Normore v. Byrne, (2015) 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121 (NLTD(F))

• Judge: McGrath, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: October 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121 (NLTD(F))

Normore v. Byrne (2015), 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121 (NLTD(F));

    1161 A.P.R. 121

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. NO.013

Heather Normore (applicant) v. Paul Byrne (respondent)

(201302F0243; 2015 NLTD(F) 38)

Indexed As: Normore v. Byrne

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (Family)

McGrath, J.

November 2, 2015.

Summary:

The parties' separation agreement provided for joint custody and shared parenting of the two children of the marriage and a straight set-off of the basic child support amount. The agreement further provided that the parties share, on a 50/50 basis, the extraordinary expenses for figure skating and hockey, and to mutually agree to "any other" activities. The terms relating to the "extraordinary expenses" were the subject of this application for variation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), varied the separation agreement with respect to the extracurricular activities and the payment of expenses related to those activities.

Family Law - Topic 3375

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Variation - Of maintenance - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.8 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), dealt with the issue of whether any extra-curricular expenses should be paid out of basic child support in the circumstances where two parents with fairly similar incomes had agreed to a straight set-off of child support based on a shared parenting arrangement, rather than undertaking an analysis of the costs of the shared parenting arrangement - The result of their separation agreement was that a very small amount of basic child support was being paid each month by the payor father - In turn, the parties agreed that agreed upon extra-curricular activities would be shared equally, resulting in the father contributing slightly less than his proportionate share of those activities - There were no specific activities that were identified in the separation agreement as being payable out of basic child support by either parent - Because of the set-off and the relatively similar incomes, in any given year the payor parent of basic child support could change - In the circumstances, the Court found that it was not appropriate to obligate the mother to pay for extra-curricular activities out of the nominal amount of basic child support she received per month - See paragraphs 17 to 22.

Family Law - Topic 4045.8

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Changed circumstances - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), found that the parties' inability to effectively communicate and agree upon extra-curricular activities for the two children of the marriage was a material change in circumstances, and varied the parties' separation agreement as it related to the requirement to agree upon the children's activities - See paragraph 52.

Cases Noticed:

Hiscock v. Hiscock (2014), 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 214; 1088 A.P.R. 214; 2014 NLTD(F) 14, refd to. [para. 50].

Jones v. Mallay-Jones, 2015 NLTD(G) 131, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 7(1)(f) [para. 20].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Heather Normore, on her own behalf;

Paul Byrne, on his own behalf.

This application was heard on May 1, June 11 and October 30, 2015, at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, before McGrath, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family). The Court delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated November 2, 2015.