Citing D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, and Ewing v. Ewing, 2007 ABCA 72 (CanLII), the chambers judge noted that awards of retroactive child support are discretionary and that estimates of income for purposes of the Guidelines are subject to variation and adjustment if it turns out that the available income of either of the parties is materially more or less than the estimate. She found that the father’s actual income was materially higher than the estimate each year. She noted that failure to increase support automatically when income rises is not necessarily blameworthy conduct. However, she found that the father made statements that were intended to dissuade the mother from formally pursuing an increase in support and that such conduct was blameworthy. She rejected the argument that the child’s age and expulsion from the school meant that he would no longer benefit from a retroactive variation of support and found that fairness dictated that the adjustment be made.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.