

Family Law - Topic 3357

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agree­ment - Maintenance of children - [See fifth Family Law - Topic 2353 ].

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - [See all Family Law - Topic 2353 ].

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - Under s. 15.1(1) of the Divorce Act, an order could be made that required a parent to pay "for the support of any or all children of the marriage" - "Child of the marriage" was de­fined in s. 2(1) as: "a child of two spouses or former spouses who, at the ma­terial time , (a) is under the age of ma­jority and who has not withdrawn from their charge, or (b) is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the "material time" for retroactive child sup­port awards was the time of the application - There­fore, a retroactive child support award would only be available so long as the child in question was a "child of the mar­riage" when the application was made - See paragraphs 88 to 89.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - The Su­preme Court of Canada stated that "Fed­eral authority over child support orders can be directly traced to its jurisdiction over di­vorce. Parliament is only able to legislate child support to the extent it is necessarily ancillary to its power over divorce ... The question arises, therefore, as to whether a court acting pursuant to the federal Di­vorce Act has the jurisdiction to make a retroactive order for child support that pre­dates the application for divorce" - The court concluded that "a court properly seized of a child support dispute between divorced parents will have the jurisdiction to order retroactive support to be payable from a date preceding the application for divorce" - See paragraphs 91 to 93.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To children and chil­dren defined - [See second Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - General (incl. interpretation) - [See Fam­ily Law - Topic 2341 ].

Family Law - Topic 4122

Divorce - Practice - General - Applicable legislation - [See Family Law - Topic 2341 ].

Statutes - Topic 6703

Operation and effect - Commencement, dur­a­tion and repeal - Retrospective and re­troactive enactments - What constitutes re­tro­spective or retroactive operation - [See third Family Law - Topic 2353 ].

Cases Noticed:

MacMinn v. MacMinn (1995), 174 A.R. 261; 102 W.A.C. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 160].

L.S. v. E.P. (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 28; 206 W.A.C. 28; 67 B.C.L.R.(3d) 254; 1999 BCCA 393, refd to. [paras. 2, 172].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 36, 158].

Poissant v. Barrette (1879), 3 L.N. 12, refd to. [para. 37].

Childs v. Forfar (1921), 51 O.L.R. 210 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Paras v. Paras, [1971] 1 O.R. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 38, 174].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 38, 158].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 38, 158].

McTaggart v. McTaggart, [1947] O.J. No. 100 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Malcolm v. Malcolm (1919), 46 O.L.R. 198 (H.C.), affd. (1920), 46 O.L.R. 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 43, 158].

Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205; 8 R.F.L. 172, refd to. [para. 49].

Zacks v. Zacks, [1973] S.C.R. 891, refd to. [para. 49].

M.C. v. V.Z. (1998), 228 A.R. 283; 188 W.A.C. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

P.T. v. R.B. et al. (2004), 361 A.R. 163; 339 W.A.C. 163; 242 D.L.R.(4th) 30; 30 Alta. L.R.(4th) 36; 2004 CarswellAlta 906; 2004 ABCA 244, refd to. [para. 50].

Walsh v. Walsh (2004), 183 O.A.C. 179; 69 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Marinangeli v. Marinangeli (2003), 174 O.A.C. 76; 66 O.R.(3d) 40; 38 R.F.L.(5th) 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Andries v. Andries (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 189; 167 W.A.C. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 68].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 171 O.A.C. 201; 224 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 76].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 550; 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 2004 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 76].

S.E.C. v. D.C.G., [2003] B.C.T.C. 896; 43 R.F.L.(5th) 41; 2003 BCSC 896, refd to. [para. 78].

Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242; 235 N.R. 1; 134 Man.R.(2d) 19; 193 W.A.C. 19, refd to. [para. 89].

Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt, [2001] 11 W.W.R. 233; 286 A.R. 248; 253 W.A.C. 248; 97 Alta. L.R.(3d) 238; 2001 ABCA 229, refd to. [para. 93].

Tedham v. Tedham (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 297; 308 W.A.C. 297; 20 B.C.L.R.(4th) 56; 2003 BCCA 600, refd to. [para. 99].

Chrintz v. Chrintz (1998), 73 O.T.C. 100; 41 R.F.L.(4th) 219 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 101].

Passero v. Passero, [1991] O.J. No. 406 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 103].

Horner v. Horner (2004), 191 O.A.C. 28; 72 O.R.(3d) 561 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 106, 158].

Hess v. Hess (1994), 2 R.F.L.(4th) 22 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 106].

Whitton v. Shippelt (2001), 293 A.R. 317; 257 W.A.C. 317; 2001 ABCA 307, refd to. [para. 106].

Dahl v. Dahl (1995), 178 A.R. 119; 110 W.A.C. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

J.A. v. P.A. (1997), 37 R.F.L.(4th) 197 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 107].

Haisman v. Haisman (1994), 157 A.R. 47; 77 W.A.C. 47; 22 Alta. L.R.(3d) 56 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [1995] 3 S.C.R. vi; 195 N.R. 159; 181 A.R. 79; 116 W.A.C. 79, refd to. [paras. 109, 174].

MacNeal v. MacNeal (1993), 50 R.F.L.(3d) 235 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 120].

Steinhuebl v. Steinhuebl, [1970] 2 O.R. 683; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 669 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

Dickie v. Dickie, [2001] O.T.C. 768; 20 R.F.L.(5th) 343 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120].

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 136].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Children Come First: A Report to Parliament Reviewing the Provisions and Operations of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (2002), vol. 1, p. 36 [para. 57].

Canada, Department of Justice, Federal Child Support Guidelines Reference Manual (1997), p. i [para. 43].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, 1st Sess., 35th Parlia­ment (April 25, 1995), p. 11760 [para. 43].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd Sess., 35th Parlia­ment (October 1, 1996), p. 4901 [para. 44].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Mignault, Pierre Basile, Le droit civil canadien (1896), t. 2, p. 138 [para. 37].

Payne, Julien D., and Payne, Marilyn A., Child Support Guidelines in Canada (2004), pp. 44 [para. 89]; 392 [para. 93].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 553, 554 [para. 68].

Counsel:

D. Smith and Susan E. Milne, for the appellants;

Carole Curtis, Valda Blenman and Victoria Starr, for the respondents, S.R.G. and L.J.W.;

Daniel Colborne and Roy W. Dawson, for the respondent, Celeste Rosanne Henry;

Gregory D. Turner, for the respondent, Geraldine Hiemstra.

Solicitors of Record:

Smith Family Law Group, Toronto, On­tario, for the appellants;

Carole Curtis, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, S.R.G. and L.J.W.;

Thornborough Smeltz Gillis, Calgary, Al­ber­ta, for the respondent, Celeste Ro­sanne Henry;

Rand Kiss Turner, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, Geraldine Hiemstra.

These appeals were heard on February 13, 2006, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Char­ron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Can­ada was delivered in both official lan­guages on July 31, 2006, including the following opinions:

Bastarache, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 155;

Abella, J. (Fish and Charron, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 156 to 180.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2499 practice notes
  • D.B.S. v. S.R.G., (2006) 391 A.R. 297 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • February 13, 2006
    ...S.R.G. (2006), 391 A.R. 297 (SCC); 377 W.A.C. 297 MLB headnote and full text [French language version follows English language version] [La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise] ......................... Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. JL.135 D.B.S. (appellant) v. S.R.G. ......
  • Haj Khalil c. Canada (C.F.),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 18, 2007
    ...213;autorisation de pourvoi à la C.S.C. refusée [2006] 2 R.C.S.xi; Brewer Bros. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1992]1 C.F. 25 (C.A.); Farzam c. Canada (Ministre de laCitoyenneté et de l’Immigration), 2005 CF 1659; Benaissac. Canada (Procureur génér......
  • Kretschmer v. Terrigno, (2012) 539 A.R. 212
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 9, 2012
    ...43]. Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 44]. D.B.S. v. S.R.G., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; 351 N.R. 201; 391 A.R. 297; 377 W.A.C. 297; 2006 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 44]. Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) ......
  • Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 4, 2021
    ...where the result would otherwise be unfair in the circumstances of a particular case. The four factors set out in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 — adapted to suit the retroactive decrease context — help the court reach a fair balancing of the three interests at play, nam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2254 cases
  • D.B.S. v. S.R.G., (2006) 391 A.R. 297 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • February 13, 2006
    ...S.R.G. (2006), 391 A.R. 297 (SCC); 377 W.A.C. 297 MLB headnote and full text [French language version follows English language version] [La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise] ......................... Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. JL.135 D.B.S. (appellant) v. S.R.G. ......
  • Haj Khalil c. Canada (C.F.),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 18, 2007
    ...213;autorisation de pourvoi à la C.S.C. refusée [2006] 2 R.C.S.xi; Brewer Bros. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1992]1 C.F. 25 (C.A.); Farzam c. Canada (Ministre de laCitoyenneté et de l’Immigration), 2005 CF 1659; Benaissac. Canada (Procureur génér......
  • Kretschmer v. Terrigno, (2012) 539 A.R. 212
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 9, 2012
    ...43]. Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 44]. D.B.S. v. S.R.G., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; 351 N.R. 201; 391 A.R. 297; 377 W.A.C. 297; 2006 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 44]. Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) ......
  • Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 4, 2021
    ...where the result would otherwise be unfair in the circumstances of a particular case. The four factors set out in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 — adapted to suit the retroactive decrease context — help the court reach a fair balancing of the three interests at play, nam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 26-30)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 2, 2021
    ...2004 CanLII 39040 (Ont. C.A.), Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2020 ONCA 447, Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, D.B.S. v S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, Reid v. Catalano, 2008 CanLII 9379 (Ont. S.C.), Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606, Hobbs v. Hobbs, 2008 ONCA 598, Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (February 19 – February 23)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • March 3, 2024
    ...Forum Shopping, Public Policy, Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3, (2nd Supp.), Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser, 46 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.), Virani v. Virani, 2006 BCCA 341, L.G.V. v. L.A.P., 2016 NBCA 23, Leonard v. Booker, 2007 NBCA......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 10 ' 14, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 18, 2023
    ...Board), 2007 ONCA 874, Korman v. Korman, 2015 ONCA 578, Levin v. Levin, 2020 ONCA 604, Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, Higgins v. Higgins (2001), 19 R.F.L. (5th) 300 (Ont. S.C.), Griffiths v. Zambosco (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 397 (C.A.), Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 O......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 1 – 5, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 15, 2019
    ...Rule, Date of Effective Notice, Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. 3, s. 17(1), Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 14(c), D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, Gray v. Rizzi, 2016 ONCA 152 facts: The appellant appeals the motion judge's order allowing the respondent's request under s. 17(1) of the Divo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
222 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...10, 475, 491 DBS v SRG; LJW v TAR; Henry v Henry; Hiemstra v Hiemstra, [2006] 2 SCR 231, 2006 SCC 37, [2006] SCJ No 37............. 6, 25, 34, 288, 411, 472, 473, 475–89, 492, 495, 496, 523, 573, 644 DC v PC, 2017 PESC 26............................................................................
  • Variation, Rescission, or Suspension of Child Support Orders
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...that should be given to any factor depends on the unique facts of the case.” 295 2019 BCSC 1772 at paras 40–45, aff’d 2021 BCCA 126. 296 2006 SCC 37. 297 2014 ONSC 6001 at para Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022 U. VARIATION OF CONSENT ORDERS A consent order298 constitutes a child sup......
  • Definitions of 'Child of the Marriage'; Adult Children; Obligation of De Facto Parent
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...262 (QB). Smith v Smith, 2020 ABQB 775. Chartier v Chartier, [1999] 1 SCR 242; DBS v SRG; LJW v TAR; Henry v Henry; Hiemstra v Hiemstra, [2006] 2 SCR 231; NP v IV, 2013 BCSC 1323; Friday v Friday, 2013 ONSC Sherlow v Zubko, [1999] AJ No 644 (QB). Divorce Act, s 2(1) (definition of “age of m......
  • Form and Types of Order
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...2003 BCCA 666 at paras. 39-41. This approach is consistent with what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37. A court may direct either or both of the spouses to annually provide the other spouse with a copy of his duly filed Income Tax Return and Notice of A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT