A.L. v. J.T.,
| Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
| Judge | d'Entremont, J. |
| Neutral Citation | 2010 NBQB 419 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada) |
| Citation | (2010), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 226 (FD),2010 NBQB 419 |
| Date | 16 November 2010 |
A.L. v. J.T. (2010), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 226 (FD);
373 R.N.-B.(2e) 226; 964 A.P.R. 226
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
.........................
Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.023
Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.023
A.L. (applicant) v. J.T. (respondent)
(FDM/0532/08; 2010 NBQB 419; 2010 NBBR 419)
Indexed As: A.L. v. J.T.
Répertorié: A.L. v. J.T.
New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
Family Division
Judicial District of Moncton
d'Entremont, J.
December 17, 2010.
Summary:
Résumé:
A father brought a motion under the Divorce Act to vary child support and his contribution to childcare. The father was employed by a car dealership, T.F.S. Ltd. The father owned 12% of the shares of T.F.S. and his parents held 88% of the shares. The mother brought a motion for disclosure of financial information from the father, including the financial statements and corporate income tax returns for T.F.S. Ltd. since 2009, a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation did not deal at arm's length, and all corporate ledgers and business records of T.F.S.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, dismissed the motion.
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 4045.2
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Financial disclosure - A father brought a motion under the Divorce Act to vary child support and his contribution to childcare - The father was employed by a car dealership, T.F.S. Ltd. - The father owned 12% of the shares of T.F.S. and his parents held 88% of the shares - The mother brought a motion for disclosure of financial information from the father, including the financial statements and corporate income tax returns for T.F.S. Ltd. since 2009, a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation did not deal at arm's length, and corporate ledgers and business records of T.F.S. - The mother relied on ss. 18(1), 18(2), 21(1)(c), 21(1)(f), 21(1)(g) and 22 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, dismissed the motion - The father was an employee of T.F.S. - He did not control the corporation - He did not appear to have a say when determining his income - Although the Business Corporation Act allowed him to have access to financial statements of the corporation, that did not imply that he must disclose them to the mother - The father had respected his disclosure obligations under s. 21(1) of the Guidelines and had filled out a sworn Financial Statement (Form 72J) - There was no legal basis for him to disclose further information.
Droit de la famille - Cote 4045.2
Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Lignes directrices sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants (y compris lescas hors-divorce) - Divulgation de renseignements financiers - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4045.2 ].
Cases Noticed:
Bates v. Welcher (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 281; 238 W.A.C. 281; 2001 MBCA 33, consd. [para. 20].
Chapman v. Summer et al. (2010), 287 B.C.A.C. 128; 485 W.A.C. 128; 2010 BCCA 237, consd. [para. 25].
Jardine-Hynds v. Grant, 2009 ONCJ 133, consd. [para. 28].
Statutes Noticed:
Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 2(2), sect. 16, sect. 18, sect. 21(1), sect. 21(5) [para. 15].
Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulatons (Can.).
Counsel:
Avocats:
Sheila Cameron, on behalf of the applicant, A.L.;
Brenda McMullen-Brown, on behalf of the respondent, J.T.
This application was heard on November 16, 2010, before d'Entremont, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on December 17, 2010.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of Cases
...204, 625 AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419.............................................................................................................................................. 258 AL v OG, [2000] QJ No 912 (CS).........................................................................................
-
Determination of Income; Disclosure of Income
...of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench Rules refers to “de facto” control in light of s 256(5.1) of the Income Tax Act). See also AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419; LFR(H) v RBH, 2021 NBQB 50 at paras SAC v MAB, [2002] NSJ No 128 (Fam Ct) (applicant not entitled to introduce evidence in support of allegation t......
-
Determination of income; disclosure of income
...of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench Rules refers to “de facto” control in light of s 256(5.1) of the Income Tax Act). See also AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419; SAC v MAB, [2002] NSJ No 128 (Fam Ct) (applicant not entitled to introduce evidence in support of allegation that the respondent, a minority share......
-
Table of cases
...194, 587 AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419 .............................................................................................................................................244 AL v OG, [2000] QJ No 912 (CS) .........................................................................................
-
P.D. v. C.D., (2011) 378 N.B.R.(2d) 85 (FD)
...et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 391; 574 A.P.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59]. A.L. v. J.T. (2010), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 226; 964 A.P.R. 226 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 61]. Bates v. Welcher (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 281; 238 W.A.C. 281; 2001 MBCA 33, refd to. ......
-
M.C. v. J.O., 2017 NBCA 15
...and de jure control (see Bates v. Welcher, 2001 MBCA 33, [2001] M.J. No. 93 (QL), which was applied by d’Entremont J. in A.L. v. J.T., 2010 NBQB 419, 373 N.B.R. (2d) 226). [43] Rule 72.14 of the Rules of Court also speaks to the disclosure question. In the context of a Notice of Application......
-
Table of Cases
...204, 625 AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419.............................................................................................................................................. 258 AL v OG, [2000] QJ No 912 (CS).........................................................................................
-
Table of cases
...194, 587 AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419 .............................................................................................................................................244 AL v OG, [2000] QJ No 912 (CS) .........................................................................................
-
Determination of Income; Disclosure of Income
...of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench Rules refers to “de facto” control in light of s 256(5.1) of the Income Tax Act). See also AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419; LFR(H) v RBH, 2021 NBQB 50 at paras SAC v MAB, [2002] NSJ No 128 (Fam Ct) (applicant not entitled to introduce evidence in support of allegation t......
-
Determination of income; disclosure of income
...of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench Rules refers to “de facto” control in light of s 256(5.1) of the Income Tax Act). See also AL v JT, 2010 NBQB 419; SAC v MAB, [2002] NSJ No 128 (Fam Ct) (applicant not entitled to introduce evidence in support of allegation that the respondent, a minority share......