Beck v Beckett
- The amount of income imputed to the respondent, Daniel Beckett
- Entitlement to Child Support and Spousal Support
- The trial judge's decision to refuse to make an order for lump sum spousal support
- Leave to appeal the costs order made by the trial judge
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's own evidence tended to support the trial judge's conclusion. The only employment opportunities that the she was aware that might suit the respondent were mainly minimum wage positions. Therefore, the Court decided not to vary the order of the trial judge.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's characterization of the appellant's position to be an error in principle and stated that it should not have been a factor in fixing costs of the trial. Therefore, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award and reversed the costs Order, holding that the parties were to bear their own costs of the trial.
- The order of child support was to be terminated as of November 30, 2010;
- The respondent was to pay to the appellant spousal support as of December 1, 2010 in the amount of $433 per month;
- Term 4 of the Order requiring the appellant to pay child support arrears was deleted;
- Term 9 of the Order was varied to require that arrears of child support and spousal support payable by the respondent was to be paid out of monies held in trust before the funds were released to the respondent