2015 NBCA 11, 2015 NBCA 11

COURT OF APPEAL OF COUR D'APPEL DU NEW BRUNSWICK NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 63-14-CA CARL JAMES SAVOIE APPELLANT CARL JAMES SAVOIE APPELANT - and - - et - SHAUNA MELANIE MACNEILL RESPONDENT SHAUNA MELANIE MACNEILL INTIMÉE Savoie v. MacNeill, 2015 NBCA 11 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Quigg The Honourable Justice Baird Savoie c.

MacNeill, 2015 NBCA 11 CORAM : l’honorable juge Bell l’honorable juge Quigg l’honorable juge Baird Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: May 15, 2014 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine: le 15 mai 2014 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: N/A Décision frappée d’appel : s.o. Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o. Appeal heard: January 30, 2015 Appel entendu : le 30 janvier 2015 Judgment rendered: February 26, 2015 Jugement rendu : le 26 février 2015

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Donald F. Cullinan For the respondents: Jacqueline Boucher Avocats à l'audience : Pour l’appelant : Donald F. Cullinan Pour l’intimée : Jacqueline Boucher THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [1] In May 2013, the appellant brought a motion in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division, seeking achange to a child support order made on July 25, 2003. He requested the support order be terminated, or, in the alternative, that thesupport payment be made directly to the child.

In her responding document, the respondent sought an increase in the child supportpayment and requested the increase be applied retroactively. [2] The motion judge ordered, among other things, that the support be increased by $117.00 per month,retroactive to June 1, 2011, and that, effective June 1, 2014, the support payment be made directly to the child of the marriage. Themotion judge ordered costs of $750.00 payable by the appellant. The appellant appeals from the retroactive increase in child support andthe award of costs. [3] In D.B.S. v.

S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, at para. 136, Bastarache J. restated the standard ofappellate review to be applied in such cases. Appeal courts should not interfere with support orders unless the reasons disclose an error inprinciple, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is clearly wrong: Hickey v. Hickey, (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, [1999] S.C.J. No. 9 (QL), at para. 19. See also D.E. v. L.E., 2014 NBCA 67, [2014] N.B.J. No. 249 (QL),at para. 6; Flieger v. Adams, 2012 NBCA 39, 387 N.B.R. (2d) 322; and Smith v. Smith, 2011 NBCA 66, 375 N.B.R. (2d) 208.

We aresatisfied the motion judge did not err in principle and fully understood the evidence. The award is not “clearly wrong”. [4] Like the order with respect to retroactivity, the motion judge’s order with respect to costs is also discretionaryand attracts a high degree of deference: this Court will not interfere with the motion judge’s award of costs unless the exercise ofdiscretion was “manifestly wrong” (D.E. v. L.E., at paras. 23-25). Costs are normally awarded to the successful party: Flieger v. Adams,at para. 23. In the present case, the appellant failed in his attempt to have the support order terminated.

Furthermore, the respondent wassuccessful in her attempt to increase child support and to have it paid retroactively. We see no basis to interfere with the costs award. [5] The appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500.

____________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. ____________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A. ____________________________ BARBARA L. BAIRD, J.A.