SWEEZEY v SWEEZEY, 2016 ABQB 131
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
9.15: Setting aside, varying and discharging judgments and orders
The Applicant father applied to retroactively vary a child support Order, arguing that his real income was lower than what was imputed to him. The Applicant, who was both owner and shareholder of a corporation, argued that many of the expenses he had listed were valid corporate expenses, whereas the Respondent’s position was that they were not. The Respondent also contended that the Applicant had not provided enough evidence for the Court to properly determine his income. Yungwirth J. stated that it was the Applicant’s onus to provide all relevant financial information regarding his corporation to ensure that the Respondent and the Court were provided with enough information to determine whether the Applicant’s stated income amount was reflected in the financial statements of his corporation.
Justice Yungwirth noted that Rule 1.2 requires the parties to identify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the quickest means of resolving the claim at the least expense, and stated that in order to do so, complete disclosure is required from both parties, including the information of a party who is a shareholder in a company in order to determine both parties’ child support obligations. Yungwirth J. determined that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information or disclosure for a number of his claims in support of his Application, and dismissed his Application to vary the child support Order accordingly.View CanLII Details