Johnson v. Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41
| Judge | Steel, Cameron and Burnett, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
| Case Date | April 15, 2016 |
| Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
| Citations | 2016 MBCA 41;(2016), 326 Man.R.(2d) 270 (CA) |
Johnson v. Mayer (2016), 326 Man.R.(2d) 270 (CA);
664 W.A.C. 270
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.006
Warren Fredrik Johnson (petitioner/appellant) v. Anita Mayer (respondent/respondent)
(AF 15-30-08327; 2016 MBCA 41)
Indexed As: Johnson v. Mayer
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Steel, Cameron and Burnett, JJ.A.
April 15, 2016.
Summary:
The parties separated in 2008. A November 2009 interim consent order granted the parties joint custody of their child, and alternating weeks of care and control. The father breached the order repeatedly between 2010 and 2013. By the time the divorce proceedings went to trial in 2014, the daughter had no relationship with the mother. The mother moved to have the father found in contempt of the interim order. The father applied for child support and s. 7 expenses for the 2010 to 2013 period while the child was in his de facto care.
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, in a decision reported at 309 Man.R.(2d) 271, found the father in contempt and dismissed his application for child support for the interim period. The father was ordered to pay costs of $44,863 to the mother, and a fine of $2,000 to the Minister of Finance. The mother was ordered to pay $4,000 for s. 7 expenses for the interim period. The father appealed the trial judge's refusal to award him child support for the interim period and the award of costs.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Family Law - Topic 2211
Maintenance of spouses and children - General principles - Retrospective or retroactive orders - [See Family Law - Topic 2416 ].
Family Law - Topic 2353
Maintenance of spouses and children - Maintenance of children - Retroactive maintenance - [See Family Law - Topic 2416 ].
Family Law - Topic 2416
Maintenance of spouses and children - Practice - Costs - The parties separated in 2008 - A November 2009 interim consent order granted the parties joint custody of their child and alternating weeks of care and control - The father breached the order repeatedly between 2010 and 2013 - By the time the divorce proceedings went to trial in 2014, the daughter had no relationship with the mother - The father applied for child support for the 2010 to 2013 period while the child was in his de facto care - The trial judge held that the father had manipulated the court system and delayed the trial by coming to various agreements which were never followed - As a result, the court dismissed the father's claim for child support, as it would constitute a financial windfall to the father and reward him for his contempt - The court ordered him to pay costs of $44,863 - The father appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The father's claim was essentially one for retroactive interim child support - Here, there was no basis for such an award - The trial judge's award of costs was entitled to deference where there was no error in principle, nor was the award plainly wrong.
Family Law - Topic 4001.1
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - [See Family Law - Topic 2416 ].
Counsel:
D.E. Johnston, for the appellant;
C.J. Friesen, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard and dismissed with reasons to follow on April 15, 2016, by Steel, Cameron and Burnett, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following are those reasons as delivered by Steel, J.A.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawatzky v Sawatzky, 2018 MBCA 102
...factors set out in DBS for determining whether to make a retroactive child support payment were summarized by Steel JA in Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41, as follows (at para The award of retroactive child support involves a consideration of a number of factors unique to the circumstances of ......
-
Horch v Horch, 2017 MBCA 97
...is plainly wrong (see Gabb v Gabb, 2001 MBCA 19 at para 12; Hamilton v Open Window Bakery Ltd, 2004 SCC 9 at para 27; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at paras 21-22). [147] The principle of proportionality is a feature in all judicial decision making in family law (see QB Rule 70.02.1(2);......
-
Smederovac v Eichkor, 2020 MBCA 57
...is clearly wrong (see Hickey v Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518 at para 11; Graham v Graham, 2013 MBCA 66 at paras 13, 22; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at para [17] Section 9 of the Guidelines reads as follows: Shared custody 9 Where each parent exercises a right of access to, or has physical ......
-
Bloomfield v Halfyard, 2020 MBCA 73
...2020 MBCA 49 at para 11—vexatious litigant; Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6 at para 247; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at paras [9] As for whether the judge failed to adequately assist the mother, a judge is required to provide some assistance and accommodatio......
-
Sawatzky v Sawatzky, 2018 MBCA 102
...factors set out in DBS for determining whether to make a retroactive child support payment were summarized by Steel JA in Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41, as follows (at para The award of retroactive child support involves a consideration of a number of factors unique to the circumstances of ......
-
Horch v Horch, 2017 MBCA 97
...is plainly wrong (see Gabb v Gabb, 2001 MBCA 19 at para 12; Hamilton v Open Window Bakery Ltd, 2004 SCC 9 at para 27; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at paras 21-22). [147] The principle of proportionality is a feature in all judicial decision making in family law (see QB Rule 70.02.1(2);......
-
Smederovac v Eichkor, 2020 MBCA 57
...is clearly wrong (see Hickey v Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518 at para 11; Graham v Graham, 2013 MBCA 66 at paras 13, 22; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at para [17] Section 9 of the Guidelines reads as follows: Shared custody 9 Where each parent exercises a right of access to, or has physical ......
-
Bloomfield v Halfyard, 2020 MBCA 73
...2020 MBCA 49 at para 11—vexatious litigant; Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6 at para 247; and Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41 at paras [9] As for whether the judge failed to adequately assist the mother, a judge is required to provide some assistance and accommodatio......