R.S.L. v. S.I.L., 2013 NBCA 23
Judge | Larlee, Bell and Green, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (New Brunswick) |
Case Date | May 10, 2012 |
Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
Citations | 2013 NBCA 23;(2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199 (CA) |
R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199 (CA);
402 R.N.-B.(2e) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199
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: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.034
Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.034
R.S.L. (respondent/appellant) v. S.I.L. (petitioner/respondent)
(108-11-CA; 2013 NBCA 23)
Indexed As: R.S.L. v. S.I.L.
Répertorié: R.S.L. v. S.I.L.
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Larlee, Bell and Green, JJ.A.
March 21, 2013.
Summary:
Résumé:
Spouses married in December 1990. They had three children. They separated in October 2003. In March 2007, the court issued a consent order dealing with child and spousal support as well as matrimonial property issues. Three years later, the husband moved to vary certain terms of the consent order, in order to reflect what he argued was a change in his financial circumstances. The wife moved for an order essentially seeking to have the other provisions of the consent order enforced. The motions judge varied the husband's child support obligations, as requested, but otherwise ordered enforcement of the consent order. The husband appealed.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
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 3353
Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In divorce actions - Corollary relief - Spouses married in December 1990 - They had three children - They separated in October 2003 - In March 2007, the court issued a consent order dealing with child and spousal support as well as matrimonial property issues - Three years later, the husband moved to vary certain terms of the consent order, in order to reflect what he argued was a change in his financial circumstances - The wife moved for an order essentially seeking to have the other provisions of the consent order enforced - The motions judge varied the husband's child support obligations, as requested, but otherwise ordered enforcement of the consent order - The husband appealed, asserting that the motions judge erred by not considering the consent order as a factor to be used in the court's exercise of discretion under the Divorce Act, and by not applying the first stage of the two-stage test enunciated in Miglin v. Miglin (SCC 2003) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Miglin had no application in this case - There was a substantial difference between a domestic contract or separation agreement and an order issued by a judge of the Family Division - See paragraphs 8 to 10.
Family Law - Topic 4001.2
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Consent judgment - [See Family Law - Topic 3353 ].
Family Law - Topic 4001.2
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Consent judgment - Spouses married in December 1990 - They had three children - They separated in October 2003 - In March 2007, the court issued a consent order dealing with child and spousal support as well as matrimonial property issues - Three years later, the husband moved to vary certain terms of the consent order, in order to reflect what he argued was a change in his financial circumstances - The wife moved for an order essentially seeking to have the other provisions of the consent order enforced - The motions judge varied the husband's child support obligations, as requested, but otherwise ordered enforcement of the consent order - The motions judge used the consent order as the basis of the order for corollary relief - The husband appealed, asserting that the motions judge erred by not considering the consent order as a factor to be used in the court's exercise of discretion under the Divorce Act - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating "[t]he motions judge took a pragmatic but reasonable approach to the matter before him, and chose to bring closure to divorce proceedings which had been underway for several years. He was justified in doing so, and I find no reversible error in his decision. The [husband] was successful in lowering his monthly child support payments. As for the requests made by the [wife], the [husband] was required to do no more than adhere to the provisions of the 2007 order and meet his existing financial obligations." - See paragraphs 11 to 17.
Droit de la famille - Cote 3353
Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Effet de l'entente - Procédures de divorce - Mesures accessoires - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3353 ].
Droit de la famille - Cote 4001.2
Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Jugement par consentement - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4001.2 ].
Cases Noticed:
Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, dist. [para. 6].
C.M.H. v. J.R.H. (2012), 393 N.B.R.(2d) 154; 1017 A.P.R. 154; 2012 NBCA 71, refd to. [para. 7].
Carrier v. Carrier (2007), 312 N.B.R.(2d) 285; 806 A.P.R. 285; 2007 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. 9].
Counsel:
Avocats:
Justin Roherty, for the appellant;
Marta Shannon, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 10, 2012, by Larlee, Bell and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages, by Green, J.A., on March 21, 2013.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M.K.R. v. J.A.R., 2015 NBCA 73
...16]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. 17]. J.H. v. T.H. (2014), 422 N.B.R.(2d) 388; 1096 A.P.R. 388; 2014 NBCA 52, refd to. [p......
-
G.F. v. J.A.C.F., (2016) 449 N.B.R.(2d) 34 (CA)
...refd to. [para. 8]. J.A.M. v. D.L.M. (2008), 326 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 838 A.P.R. 111; 2008 NBCA 2, refd to. [para. 8]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. A.M.D. v. A.J.P., [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. Contino v. Leonel......
-
R.J. v. P.J.,
...error in the assessment of the evidence. See D.L.M. v. J.A.M., 2008 NBCA 2, 326 N.B.R. (2d) 111, at paras.11-12; R.S.L. v. S.I.L., 2013 NBCA 23, 402 N.B.R. (2d) 199, at para. 7; T.L. v. A.C., 2013 NBCA 24, 402 N.B.R. (2d) 373, at para. 6; M.L.B. v. W.R.P., 2019 NBCA 63, [2019] N.B.J. No. 21......
-
S.R. v. M.A.R.,
...[para. 29]. McKinnon v. McKinnon (2011), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 378; 964 A.P.R. 378; 2011 NBCA 49, refd to. [para. 29]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. Rita Godin, for the applicant; Nadine Losier, for the respondent. This application was ......
-
M.K.R. v. J.A.R., 2015 NBCA 73
...16]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. 17]. J.H. v. T.H. (2014), 422 N.B.R.(2d) 388; 1096 A.P.R. 388; 2014 NBCA 52, refd to. [p......
-
G.F. v. J.A.C.F., (2016) 449 N.B.R.(2d) 34 (CA)
...refd to. [para. 8]. J.A.M. v. D.L.M. (2008), 326 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 838 A.P.R. 111; 2008 NBCA 2, refd to. [para. 8]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. A.M.D. v. A.J.P., [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. Contino v. Leonel......
-
R.J. v. P.J.,
...error in the assessment of the evidence. See D.L.M. v. J.A.M., 2008 NBCA 2, 326 N.B.R. (2d) 111, at paras.11-12; R.S.L. v. S.I.L., 2013 NBCA 23, 402 N.B.R. (2d) 199, at para. 7; T.L. v. A.C., 2013 NBCA 24, 402 N.B.R. (2d) 373, at para. 6; M.L.B. v. W.R.P., 2019 NBCA 63, [2019] N.B.J. No. 21......
-
S.R. v. M.A.R.,
...[para. 29]. McKinnon v. McKinnon (2011), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 378; 964 A.P.R. 378; 2011 NBCA 49, refd to. [para. 29]. R.S.L. v. S.I.L. (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 1044 A.P.R. 199; 2013 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. Rita Godin, for the applicant; Nadine Losier, for the respondent. This application was ......