Cite as: McKim v. McKim, 1970 NSCA 36 CASE NO. VOL. NO . s. C. No. 15«)'49 lN i'HE SUmEME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA AP:i.:£AL DIVlSION BE~N: OORmHY JOY .McK!M [~ti tioner l Respondent - and. -LARRY ANDREW McKDf [Re sporide nt ] Appellant HEARD at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before the Honourable Chief JusticE~ McKinnon, the Honourable Mr. Justice Coffin and the Honournble Mr. Justice Copper of the Appeal Division, Apz•il 6, 1970 OPINION April 11, 1CJ70 COUNSEL G. H. Ma.cNe!ll, Esq. Appellant w. J. Grant, E3q., Q.c . Respondent access and mainienaoce
1969 S • C • No .. 15048 IN ~ SUmEME COURT OF NOVA SCO'rIA APlEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: DOROTHY JOY McKIM [~ti tioner] Respondent ··and -LARRY ANDHEW McKIM [Respondent] Appellant McKINNON, CoJ.N.S.: T is is an appeal from an order by Pottier, J., whereby corollary r elief to a decree nisi~ was granted ai Amherst, in the County of Cumberlarrl, on or about October 28, 1969. 'ibe appeal is limited to that part of 'Ghe said order which granted cor.ollary relief, as follows: (1) 'Diet for a period of' ooe year the appellant woo.ld have access to see the child on one day per month. (2) ':Ji.lhat the appellant would pay to the petitioner the sum of three hWlldred dollars per monin for i~e s~ppor"'~ and maintenance ot the petitioner alild. the said infant child, and t@at the ap~llant woul.Jl carry out the '\\:erms of' an aEµ-eement ~tween the parties whereby he would make the miortgage p.ajl'ID?nts and provide ~ lathing for the infant cb.i ld :1 J n Roberi McKim. The appellant wolllld also provide grocerieso l
Dm-ing the proceedings before this Co\U't , counsel for both parties agreed that the order tor corollary relief to the decree nisi, respecting support and maintenance, would be varied as follo~s: (1) '.llhat the re11pondent-a.ppellant would pay to the petitioner the sum of $275.00 p?r month, co~ncing April 1, lWIO, and on the first day of each month t hereafter; the initial April payment t o be made during the month of April, 1910, but all other such payments to be oo the firs1; day of each slll.cceeding month. (2) !hat the grc~ery bills and the bills for the son °s clothing would be paid by the appe llant up to and Wltil March 31, 19709 and thereafter tb.e petitioner w~ld be responsible for the payment of such accountso (3) ~t the ap~llant would i.lllndertake the obligation of causing the release of $3,0COoOO worth of securities belonging to the petitioner, which secl!U'ities are presently held by a bank as security to cover an :1ruiebtedness of the appellant. (4) That all arrears of truces would be the responsi bility of the petitionero (5) ~t any order p!U'suant to this appeal, inchtd ·0 ing these provisions of agreement, would b~ open to review if a change in the living circwnsitances of either party so warranted. (6) fi'Jat there would be no at-.iard of costs on this appeal. ~e order for corollary relief to the decree nisi respecting support and maintenance will be varied :in aiecordance with the terms o'f the provisions a.greed to by ~onmsel for the parties herein. : 2
That part of the order f'or corollary relief' to the decree nisi which directed that for the pe-riod. of one yea::r the appellant-respondent would have access to see the child on one day per month shoold be varied a.s follows: ':!hat the appellant-resporident will have access to see the child on each Saturday or SW'lday between the hours of 3 pomo a.nd 8 p.m., every second week; that· the appellant mall have the right of access to see the cllildsi which inclooes the right to have the child with him, tor the last two weeks of July in each year, during sum."11a'r we.cation, ancil for three days from December 27 to December 29, during Christmas vacation in each y~a:r o ~e times allowing for access as set forth here, as well as access to see the child at other tilllla'S, may be varied or p.ronded for ·by agree ment between the petitioner and the appellu~t. The ap~al is, theirefore j allowed in part without costs. C. JJ. Mo S. Halifax, Nova Scotia April 17, 1$60 3
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.