ROSSLAND, B.C. – The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed a father’s application to reduce his child support obligations after a meticulous calculation showed his parenting time fell just 0.3 per cent short of the legal threshold for a shared parenting arrangement. In a case cited as Haagsman v Haagsman, 2025 BCSC 1537 (CanLII), the court also ruled that his 17-year-old son, who had left school to work, had not withdrawn from his parents’ charge and remained eligible for support.
The decision by Madam Justice L.M. Lyster on August 11, 2025, followed a hearing in Nelson concerning an application by Curtis Trevor Cole Haagsman to vary a final consent order established with his former spouse, Danyelle Helen Dellene Haagsman, who now goes by Danyelle Edgar. The original order, dated March 31, 2021, outlined parenting and support for their two younger children, Ben and Colin.
Under the 2021 order, the children resided primarily with Ms. Edgar. Mr. Haagsman was granted a minimum of 11 days of parenting time every 28 days, corresponding to his work rotation at the time. The order stipulated he would pay child support of $1,649 per month based on his income of $109,730 and Ms. Edgar’s income of $31,390. It also included a provision for an annual review of support payments.
The circumstances for both parents changed significantly following the 2021 order. In June 2024, Mr. Haagsman started a new job which changed his work schedule from a 14-day on, 14-day off rotation to a more consistent 7-day on, 7-day off schedule. This change prompted the parents to informally adjust their parenting arrangement. Mr. Haagsman’s 2024 income was recorded as $110,610.53, while Ms. Edgar’s had increased to $47,722.33 from her employment at Canfor.
Citing these changes, Mr. Haagsman applied to the court to formally vary the order. He sought a declaration that a shared parenting arrangement had been in effect since June 2024 and that his older son, Ben, had ceased to be a “child of the marriage” as of August 1, 2024. Consequently, he requested that his child support be recalculated based on the shared parenting formula for Colin only, and that the adjustment be made retroactive. Ms. Edgar, who represented herself in court, opposed all aspects of his application.
A central issue was the status of their son Ben, who was 17 years old in August 2024. Mr. Haagsman argued that Ben had effectively become independent. He submitted evidence that Ben had quit Grade 12, began working full-time as a roofer, and was living primarily at his girlfriend’s parents’ home. He also stated that Ben had expressed to him that he did not believe his father should be paying child support for him.
Ms. Edgar presented a different picture of Ben’s circumstances. She testified that his roofing job was seasonal, paid in cash, and did not provide him with financial independence. She explained that while Ben had tried online schooling, it was unsuccessful, and he was planning to enroll in an adult GED program to qualify for trade school. Ms. Edgar stated that Ben still maintained his bedroom at her home, kept his possessions there, and stayed with her regularly. She noted his living arrangement with his girlfriend’s family was not guaranteed to be permanent.
Justice Lyster found Ms. Edgar’s evidence to be more reliable, given her more regular contact with their son. The judge noted that under the Divorce Act, a child under the age of majority, which is 18 in British Columbia, ceases to be a “child of the marriage” only if they have “withdrawn from their charge.” Justice Lyster concluded that the evidence did not support this. The court found that Ben’s seasonal work, insecure living situation, and ongoing educational plans demonstrated that he was not yet financially independent and had not withdrawn from his parents’ care. Mr. Haagsman’s application to declare Ben no longer a child of the marriage was dismissed.
The second major issue was whether the new parenting schedule for the younger son, Colin, met the legal definition of shared parenting. Under Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a shared parenting arrangement exists when a parent exercises access to or has physical custody of a child for “not less than 40 per cent” of the time over the course of a year.
During the hearing, the parents agreed on the details of their current 14-day schedule. Colin spends six nights with his father and eight nights with his mother. Mr. Haagsman argued this equated to 42.66 per cent of the time, placing him over the 40 per cent threshold. Ms. Edgar contended that his actual time was closer to 37 per cent due to missed time for work, trips, and other events.
To resolve the dispute, Justice Lyster undertook a detailed calculation based on hours, rather than days. The judge made specific assumptions, such as an average dinner pickup time of 7:00 p.m. and counting the school day following a morning drop-off as part of the mother’s time.
The court’s calculation determined that Mr. Haagsman’s parenting time amounted to 39.7 per cent. Citing legal precedent, Justice Lyster noted that the 40 per cent threshold is absolute and that the court cannot round up in cases that are close. As the onus was on Mr. Haagsman to prove he met the threshold, his application on this point also failed.
With both of Mr. Haagsman’s primary arguments dismissed, the court denied his request for a retroactive variation of child support. The court did, however, adjust the monthly child support payment going forward to reflect Mr. Haagsman’s updated income. Based on his 2024 income of $110,610.53, and with both Ben and Colin still considered children of the marriage under a primary parenting arrangement with their mother, the new child support amount was set at $1,661 per month, a slight increase from the previous order. This new amount is effective August 1, 2025.
The court dismissed Mr. Haagsman’s application in its entirety and awarded legal costs to Ms. Edgar.
Read about other family law cases here.
