A case involving more than $270,000 in accumulated child and spousal support arrears highlights several recurring issues in applications for retroactive variation of support, including chronic non-compliance, evidentiary shortcomings, and the impact of significant arrears on both variation and appellate relief.
Dr. Vahid Garousi and Shilan Garousi were married in Alberta in April 2007. Their daughter was born later that year. At the time, Dr. Garousi was a tenured professor at the University of Calgary and a professional engineer, earning approximately $105,000 annually. Ms. Garousi had no income. In 2012, Dr. Garousi took an unpaid sabbatical in Turkey. The parties separated in July 2013 and entered into a separation agreement that was subsequently incorporated into an Alberta consent order.
Under the consent order, Dr. Garousi was required to pay $958 per month in child support, $350 per month toward section 7 expenses, and all medical and dental expenses. He was also ordered to pay spousal support of $600 per month for a fixed term of eight years, together with a lump-sum payment of $40,000. Following the separation, Ms. Garousi and the child relocated to British Columbia.
Dr. Garousi complied with the support order for approximately five months, after which he ceased making payments entirely. He also failed to comply with the requirement to exchange annual income disclosure. He remained in default of the order for approximately twelve years. During this period, he lived and worked outside Canada, including in Turkey, the Netherlands, and Northern Ireland. He remarried in 2016 and was later employed at Queen’s University Belfast.
While residing in Northern Ireland, Dr. Garousi commenced an application to vary child and spousal support pursuant to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SBC 2002, c. 29, as Northern Ireland is a reciprocating jurisdiction. His variation application coincided with enforcement proceedings commenced on behalf of Ms. Garousi in that jurisdiction. A court in Belfast ordered Dr. Garousi to pay approximately $1,700 CAD per month commencing December 1, 2024, which he did pay.
Both parties were self-represented on the variation application, and the court appointed amicus curiae to assist with the statutory and procedural framework. The court noted, however, that the substantive principles governing retroactive variation of support apply equally in interjurisdictional proceedings.
Dr. Garousi’s primary submission was that Ms. Garousi’s conduct during the separation caused significant harm to his mental health and professional standing, ultimately compelling him to resign from his tenured academic position and leave Canada. He alleged that she created a toxic work environment that undermined his career.
The court rejected these assertions. Dr. Garousi provided no medical evidence to support his claims of mental health impairment. He also failed to produce complete and reliable income documentation for the period between 2013 and 2022. The limited financial materials he did submit were largely untranslated and unsupported by evidence of applicable exchange rates, rendering any accurate assessment of his income in Canadian dollars impossible.
Given the extent and duration of Dr. Garousi’s non-compliance with the existing order, the court declined to consider any retroactive variation earlier than three years prior to the date of his application. In doing so, the court relied on Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that, once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of varying support back to the date of effective notice, subject to a maximum of three years. The court further found that Dr. Garousi’s income in the years preceding the application was substantially similar to his income at the time the original order was made.
Dr. Garousi also argued that child support should be terminated because he had no relationship with his daughter, which he attributed to Ms. Garousi’s actions. The court rejected this argument, accepting Ms. Garousi’s evidence that Dr. Garousi had chosen not to engage in the child’s life.
The court dismissed Dr. Garousi’s application to vary or terminate child and spousal support. It did, however, adjust the allocation of section 7 expenses to reflect Ms. Garousi’s current income, ordering that Dr. Garousi be responsible for 61 percent of those expenses.
Dr. Garousi appealed the decision. On the eve of the appeal hearing, counsel for Ms. Garousi, who had just been retained, advised the court that a preliminary objection would be raised on the basis that the appeal should not be heard due to Dr. Garousi’s substantial arrears. The appeal was adjourned and referred to case management, but no resolution was achieved.
At the rescheduled hearing, Ms. Garousi’s counsel renewed the objection. The Court of Appeal invited Dr. Garousi, who was self-representing, to explain his continued non-compliance with the support orders. He provided no meaningful explanation beyond asserting financial hardship and alleging, without evidentiary support, that Ms. Garousi would deny receipt of payments if they were made.
Citing Bullock v. Bullock, 2008 BCCA 162, the Court of Appeal reiterated that while the obligation to remain current on support pending appeal is not absolute, the court may decline to hear an appeal where a party has flagrantly disregarded support obligations and fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice require the appeal to proceed.
The appeal was dismissed.
**This article was first published in LAW360, a division of LexisNexis Canada
Lawdiva