R.L.X. v. J.F.X., 2002 BCSC 1222

JudgeMartinson, J.
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Case DateAugust 16, 2002
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations2002 BCSC 1222;[2002] B.C.T.C. 1222 (SC)

R.L.X. v. J.F.X., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1222 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.T.C. TBEd. SE.002

X.(R.L.) (plaintiff) v. X. (J.F.) (defendant)

(E003620)

X.(S.L.) (plaintiff) v. X. (J.F.) (defendant)

(D026986; 2002 BCSC 1222)

Indexed As: R.L.X. v. J.F.X.

British Columbia Supreme Court

New Westminster

Martinson, J.

August 16, 2002.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Family Law - Topic 2523

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Orders - Arrears of maintenance - See paragraphs 57 to 99.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - See paragraphs 10 to 56.

Family Law - Topic 4045.6

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Exceptions and exemptions (incl. undue hardship) - See paragraphs 100 to 112.

Family Law - Topic 4050

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Payment or cancellation of arrears of maintenance (incl. interest) - See paragraphs 57 to 88.

Cases Noticed:

Earle v. Earle (1999), 3 B.C.T.C. 334 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hanson v. Hanson, [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 688 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Murphy v. Murphy, [2000] B.C.T.C. 432; 8 R.F.L.(5th) 338 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bell v. Bell (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 300; 208 W.A.C. 300; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Wallace v. Wallace (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 175; 217 W.A.C. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Llewellyn v. Llewellyn (2002), 165 B.C.A.C. 268; 270 W.A.C. 268; 99 B.C.L.R.(3d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Thompson v. Dorn, [2000] B.C.T.C. Uned. 71 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Jones v. Anhorn (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 129; 222 W.A.C. 129; 73 B.C.L.R.(3d) 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Randhawa v. Randhawa, [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 152; 49 R.F.L.(4th) 144 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Newson v. Newson (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 151; 189 W.A.C. 151; 65 B.C.L.R.(3d) 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R.B. v. M.B. (1989), 19 R.F.L.(3d) 92 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Hamilton v. Pearce, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1092 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 90].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 90].

Cook v. Hare (1999), 10 B.C.T.C. 65; 46 R.F.L.(4th) 343 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 200; 184 W.A.C. 200; 59 B.C.L.R.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Ness v. Ness (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 292; 192 W.A.C. 292; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Chong v. Chong (1999), 6 B.C.T.C. 366; 47 R.F.L.(4th) 301 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

McPhee v. McPhee (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 147 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

Johnston v. Johnston (1986), 1 R.F.L.(3d) 456 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 125].

Mackechnie v. Mackechnie, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. C47 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 130].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 17(1), sect. 17(4) [para. 68].

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 127, sect. 14.4(6)(c)(ii) [para. 120].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 9(1), sect. 9(3) [para. 63]; sect. 89(1) [para. 91]; sect. 96(2), sect. 96(3) [para. 81]; sect. 96(3.1) [para. 117].

Counsel:

K.A. Archibald and C.G. Green, for the plaintiff;

The defendants, R.L.X. and S.L.X., appeared on their own behalf;

P.S. Hundal, for the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program.

These applications were heard on June 27 and 28, 2002, before Martinson, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on August 16, 2002.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • P.V. v. D.B., 2007 BCSC 237
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 22 Febrero 2007
    ...of the significance of an application to cancel arrears under an interim order versus a final order is provided in R.L.X. v. J.F.X. , 2002 BCSC 1222 at ⌠ 59-66. In that case, Martinson J. concluded that the fact that the order was an interim order was a factor bearing on the question of whe......
  • Chang v. Chang, 2021 BCSC 247
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 23 Febrero 2021
    ...of the case; therefore, the principles applicable to interim proceedings reflect their temporary nature:  X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.), 2002 BCSC 1222, at paras. 60-61. [33]        Our Court of Appeal has recognized the principle that interlocutory applicatio......
  • N.D.S. v. J.A.S., 2020 BCSC 1034
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 13 Julio 2020
    ...required to act and the time when the court can fully consider the issues and make a final decision on the merits: X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.), 2002 BCSC 1222 at paras. 60-61, cited in Herron at para. 160. [131] An interim order may carry “different considerations” depending on the circumstances i......
  • M.W.B. v. A.R.B., 2011 BCSC 1663
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 29 Abril 2010
    ...arrears [253] It is important to bear in mind that the orders in this case are interim and not final orders. In X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.) , 2002 BCSC 1222 [ X.(R.L.) ], Martinson J. considered the significance of an application to cancel arrears under an interim order as opposed to a final order......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • P.V. v. D.B., 2007 BCSC 237
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 22 Febrero 2007
    ...of the significance of an application to cancel arrears under an interim order versus a final order is provided in R.L.X. v. J.F.X. , 2002 BCSC 1222 at ⌠ 59-66. In that case, Martinson J. concluded that the fact that the order was an interim order was a factor bearing on the question of whe......
  • Chang v. Chang, 2021 BCSC 247
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 23 Febrero 2021
    ...of the case; therefore, the principles applicable to interim proceedings reflect their temporary nature:  X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.), 2002 BCSC 1222, at paras. 60-61. [33]        Our Court of Appeal has recognized the principle that interlocutory applicatio......
  • N.D.S. v. J.A.S., 2020 BCSC 1034
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 13 Julio 2020
    ...required to act and the time when the court can fully consider the issues and make a final decision on the merits: X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.), 2002 BCSC 1222 at paras. 60-61, cited in Herron at para. 160. [131] An interim order may carry “different considerations” depending on the circumstances i......
  • M.W.B. v. A.R.B., 2011 BCSC 1663
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 29 Abril 2010
    ...arrears [253] It is important to bear in mind that the orders in this case are interim and not final orders. In X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.) , 2002 BCSC 1222 [ X.(R.L.) ], Martinson J. considered the significance of an application to cancel arrears under an interim order as opposed to a final order......
  • 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