5,310
edits
Changes
→Arrears under the Family Law Act
A similar section of the old ''Family Relations Act'', the law before the ''Family Law Act'', was described as a "complete code" regarding the reduction or cancellation of arrears under that act, meaning that the only ground on which a court could reduce or cancel arrears was "gross unfairness," as set out in section 96(2) of the old act. The courts have taken the same approach to section 174 of the ''Family Law Act''.
The courts have interpreted "gross unfairness" under the ''Family Law Act'' to mean that the payor is not only incapable of repaying the arrears but is also unlikely to be able to repay them in the foreseeable future without suffering severe financial hardship. If you are asking the court to make an order reducing arrears, you must be prepared to prove that it would be not just "unfair," but ''grossly'' unfair for you to have to pay off the arrears. The leading case that describes the legal principles about cancelling arrears is a 1999 case called [https://canlii.ca/t/1d20m Earle v. Earle''], in which the court said this:
<blockquote><tt>"There is a heavy duty on the person asking for a reduction or a cancellation of arrears to show that there has been a significant and long lasting change in circumstances. Arrears will not be reduced or cancelled unless it is grossly unfair not to do so."</tt></blockquote>