Citation: England v Nguyen, 2017 MBCA 30 Date: 20170227 Docket: AF16-30-08550 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella BETWEEN: DONALD ROBERT ENGLAND ) J. L. Turner ) for the Appellant (Petitioner) Respondent ) ) C. J.

Friesen- and - ) for the Respondent ) THI KIM HOA NGUYEN ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) Appellant ) February 27, 2017 On appeal from 2013 MBQB 196, 295 Man R (2d) 208; and 2015 MBQB 139, 320 ManR (2d) 206 MAINELLA JA (for the Court): [1] This appeal deals with determinations after two trials in the parties’ divorce proceedings relating to remission ofspousal support arrears owed under The Family Maintenance Act, CCSM c F20 by the petitioner and payment of retroactive child supportand

section 7 expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 by the respondent. The petitioner was successful attrial and received all of the proceeds of the sale of the family home to satisfy the respondent’s obligations. As well, his historic spousalsupport arrears were cancelled. [2] At the hearing of the appeal, counsel focussed on the issue of retroactive child support and

section 7 expenses. Asupport order cannot be overturned on appeal unless there is an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence or theorder is clearly wrong (see Hickey v Hickey, (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 518 at para 11). [3] In our view, the record reasonably supports the trial judge’s disposition of the various issues and we have not beenconvinced he made a reversible error. The trial judge concluded the respondent had an obligation to pay for the care and education ofher two daughters. While the trial judge’s reasons could have been clearer as to how he arrived at the award of

section 7 expenses, in ourview, we see no basis, given the standard of review, for us to interfere with the award itself. [4] The appeal is dismissed with costs. JA JA JA