MacLean Law Vancouver Child Support Lawyers
In emotionally trying times like divorce/separation, it can be easy to miss out on little things that seem trivial at the time, but have a huge effect on the outcome of your settlement. Paying attention to the nitty-gritty details can make a world of difference in getting you what you are entitled to. Our Vancouver Child Support Lawyers are skilled at looking after every detail to make sure you get the best outcome possible. Contact us immediately to protect your child’s future.
In the recent case of Hankey v. Hankey 2015 BCSC 2076, a wife made an application to court to correct a consent order regarding the commencement date for Child Support from her husband. If corrected under Rule 15-1(18) of the Supreme Court Family Rules, the wife would get 2 additional years of Child Support.
Rule 15-1(18) of the Supreme Court Family Rules states:
Correction of orders
The court may at any time correct a clerical mistake in an order or an error arising in an order from an accidental slip or omission, or may amend an order to provide for any matter that should have been but was not adjudicated on.
Due to the wife’s weak application, the court did not rule in her favour and she lost out on receiving 2 additional years of child support. Call our Vancouver Child Support Lawyers to avoid this problematic situation.
Here’s what the court had to say:
[16] In this case, the evidence of one of those negotiating parties, counsel for Mr. Hankey, is uncontradicted other than by the other objective evidence that I have already referred to. At a minimum then, there appears to have been some misunderstanding between the parties and their counsel about what had been agreed to. Such a misunderstanding does not constitute a “slip” or error, does not engage Rule 15-1(18) and, as such, does not give rise to a basis to amend the language of the Order.
[17] I should also note that counsel for Ms. Hankey did not argue that the Order contained any “omission”, or that the Order should be amended to provide for a “matter that should have been but was not adjudicated on”, so as to fall within the other branches of Rule 15-1(18).
[18] The burden of proving that the June 1, 2016 date in the Order was a “slip” or an error rests with the applicant. In the present circumstances, I do not consider that that burden has been satisfied and, accordingly, her application is dismissed.
[19] Normally, the cost of this application would flow to Mr. Hankey. In the present circumstances, it appears that counsel for Ms. Hankey incurred unnecessary or unreasonable effort, delay, and expense in seeking to advance this application. Accordingly, I consider that each party should bear their own costs of the application.
Make sure you hire someone that knows what they are doing to avoid this unfortunate situation. Our Vancouver Child Support Lawyers know what to look for in these matters. Don’t wait another day and call our Vancouver Child Support Lawyers at 604 602 9000.
