Delaney v. Best, 2022 NSSC 76

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Delaney v. Best, 2022 NSSC 76 Date: 20220314 Docket: 37426 Registry: Sydney, NS Between: Donna Lee Delaney Applicant v. Robert Charles Best Respondent Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Pamela Marche Heard: February 17, 2022 in Sydney, Nova Scotia Final Written Submissions: February 28, 2022, Counsel for Ms. Best March 1 and 2, 2022, Mr. Best Written Decision: March 14, 2022 Subject: Retroactive Child Support; Delay; Notice of Discontinuance; Interjurisdictional Child Support

Summary: The Applicant resides in Nova Scotia and the Respondent resides in Alberta. In 2018 the Applicant first sought to vary a Nova Scotia Interim Order for child support under the Nova Scotia Interjurisdictional Support Order Act, S.N.S. 2002, c. 9 ( ISO ) . The ISO claim was not advanced, and the Applicant then applied under the Nova Scotia Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c 160 ( PSA ) to vary child support. In May 2019 the Applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in relation to the PSA variation application and, in June 2019, she refiled the ISO variation application.

Again, the ISO claim was not pursued, and, in September 2019, the Applicant applied, once more, to vary child support pursuant to the PSA . The parties agreed on prospective child support but not retroactive child support. Issues: What is the appropriate award of retroactive child support? Result: Questions about jurisdiction created delay. Although the actions of the Applicant in pursuit of child support variation were not unreasonable, the Respondent is entitled to rely with certainty on the Notice of Discontinuance filed in May, 2019.

The request for retroactive child support was denied but child support was calculated from the date the Respondent was personally served with the Applicant’s 2019 PSA application to vary child support. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT 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: Delaney v. Best , 2022 NSSC 76

Date: March 14, 2022 Docket: Sydney No. 37426 Registry: Sydney, NS Between: Donna Lee Delaney Applicant v. Robert Charles Best Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Pamela Marche Heard: February 17, 2022, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Written Release: March 14, 2022 Counsel: Cassandra Lilley, for the Applicant Robert Charles Best, Self-Represented By the Court: Overview [ 1 ] Donna Delaney and Robert Best have a daughter, S, who was born in June 2003. Mr. Best lives in Alberta and Ms. Delaney lives in Nova Scotia. Ms. Delaney is seeking to vary child support payable for S retroactively. Mr.

Best does not agree to the payment of retroactive support. Background and Procedural History [ 2 ] I have considered the procedural history in detail as it relates to the examination of delay. Delay is an important consideration in the analysis of retroactive child support. [ 3 ] In March 2007 an Interim Order for child support was issued in Nova Scotia directing Mr. Best to pay $102.00 per month in child support. Mr. Best was also ordered to keep Ms. Delaney advised of any change in his address, employment, or income status and to provide Ms.

Delaney with a copy of his Income Tax information for each year commencing June 2007. [ 4 ] In June 2018, Ms. Delaney filed a Support Application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act , S.N.S. 2002, c. 9 ( ISO ) . As per the normal course, the ISO application package was received by court staff in Sydney and forwarded to the Designated Authority in the Nova Scotia Reciprocity Office which is the administrative body responsible for managing incoming and outgoing ISO files. [ 5 ] In September 2018, the Nova Scotia Reciprocity Office returned Ms.

Delaney’s ISO package to Sydney court staff with the notation: “ This application is being returned as the order the applicant is seeking to vary is an interim order. I ask that you have this matter set down for a hearing.” [ 6 ] Presumably counsel for Ms. Delaney was advised of this correspondence because on October 5, 2018, Ms. Delaney filed an Amended Notice of Application under the Nova Scotia Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c 160 ( PSA ) seeking child support payable from June 2018 forward and enrolment in the Nova Scotia Administrative Recalculation Program. Ms.

Delaney also sought to have parenting arrangements determined pursuant to this application. [ 7 ] Ms. Delaney and Mr. Best participated in the Nova Scotia conciliation process in October 2018. Conciliation is a court- based assisted negotiation process. The Conciliator reported that the parties had resolved parenting arrangements (although an order reflecting the parenting agreement was not prepared by the Conciliator for reasons unknown), but child support issues remained outstanding. As a result, the question of child support was referred to the Court. [ 8 ] In March 2019, counsel Ms.

Delaney made a motion for substituted service. The chambers judge was not satisfied there were sufficient grounds to grant the order and directed counsel for Ms. Delaney to obtain additional information before bringing the matter back. Ancillary to the motion for substituted service, the Chambers judge raised the question, but did not determine, whether the child support matter ought to be proceeding by way of the PSA or ISO . [ 9 ] On May 17, 2019, counsel for Ms. Delaney filed a notice discontinuing Ms. Delaney’s 2018 PSA application.

[ 10 ] On June 5, 2019, Ms. Delaney re-filed her original ISO support application. The package was once more forwarded by court staff to the Nova Scotia Reciprocity Office who again returned Ms. Delaney’s ISO package to the court putting forth the following opinion: “An interim order cannot be varied through a Variation Application – it needs to be set down for a final hearing so that a final order can be made.” [ 11 ] On September 30, 2019, Ms. Delaney re-filed her original PSA application seeking child support payable from June 2018 forward and enrolment in the Nova Scotia Administrative Recalculation Program.

Ms. Delaney again sought a determination of parenting arrangements. [ 12 ] On January 29, 2020, Mr. Best was served personally with Ms. Delaney’s 2019 PSA application, along with a Notice to Appear directing him to attend court on February 7, 2020. The February 7, 2020, court date, however, was removed by the Chambers Judge due to inclement weather. [ 13 ] The next court conference on this file was not scheduled until August 10, 2020. Mr. Best did not appear and there was no indication that Mr. Best had notice of the proceeding so the matter was adjourned to November 16, 2020. [ 14 ] Mr.

Best did not appear at the conference held on November 16, 2020, either. However, again, there was no indication on the file that he was provided notice of the appearance. Counsel for Ms. Delaney sought an adjournment. The Court adjourned without date and directed counsel for Ms. Delaney to contact scheduling to bring the matter forward when prepared to proceed. [ 15 ] In July 2021, counsel for Ms. Delaney requested a Date Assignment Conference. On August 18, 2021, the court directed that counsel for Ms. Delaney have Mr.

Best served personally with a Notice to Appear by phone for a conference scheduled for October 4, 2021. [ 16 ] At the October 4, 2021, teleconference Mr. Best agreed to pay the table amount of child support and advised the Court he believed his income was $102,000 for the previous year, although he had yet to file his Income Tax Return. On that basis, an Interim Consent Order was issued by consent in the amount of $902 per month starting October 1, 2021. The parenting arrangements the parties had previously settled during the conciliation process in 2018 were confirmed and included the Order. Mr.

Best agreed to file financial disclosure by November 1, 2021, and a further conference was scheduled for November 15, 2021. [ 17 ] Mr. Best filed his income tax information as directed but there was no agreement on the issue of retroactive child support. A hearing date was scheduled for February 17, 2022, with all parties agreeing that Mr. Best would participate in the hearing via videoconference. [ 18 ] At the November conference, Mr.

Best indicated he was considering making an undue hardship argument in relation to the payment of the table amount of child support because of his obligation to support several other dependent children. Mr. Best was referred to the

summary advice counsel service and given a deadline of January 15, 2022, to file documentation to support an undue hardship argument. Mr. Best did not do so. [ 19 ] At a pre-trial held on January 19, 2022, Mr. Best confirmed he would not be advancing an undue hardship argument. Mr. Best also raised the question as to why Ms. Delaney was proceeding by way of PSA as opposed to ISO and cited concern about having to attend in person for the February hearing. The Court reminded Mr. Best that this issue had been addressed during the November 2021 conference and that the parties had agreed that Mr.

Best would participate in the February 2022 hearing via videoconference. Mr. Best was willing to proceed in this fashion. [ 20 ] At the outset of the hearing held on February 17, 2022, the parties agreed that Mr. Best had an annual income of $95,176 in 2021 (as opposed to the $102,000 previously guesstimated by Mr. Best) for the purposes of determining the table amount of child support. Based on the Alberta table of the Provincial Child Support Guidelines , O.I.C. 2017-143, N.S. Reg. 83/2017, (the Guidelines ), the parties agreed that Mr. Best would pay Ms.

Delaney $841.00 per month on a go forward basis. [ 21 ] The only outstanding issue, therefore, was retroactive child support. The only witnesses were Ms. Delaney and Mr. Best. Ms. Delaney was represented by counsel. Mr. Best represented himself throughout the proceeding. Issue 1. What is the appropriate award of retroactive child support? Applicable Law [ 22 ] In Colucci v. Colucci , 2021 SCC 24 , the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that courts have wide discretion to vary child support. This is necessary given the broad range of factual circumstances that give rise to variation applications [para. 29].

In exercising such discretion, courts must balance three interests to ensure a fair result: • The child’s interest in receiving the amount of support to which they are entitled. • The promotion of certainty and predictability; and • The need for flexibility. The right of the child to support commensurate with the payor’s income is the overriding interest. [ 23 ] In Colucci , supra , the Court also discussed the significant importance of disclosure in family law. Adequate, accurate and timely financial disclosure is critical to determining child support in a manner that is fair and effective.

Full and frank disclosure is the cornerstone of the child support regime in Canada. Disclosure is crucial to ensuring that child support is paid commensurate with

income. Without disclosure there is an information asymmetry that favors the payor who controls access to the information that is needed to fairly determine child support. [para. 48-54]. [ 24 ] T he Supreme Court of Canada in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) , 2006 SCC 37 (DBS) , considered in Michel v. Graydon , 2020 SCC 24 , addressed the issue of retroactive increases in child support: Child support is the right of the child, and such right survives the breakdown of the relationship of the child's parents [para 3]. The child loses when one parent fails to pay the correct amount of child support [para 45].

Parents have an obligation to support their child according to their income and this obligation exists independent of any statute or court order [para 54]. [ 25 ] In DBS , supra, the Supreme Court of Canada set out factors to consider when assessing whether to award child support retroactively, including: • the reasonableness for delay in seeking support by the recipient; • the presence or absence of blameworthy conduct by the payor; • the circumstances of the child, past and present, giving consideration to the child’s standard of living; and • any hardship to the payor occasioned by a retroactive award. [ 26 ] Hardship factors are less significant if the payor engaged in blameworthy conduct.

The payment of a retroactive award is not an exceptional remedy. A support award should be payable from the date the recipient gave effective notice to the payor. It is generally inappropriate to make a retroactive award more than three years prior to the date when formal notice was provided to the payor ( DBS , supra ; Colluci , supra ). Positions of the Parties Ms. Delaney [ 27 ] Ms. Delaney is seeking retroactive child support in the amount of $46,857 from January 1, 2017, reflecting the three-year period prior to January 2020 when Mr. Best was served personally with Ms. Delany’s 2019 PSA application.

Her calculations are as follows: Year Income Table Amount Amount Paid Difference Months Total Owing 2016 112,176 975 for 2017 102 873 12 $10,476 2017 101,740 899 for 2018 102 797 12 $9,564 2018 103,309 914 for 2019 102 812 12 $9,744 2019 105,475 933 for 2020 102 831 12 $9,972 2020 100,814 891 for 2021 102 789 9 $7,101 TOTAL CLAIMED $46,857 (Note: Subsequent to this chart being filed with the Court, the parties agreed that Mr. Best’s income for 2021 was $95,176.) [ 28 ] Ms.

Delaney argues an award of retroactive child support is appropriate in this case for the following reasons, which I have loosely categorized within the DBS framework : • Delay - Ms. Delaney argues her delay in seeking support from Mr. Best was not unreasonable. She claims she had limited contact with Mr. Best after he moved from Nova Scotia to Alberta in 2007. Ms. Delaney argues that she did not know Mr. Best had increased income until 2017 when she learned that Mr. Best had bought a home in Alberta and must, therefore, be earning more income than he had been in 2007. Ms.

Delaney claims she contacted Nova Scotia Legal Aid soon thereafter to commence her variation application. • Blameworthy Conduct - Ms. Delaney contends that Mr. Best has engaged in blameworthy conduct. She points out that Mr. Best did not provide her with ongoing financial disclosure as directed in the 2007 Interim Order and argues that Mr. Best delayed in providing financial disclosure in the current proceeding. Furthermore, Ms. Delaney notes that she and Mr. Best participated in conciliation in October 2018, that Mr.

Best was aware of her request to increase child support from at least that time and that he refused to voluntarily increase child support in 2018, despite knowing his income was significantly higher than it was in 2007. • Circumstances of the Child - Ms. Delaney notes that S is 18, under the age of majority, and that S is currently enrolled in a post- secondary education program from which she is expected to graduate in May 2024. Ms. Delaney contends that any award of retroactive child support will be used to cover the cost of S attending college. • Hardship - Ms. Delaney argues that Mr.

Best did not prove that payment of a retroactive child support award would create a hardship for him. She notes that Mr. Best did not file a sworn Financial Statement or otherwise provide proof of his financial situation, including details about his obligation to support other dependent children. Furthermore, Ms. Delaney suggests that a payment plan for retroactive child support could serve to mitigate any potential hardship experienced by Mr. Best.

[ 29 ] Alternative Argument - In the alternative, should the Court not be prepared to order retroactive support, Ms. Delaney argues that Mr. Best has at least partly engaged in the court process since October 2018, as evidenced by his participation in the conciliation process and, as a result, support should be calculated from October 2018 to September 2021 in the amount of $32,396, not as retroactive support but as the total amount of child support payable at the table amount from the date Ms. Delaney filed her application. Mr. Best [ 30 ] Mr.

Best argues an award of retroactive child support is not appropriate in this case for the following reasons, which I have again loosely categorized within the DBS framework: • Delay - Mr. Best claims he advised Ms. Delaney well before 2017 that his income had significantly increased. Mr. Best argues that he should not be penalized for Ms. Delaney’s delay in bringing forward a variation application. Mr. Best testified that, at one point, he understood the whole matter had been cancelled. • Blameworthy Conduct - Mr. Best claims he did not his share his contact information with Ms.

Delaney because of an incident of violence between them in early 2006 in which Ms. Delaney was the aggressor. Mr. Best acknowledges that he did not disclose his income as directed in the 2007 Interim Consent Order. He contends, however, that he understood his enrollment in the Maintenance Enforcement Program, along with the garnishment of his wages, meant that his child support payments would automatically be adjusted. Mr. Best argues that he provided financial disclosure as directed by the court and agreed to the variation of child support in October 2021 when the matter was put directly before him. Mr.

Best claims that he was agreeable to paying the table amount of child support when the issue was raised at conciliation in 2018. Mr. Best disputes that he contested the variation of the 2007 child support order. • Circumstances of the Child - Mr. Best argues that he did, on the two or three occasions when he was visiting Nova Scotia, take S shopping for school clothes and other necessities. He points out that he bought S a phone, headphones, a bike, and contributed $200 for a school trip. Mr. Best claims his father would also sometimes contribute to the financial support of S. Mr.

Best disputes the notion that Ms. Delaney has suffered financially and argues that Ms. Delaney could have sought employment instead of relying on income assistance if that were the case. Mr. Best also claims Ms. Delaney had unreported sources of supplementary income while on social assistance. Mr. Best does not agree that he should have to contribute to the cost of S attending college. He notes that he has other children that he has not been able to assist with post-secondary education and it would not be fair for S to have the benefit of having college paid for when her siblings have not. • Hardship - Mr.

Best argues that an award of retroactive support would cause him significant hardship because of his obligation to support other dependent children. Mr. Best says he has an open child support claim against him in Edmonton, Alberta, in relation to his children Ry Best (born in 2006) and Rb Best (born in 2010). Mr. Best asserts that until 2018, he was paying support in accordance with two other child support orders, both which were also enrolled in the Nova Scotia Maintenance Enforcement Program.

Findings and Decision [ 31 ] A support award should be payable from the date the recipient gave effective notice to the payor ( DBS , supra ). Mr. Best was served personally with Ms. Delaney’s 2019 PSA application on January 29, 2020. I am prepared to order that Mr. Best pay the table amount of child support from February 1, 2020, forward. Technically, this is not a retroactive award of child support but rather an accounting of arrears that have accumulated since February 1, 2020.

Those arrears amount to $16,059 as calculated below: Year Income Table Amount Amount Paid Difference Months Total Owing 2019 105,475 933 for 2020 102 831 11 $9,141 2020 95,176 841 for 2021 102 789 9 $7,101 2020 95,176 841 for 2021 902 -61 3 -$183.00 TOTAL OWING $16,059 [ 32 ] I do note that Ms. Delaney’s 2019 PSA application requests child support retroactive to June 2018. Further, in her prehearing brief, Ms. Delaney sought child support retroactive to January 2017 (three years prior to January 2020). I do not find it appropriate to award any retroactive child support for the following reasons.

Delay [ 33 ] The issue of jurisdiction is not directly before me because Mr. Best agreed to participate in the Nova Scotia proceeding. I am addressing jurisdiction because it is clear from the procedural history that confusion over jurisdiction, specifically whether Ms. Delaney ought to pursue an application to vary child support under the ISO Act or the PSA , contributed significantly to the delay in this proceeding. [ 34 ] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Jasen v.

Karassik , 2009 ONCA 245 (leave to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed) found that the ISO Act was not a comprehensive code for dealing with interjurisdictional support variation applications. Jensen , supra , was endorsed in Nova Scotia by Associate Chief Justice O’Neil in Pitts v. Noble , 2009 NSSC 325 , and Simmons v. Ferguson , 2018 NSSC 262 .

These cases support the premise that t he existence of the Nova Scotia Interjurisdictional Support Order Act , supra , does not, in and of itself, preclude a parent from pursuing support remedies against an out-of-province parent under the Nova Scotia Parenting and Support Act , supra . [ 35 ] I set out this general legal principle because determination of jurisdictional issues is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The Designated Authority within the Nova Scotia Reciprocity Office is an administrative body. The Reciprocity Office very

rightly screens incoming and outgoing ISO applications to identify potential issues in order to avoid unnecessary delay; delay being a common criticism of the ISO process and the ISO regime having been enacted, at least in part, to reduce delay. It is important to remember, however, that authority to determine jurisdictional issues rests only with the Court and not the Designated Authority. [ 36 ] The power of the designated authority is limited to that afforded to it by the ISO Act , supra, and the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Regulations , O.I.C. 2003-133 (effective March 31, 2003), N.S.

Reg. 73/2003 as amended to O.I.C. 2017-279 (effective February 12, 2018), N.S. Reg. 164/2017. It is not within the ambit of the Designated Authority to speak definitively on jurisdictional issues and, when jurisdictional issues do arise, it is good practice to seek clear judicial direction as early as possible, to proceed with certainty and avoid delay. [ 37 ] Perceived jurisdictional issues were clearly the cause of several starts and stops in Ms. Delaney’s pursuit of increased child support. This created delay, including the discontinuance of the 2018 PSA application in May 2019. Although I do not find Ms.

Delaney’s actions, or the resulting delay, to be unreasonable given the communication from the Reciprocity Office as recounted herein, I also find that Mr. Best is entitled to rely, with certainty, upon on the Notice of Discontinuance filed in May 2019. [ 38 ] Ultimately, it was incumbent upon Ms. Delaney, as the Applicant, to pursue the variation application. While the delay here is not without reason, Mr. Best should not be expected to bear the cost of the delay, particularly since a Notice of Discontinuance was filed. Blameworthy Conduct [ 39 ] Mr.

Best’s failure to disclose his income on an annual basis is blameworthy conduct. Mr. Best’s claim that he believed his enrolment in the Nova Scotia Maintenance Enforcement Program (NS MEP) negated his obligation to disclose is not credible, particularly since Mr. Best had two other NS MEP files, separate and apart from his MEP file involving S. Mr. Best’s obligation to disclose was clear and there was no sound reason for Mr. Best to believe that obligation had been lifted. [ 40 ] Mr. Best’s failure to keep Ms. Delaney apprised of his contact information is also blameworthy conduct.

This type of behavior contributes to the information asymmetry, referenced in Colucci , supra , that is so problematic to the child support regime. I do not accept that the incident between the parties in 2005-2006 prevented Mr. Best from sharing his contact information with Ms. Delaney and note that parties are able to use a designated address for notice purposes when they wish to keep contact information confidential. [ 41 ] There is dispute about whether Mr. Best agreed to pay the table amount of child support during the conciliation process in 2018. Mr.

Best argues he never refused to pay the table amount of child support. It is clear to me, however, that there was no agreement on the table amount of child support reached in 2018 and that Mr. Best continued to pay child support as ordered in 2007, despite knowing he was earning significantly more income. A failure to willingly pay table child support is also blameworthy conduct. [ 42 ] Having made these findings, I also find that Mr. Best, once properly brought before the Court in October 2021, subsequent to the Notice of Discontinuance, was participatory and compliant. Mr.

Best over-estimated his income and agreed to a Consent Order to pay the table amount of child support. Mr. Best filed financial documentation as directed and willingly engaged with the court process. Mr. Best’s conduct was not in any way blameworthy in the context of Ms. Delaney’s September 2019 PSA Application. Circumstances of the Child [ 43 ] It is important to clarify that Ms. Delaney is only seeking the table amount of child support. She did not make a claim for Mr. Best to contribute financially to S’s post secondary education pursuant to s. 7 of the Guidelines. Mr.

Best’s refusal to contribute to S’s post-secondary education expenses is somewhat mis-framed, given the issue before the Court is retroactive child support at the table amount and not s. 7 expenses. [ 44 ] Ms. Delaney’s income is not relevant, within the context of this case, to the determination of child support. [ 45 ] The purchase of gifts for S by Mr. Best on occasion does not negate his obligation to pay child support. Furthermore, there was no evidence of Mr.

Best, or his father, providing gifts or otherwise financially supporting S during the period of time for which arrears were calculated (i.e., January 2020 to October 2021). [ 46 ] I have considered S’s circumstances as they have been made known to me. I am satisfied that is appropriate to have child support payable at the table amount from February 1, 2020 forward. Arrears have accumulated since Mr. Best was put on notice of Ms. Delaney’s variation application in January, 2020 and it is open to Ms. Delaney to allocate those arrears towards the support of S, in the manner she deems appropriate.

Hardship [ 47 ] It would appear there is an unresolved child support claim outstanding against Mr. Best in relation to two other dependant children in Alberta. To my knowledge, there is currently no other child support order in place. Mr. Best considered, with the benefit of legal advice, whether to pursue an undue hardship argument and chose not to do so. [ 48 ] I have considered the issue of hardship as it relates to Mr. Best’s repayment of arrears. I note Mr. Best has an income that fluctuates but averages in the vicinity of $100,000. I have considered that Mr.

Best may be ordered to pay child support in relation to his two children in Alberta. I am mindful of what the amount would be, should Mr. Best be ordered to pay the table amount, but I note that such an order does not currently exist. [ 49 ] I am satisfied that any hardship to Mr. Best in the payment of arrears can be mitigated with a payment plan. I am directing that Mr. Best pay $100 per month toward arrears until S is no longer a dependant child eligible for child support. Once child support terminates, Mr. Best will increase his payment to $1000 dollars per month until the arrears are paid in full. Ms.

Delany will advise Mr. Best immediately should S discontinue her course of post-secondary education, currently expected to end in May 2024. Should Mr. Best

continue to pay the table amount of child support beyond when S would have been considered a dependant child eligible for support, any overpayment may be set off against arrears. [ 50 ] I decline to grant Mr. Best’s request to have child support paid directly to S. As the primary care parent, Ms. Delaney has household expenses, such as food and heat, related to the care of S. There was no reason advanced that would justify direct payment to S. Alternative Argument [ 51 ] I reject Ms. Delaney’s alternative argument that child support should be calculated since October 2018, given Mr.

Best’s participation in the conciliation process at that time. Ms. Delaney filed a Notice of Discontinuance in May 2019, and I am not prepared to look past that document to assess child support. Administrative Recalculation [ 52 ] I can not grant Ms. Delaney’s request to be enrolled in the Administrative Recalculation Program because the Recalculation of Child Support Regulations, O.I.C. 2014-439 (October 21, 2014, effective November 1, 2014), N.S. Reg. 161/2014 as amended to O.I.C. 2017-143 (April 27, 2017, effective May 26, 2017), N.S. Reg. 82/2017, require that both parties be residents of Nova Scotia (s. 9).

Conclusion [ 53 ] I have weighed the interests of certainty and predictability against the need for flexibility all the while keeping in the forefront the paramount interest of ensuring child support is payable commensurate with income. In assessing the DBS factors of delay, conduct, financial circumstances and hardship, I decline to look beyond the Notice of Discontinuance filed in May 2019, even where the PSA application filed in September 2019 reiterates a claim for child support retroactive to June 2018. [ 54 ] Counsel for Ms.

Delaney will draft the Order which will reflect the agreement of the parties in terms of prospective child support and my decision as it relates to the calculation of child support arrears that have accumulated since January 2020. The Order will contain the standard disclosure clauses and will reflect Ms. Delaney’s obligation to keep Mr. Best apprised of S’s school enrolment. [ 55 ] If either party wishes to make a submission with respect to costs, they must do so within 30 days. Marche, J.