I. Future Contingencies

Author:Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne

Page 490

Courts should make orders based on probabilities, not possibilities.35A court will not speculate as to future contingencies and will grant a variation if and when changes occur, not in advance.36However, a payor can bring an application to reduce child support based on an anticipated reduction of his or her annual income.37Where spouses are not communicating with each other, it is impractical to make an order that has built into it variations in the amount of support that depend on whether the obligee is employed, drawing unemployment insurance or has no source of income whatsoever, although such an order may be permitted under section 15(4) of the Divorce Act.38

[35] MacDonald v. Frampton (1987), 78 N.S.R. (2d) 258 (Fam. Ct.); compare Harris v. Gilbert (1992), 39 R.F.L. (3d) 458 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) (nominal order granted in variation proceeding to accommodate any future catastrophe).

[36] Basque v. Basque (1988), 89 N.B.R. (2d) 214 (Q.B.); Peterson v. Peterson, 2011 SKQB 365. But see Chapter 11, Section I(2).

[37] Kinasewich v. Kinasewich, [2000] A.J. No. 267 (Q.B.); Wilson v. Wilson, [1998] 8 W.W.R. 493 (Sask. Q.B.).

[38] Droit de la famille - 1271, [1989] R.D.F. 592 (C.S.).

To continue reading