SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
(Family Division)
Citation: Fedortchouk v. Boubnov, 2018 NSSC 66 and 2017 NSSC 233
Date: 20180329
Docket: 1201-065948
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Iana Fedortchouk
Applicant
and
Pavel Boubnov
Respondent
LIBRARY HEADING
Judge: The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Lawrence I. O’Neil
Hearing: December 7, 8, 9, 2015; January 25, 26, 27, 2016; February 10, 12, 22, 24, 29, 2016; October 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 2016; November 15, 21, 2016; March 3, 17, 20, 21, 2017; and May 9, 2017, in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Issues: What is the best parenting arrangement for the parties four (4) children? What has been and what is the ongoing obligation of the parties to pay child support and to contribute to the special and extraordinary expenses of the children? Has the equalization payment provided for in the parties’ separation agreement been retired by set off ?
Summary: The Court issued two decisions. The first decision dealt with parenting issues. The second decision addressed historical and ongoing financial issues.
The decision on parenting issued August 31, 2017 (2017 NSSC 233). The Court confirmed the parenting status quo of the children. The youngest child’s primary care and his sister’s primary care remained with the mother. One son remained in the primary care of the father and the oldest was found not to be a child of the marriage.
The decision addressing unresolved financial issues issued in March 2018. The Court ordered that the equalization payment plus interest on it, as provided for in the parties’ separation agreement, is to be paid to the father on or before June 30, 2018 (2018 NSSC 66).
The Court found the provisions in the parties’ separation agreement dealing with child support and the payment of special expenses to be inapplicable because they were uncertain, contrary to s.13 of the Child Support Guidelines and because the parties themselves sought to abandon these provisions within months of concluding the separation agreement.
The Court applied the economics of scale approach for the period of approximately two (2) years when the parents had a hybrid parenting arrangement. For other periods until August 2017 and ongoing, the Court determined the parties’ child support obligations based on traditional conclusions as to the residency of the children; the parties’ incomes and the child support tables. The Court also set global amounts as each party’s historical and ongoing contribution to the special expenses of the children.
The Court found Mr. Boubnov had met or exceeded his obligation to contribute to meeting the special expenses of the children. The Court found a net financial obligation to Mr. Boubnov in the amount of $16,057.27 in addition to the equalization payment of $47,200 plus interest due him.
Keywords: Best interests; hybrid parenting; setoff; shared parenting;
Legislation: Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp)
Maintenance and Custody Act, R.S., c.160, 1989
Parenting and Support Act, R.S., c.160
Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175
Cases Considered: Fedortchouk v. Boubnov, 2017 NSSC 233
Fedortchouk v. Boubnov, 2013 NSSC 277
D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37
Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10
Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. V. Jones Power Co., 2000 NSCA 95
Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, Carswell, 6th Edition 2011
Day v. Day, 2006 NSSC 111
Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2015, Irwin Law
Slawter v. Bellefontaine, 2012 NSCA 48
MacDonald v. Pink, 2011 NSSC 421
Harrison v. Falkenham, 2017 NSSC 139
Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63
Authors Cited: Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2015, Irwin Law
JP Boyd
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.