7,388
edits
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
===A change in the law: ''D.B.S. v. S.R.G.''=== | ===A change in the law: ''D.B.S. v. S.R.G.''=== | ||
In July 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada released its [http://canlii.ca/t/1p0tv judgment] in four related cases, ''D.B.S. v. S.R.G.'', ''L.J.W. v. T.A.R.'', ''Henry v. Henry'' and ''Hiemstra v. Hiemstra'', and significantly clarified the law on retroactive child support | In July 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada released its [http://canlii.ca/t/1p0tv judgment] in four related cases, ''D.B.S. v. S.R.G.'', ''L.J.W. v. T.A.R.'', ''Henry v. Henry'' and ''Hiemstra v. Hiemstra'', and significantly clarified the law on retroactive child support. Where it changed the law, the changes weren't all that far from our Court of Appeal's decision in ''L.S. v. E.P.'' These cases are referred to collectively as just ''D.B.S. v. S.R.G.'', the initials of the lead case. | ||
The logic underlying the [http://canlii.ca/t/1p0tv court's decision] is this: | The logic underlying the [http://canlii.ca/t/1p0tv court's decision] is this: |