Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

Citation:  L.K.S. v. D.M.C.T., 2008 NSCA  61

 

Date:  20080703

Docket:  CA 288398

Registry: Halifax

 

 

Between:

L. K. S.

Appellant

 (Respondent by Cross Appeal)

 

v.

 

D.M.C.T.

Respondent

(Appellant by Cross Appeal)

 

 

Judge:                   The Honourable Justice Roscoe

 

Appeal Heard:      June 12, 2008, in Halifax, Nova Scotia 

 

Subject:     Family law, child support, s.7 expenses, retroactive award, costs, new evidence

 

Summary: A judge of the Family Court found that the fathers income was $1.1 million per year and fixed the table amount of child support at $8,125.35 per month.  He found that private school tuition was a s. 7 expense and ordered the father to pay half of it each year.  He made the award retroactive to August 1, 2005 being the date the mother first requested a review of the previous arrangement regarding child support.  He ordered the father to pay the mothers costs in the amount of $109,054.06.  The father appealed from the costs order and the mother cross appealed all aspects of the order.  The mother sought to have the fathers 2007 income tax return and his companys financial statements admitted as new evidence on the appeal.

 

Issues:      Was the new evidence admissible on the appeal?

Did the trial judge err:


1.       in determining the table amount of monthly child support;

2.       in determining the s. 7 expenses;

3.       in fixing the effective date of the increase in child support;

4.       in awarding costs in the amount of $109,054.06?

 

Result:       Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. There was no basis upon which to interfere with the trial judges orders respecting child support and costs.  The new evidence was not admitted on the appeal.      

 

 

 

 

This information sheet does not form part of the courts judgment.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of  27  pages.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.