Ewing v. Ewing 2009 ABCA 227 (CanLII)
Introduction
In the legal case of Ewing v. Ewing, The mother, Janette Francis Ewing, had appealed for an increase in the child support provided by the father, Ronald Gregory Ewing, specifically for the years 2005 and 2006. She believed that the current amount of child support being provided was not sufficient to meet the needs of their children.
The father, on the other hand, raised a cross-appeal. He argued against the variation of child support, claiming that the current level of support was already adequate and met the reasonable needs of the children. He posited that an increase in the support would fundamentally act as a transfer of wealth from him, the father, to the mother. This, he argued, would be inconsistent with the primary purpose of child support, which is to serve the welfare of the children and not to enrich the other parent.
After careful examination of the evidences and arguments presented by both parties, the court made its decision. The mother's appeal for an increase in child support was dismissed.
The court agreed with the father's argument on this issue. The judges ruled that the current level of child support was indeed sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the children, and that an increase in this support would essentially amount to a transfer of wealth from the father to the mother, which is not the intention of child support.
Setting the Evidentiary Bar in Child Support Cases
A prominent point of concern brought to light in the judgment was the high evidentiary bar set by the court. The court found that the father had furnished sufficient evidence to raise valid concerns about the appropriateness of the Table amount of child support. This finding underscores the necessity for judicial caution when establishing the evidentiary bar in child support cases.
Prioritizing the Children’s Actual Means and Needs
Another crucial aspect criticized in the judgment was the chambers judge's failure to take into account the children's actual means and needs. The court stressed that the children's real-life circumstances should be a primary factor in determining the suitable amount of child support. This is a critical reminder for all parties involved in similar cases. The focus should be on the actual needs and means of the children at the core of the dispute, as opposed to rigid adherence to predetermined amounts.
The Significance of Identifying a Child of the Marriage
The father also contended that their child, Elliott, should no longer be considered a child of the marriage due to her lack of academic success. He argued that the pressure being exerted on her to pursue academics was detrimental to her confidence and progress, and that these circumstances should be taken into account in the consideration of child support.
The court did not agree with the father's argument on this point. The chambers judge acknowledged that Elliott had been experiencing difficulties with her academic program at Mount Royal College, but concluded that since she was still attending regular classes, she was entitled to support. The court found no basis for appellate intervention on this matter, and thus, dismissed this argument raised by the father.
Conclusion
The Ewing v. Ewing case has shed light on several key issues surrounding child support laws. From the importance of setting an appropriate evidentiary bar, giving due consideration to the children's actual means and needs, to the crucial task of accurately identifying a child of the marriage, this case serves as an invaluable reference for future related cases.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of a fair and comprehensive analysis, the consideration of all relevant factors, and the need for clearly defined legal terms in child support cases. It calls for a balanced approach that ensures both the rights of the parents and the best interests of the children are adequately protected.
THIS BLOG IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF LAILNA DHALIWAL LLP.
The Content is offered free of charge strictly on an "as is" basis and is intended to provide users with general information only. Lailna Dhaliwal LLP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness or fitness of the Content for any particular purpose.
The material provided on the Lailna Dhaliwal LLP/JSDLAW PC website is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind, and does not constitute legal advice.
No one should act, or refrain from acting, based solely upon the materials provided on this website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice.
Sending or receiving of these materials does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Do not provide any confidential information to Lailna Dhaliwal LLP unless and until we have given you a written retainer agreement confirming that we can represent you.