L.S. v. E.P. (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 28 (CA);
206 W.A.C. 28
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.040
L.S. (plaintiff/appellant) v. E.P. (defendant/respondent)
(CA023829; 1999 BCCA 393)
Indexed As: L.S. v. E.P.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Hollinrake, Goldie and Rowles, JJ.A.
June 21, 1999.
Summary:
In 1984 a single mother obtained in Provincial Court a declaration of paternity and a support order of $1/month under the Child Paternity and Support Act. In 1995, after supporting the child herself for over 10 years, she sued in Supreme Court under the Family Relations Act for, inter alia, an order for child support. An interim order of $3,000/month was made by a Master and upheld on appeal. In an amended statement of claim the mother sought to vary, retroactively, the order under the Child Paternity and Support Act. The trial judge, in a decision reported at [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. D93, ordered the father to pay prospective child support of $659/month plus 80 percent of education and extracurricular expenses. The trial judge declined to award retroactive lump sum child support. The mother appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court fixed the amount of prospective monthly child support, but affirmed that no retroactive lump sum maintenance was payable.
Courts – Topic 2
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – The nature of the judicial decision – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that a previous court judgment was assumed to be correct and should be respected unless it was reversed on appeal or varied – See paragraph 48.
Family Law – Topic 2201
Maintenance of wives and children – Rights of children – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the right to maintenance was a right belonging to the child, not the parent – It could not be waived or bargained away by the custodial parent or lost due to that parent’s neglect, delay or lack of diligence in enforcing the right – See paragraph 58.
Family Law – Topic 2215
Maintenance of wives and children – Common law obligation of husband or father – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that parents were jointly responsible for the support of their children – See paragraph 60.
Family Law – Topic 2216
Maintenance of wives and children – Common law obligation of wife or mother – [See
Family Law – Topic 2215
].
Family Law – Topic 2343
Maintenance of wives and children – Maintenance of children – When available – [See
Family Law – Topic 2201
].
Family Law – Topic 2353
Maintenance of wives and children – Maintenance of children – Retroactive maintenance – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the “norm” in awarding retroactive child maintenance was to restrict the backdating of the maintenance order to the date of the application for the order – See paragraph 54.
Family Law – Topic 2353
Maintenance of wives and children – Maintenance of children – Retroactive maintenance – The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to and discussed the factors to be considered in making an order for retroactive lump sum child maintenance, regardless of whether the Divorce Act or the Family Relations Act applied – See paragraphs 66 to 81.
Family Law – Topic 2353
Maintenance of wives and children – Maintenance of children – Retroactive maintenance – The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a retroactive lump sum child maintenance order could be granted under the Family Relations Act where the parties were not previously married – The court further held that s. 93(3)(d) of that Act did not bar the granting of such an order – See paragraphs 40 to 44.
Family Law – Topic 2353
Maintenance of wives and children – Maintenance of children – Retroactive maintenance – In 1984 a single mother obtained in Provincial Court a declaration of paternity and a support order of $1/month under the Child Paternity and Support Act – For 13 years (1982-1995) the mother supported herself and the child with her salary and then disability benefits and family contributions – The father contributed nothing to the child’s support until a 1995 interim order – In 1997 the mother sought to vary, retroactively, the Provincial Court order – The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the court had jurisdiction to vary the 1984 order under the Family Relations Act – The court refused the mother’s claim for lump sum retroactive child maintenance based on unjust enrichment – See paragraphs 22 to 26, 37, 82 to 90.
Family Law – Topic 4001.1
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Retroactive awards – [See second
Family Law – Topic 2353
].
Statutes – Topic 6701
Operation and effect – Commencement, duration and repeal – Retrospective and retroactive enactment – General – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that a statute was not to be given retroactive effect unless such a construction appeared very clearly in the legislation or arose by necessary implication – See paragraph 51.
Cases Noticed:
Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81; [1993] 3 W.W.R. 337; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 621; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 48 E.T.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 329, refd to. [para. 23].
S.D. et al. v. S.J.T. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 274; 115 W.A.C. 274; 20 R.F.L.(4th) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Allen (Guardian ad litem of) v. Allen (1994), 9 R.F.L.(4th) 48 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].
Elliot v. Elliot (1993), 65 O.A.C. 241; 15 O.R.(3d) 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Donald v. Donald (1991), 103 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 282 A.P.R. 322; 33 R.F.L.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Dahl v. Dahl (1995), 178 A.R. 119; 110 W.A.C. 119; 18 R.F.L.(4th) 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Waterman v. Waterman (1995), 133 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310; 413 A.P.R. 310; 16 R.F.L.(4th) 10 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
MacMinn v. MacMinn (1995), 174 A.R. 261; 102 W.A.C. 261; 17 R.F.L.(4th) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Chrintz v. Chrintz (1998), 73 O.T.C. 100; 41 R.F.L.(4th) 219 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].
Celi v. Eagle (1996), 23 O.T.C. 89 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].
Tran v. Tang (1996), 83 B.C.A.C. 267; 136 W.A.C. 267; 25 R.F.L.(4th) 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
R.H.M. v. S.S.H. (1994), 150 A.R. 67; 2 R.F.L.(4th) 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
L.K. v. T.W.L. (1988), 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 41 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].
Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 48].
Shiels v. DeCarli (1996), 23 R.F.L.(4th) 95 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 53].
Headrick v. Headrick (1969), 8 D.L.R.(3d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].
Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 104, refd to. [para. 58].
Cherry v. Cherry (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 202; 125 W.A.C. 202; 24 B.C.L.R.(3d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].
Hess v. Hess (1994), 2 R.F.L.(4th) 22 (Ont. Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 61].
Collins v. Collins (1998), 221 A.R. 111 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 63].
Steinhuebl v. Steinhuebl, [1970] 2 O.R. 683 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].
MacNeal v. MacNeal (1993), 50 R.F.L.(3d) 235 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].
Moro v. Miletich (1998), 63 O.T.C. 264; 40 R.F.L.(4th) 115 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].
Yiannitsopoulos v. Patseas (1997), 92 B.C.A.C. 98; 150 W.A.C. 98; 28 R.F.L.(4th) 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
Hoar v. Hoar (1993), 62 O.A.C. 50; 45 R.F.L.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
Ambrose v. Ambrose (1990), 24 R.F.L.(3d) 353 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 71].
Williams v. Berridge (1996), 21 R.F.L.(4th) 157 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 72].
Psaila v. Psaila (1987), 10 B.C.L.R.(2d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].
Gray v. Gray (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 161; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 127 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 73].
Kloos v. Kloos (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 129; 118 W.A.C. 129; 20 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
McColl v. McColl (1995), 13 R.F.L.(4th) 449 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 73].
Dunkin v. Dunkin, [1995] W.D.F.L. 952 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].
Franklin v. Franklin, [1993] O.J. No. 1511 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].
Driver v. Driver, [1995] M.J. No. 101 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 77].
Silverman v. Silverman (1987), 79 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 196 A.P.R. 282; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].
Dickson v. Dickson (1987), 21 B.C.L.R.(2d) 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].
Brett v. Brett (1996), 13 O.T.C. 15; 24 R.F.L.(4th) 224 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 119 O.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].
Passero v. Passero, [1991] O.J. No. 406 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 81].
Statutes Noticed:
Child Paternity and Support Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 49, sect. 10 [para. 29].
Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, sect. 83(1), sect. 84 [para. 31].
Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 93 [para. 35]; sect. 93(3)(d) [para. 14]; sect. 96(1) [para. 15].
Family Relations Amendment Act, S.B.C. 1988, c. 36, sect. 7 [para. 31].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 215 [para. 51].
Counsel:
Howard Rubin, for the appellant;
R. Craig Neville, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 4 and 28, 1999, before Hollinrake, Goldie and Rowles, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
On June 21, 1999, Rowles, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
