S.M.R.C. v. S.H.C., (2016) 389 B.C.A.C. 125 (CA)

• Judge: Frankel, Stromberg-Stein and Dickson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 21, 2016
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2016), 389 B.C.A.C. 125 (CA);2016 BCCA 254

S.M.R.C. v. S.H.C. (2016), 389 B.C.A.C. 125 (CA);

    671 W.A.C. 125

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.027

S.M.R.C. (respondent/claimant) v. S.H.C. (appellant/respondent)

(CA43176; 2016 BCCA 254)

Indexed As: S.M.R.C. v. S.H.C.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, Stromberg-Stein and Dickson, JJ.A.

June 13, 2016.

Summary:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the wife to pay both spousal and child support. At the time, the husband, a chartered accountant, was unemployed and receiving employment insurance benefits. The trial judge ordered that the husband's entitlement to support be reviewed after 15 months. Within that time, the husband (self-represented) unsuccessfully brought two applications to increase the support. Shortly after the dismissal of his appeals, the 15-month period expired. The husband filed a third application, seeking to increase both child and spousal support on the ground that his employment insurance benefits had come to an end. The wife requested that income be imputed to the husband since he had not taken adequate steps to find employment.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1730, conducted a review and, in the result, terminated the spousal support and reduced the child support. The Court imputed income to the husband, finding that he had failed to take reasonable steps to find employment. The husband appealed on the principal ground that the Chambers judge erred in conducting a review of his entitlement to support. He contended that, in light of his application to vary, the judge was limited to either increasing the spousal payments or dismissing the application.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In the circumstances of this case, to accede to the husband's argument would not only place form over substance but would work an injustice on the wife.

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.

Courts - Topic 560

Judges - Powers - Authority to act ex mero motu (on own motion) - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Family Law - Topic 2393

Maintenance of spouses and children - Variation of - Variation v. review of maintenance - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Family Law - Topic 4018.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Review of maintenance v. variation of maintenance - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Counsel:

S.H.C. acting on his own behalf;

D. Martin, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 21, 2016, before Frankel, Stromberg-Stein and Dickson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Frankel, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated June 13, 2016.