Spurvey v. Milton, 2017 NSSC 366

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Spurvey v. Milton , 2017 NSSC 366 Date: 2017-07-20 Docket: 1201- 068677/SFHD-096048 Registry: Halifax Between: Ashley Spurvey Petitioner v. Sharles Milton Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Application to vary dismissed where the father offered no evidence of any change in circumstances since the last order was made. Key words: Family, Parenting, Access, Variation Legislation: Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985 (2 nd Supp.), c. 3, subsection 17(5) THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Spurvey v. Milton , 2017 NSSC 366 ENDORSEMENT Ashley Spurvey v. Sharles Milton 2015; 1201- 068677/SFHD-096048 July 20, 2017 Mr.

Milton seeks to vary the parenting terms of the Corollary Relief Order dated September 28, 2016. Decision: The variation application is dismissed: no material change in circumstances has been shown to have occurred since the Corollary Relief Order was granted in September 2016. Reasons:

1. The parties were divorced in September 2016. Their Corollary Relief Judgment incorporated the terms of an ordergranted following a four-day contested hearing. 2. There are three requirements that must be satisfied before I can consider an application to vary a parenting order: Gordonv. Goertz, (S.C.C.) at paragraph 13. The requirements are: (

a) there must be a change in the child’s condition, means, needs or circumstances or the ability of the parents to meet thechild’s needs; (

b) the change must materially affect the child; and (

c) the change was either not foreseen or could not have been reasonably contemplated by the judge who made the initialorder. 3. The burden of proving the material change rests on the person asking for the order to be changed: Mr. Milton. 3. If there has been no material change proven, I do not have jurisdiction to vary the order. 4. Mr. Milton has failed to prove there is a material change in circumstances which has occurred since the Corollary Relief Orderwas granted in September 2016. His affidavit refers to aspects of Ms.

Spurvey’s conduct which are no different from her conduct prior tothe issuance of the decision in 2015 which was incorporated into the 2016 Corollary Relief Order. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)