Gibson,
J
(judgment
delivered
from
the
Bench):—By
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
dated
February
16,
1970
the
plaintiff
was
ordered
to
pay
$200
per
month
to
his
wife
for
support
commencing
February
1,
1972
[sic]
and
continuing
until
the
trial
of
the
divorce
or
until
further
order
for
her
support.
Subsequently,
there
was
a
reference
to
the
Registrar
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
at
Vancouver
on
an
application
to
increase
this
amount
for
support.
The
Registrar,
pursuant
to
the
practice
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia,
made
a
recommendation
which
was
embodied
in
his
report
dated
April
22,
1971.
The
Registrar
recommended
that
the
plaintiff
pay
for
support
the
sum
of
$270
a
month
commencing
April
1,
1971,
or
an
increase
of
$70
per
month.
This
recommendation
of
the
Registrar,
in
the
same
manner
as
a
report
on
a
reference
would
be,
was
confirmed
by
judgment
of
a
local
judge
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
on
October
22,
1973
in
accordance
with
subsection
63(2)
of
the
Supreme
Court
Act,
RSBC
1960,
c
374,
which
reads:
63.
(2)
The
report
of
any
District
Registrar,
official
or
special
referee
may
be
adopted,
wholly
or
partially,
by
the
Court
or
a
Judge,
and
if
so
adopted
may
be
enforced
as
a
judgment
or
order
to
the
same
effect.
The
plaintiff
claims
that
for
the
taxation
years
1971
and
1972
he
was
entitled
to
deduct
for
income
tax
purposes
the
additional
$70
monthly
payment
for
support
from
April
1971
to
December
1972,
which
was
the
Subject
of
the
Registrar’s
recommendation
embodied
in
his
said
report
dated
April
22,
1971
and
confirmed
by
the
said
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
dated
October
22,
1973.
The
defendant
takes
the
position
that
the
Registrar’s
recommendation
dated
April
22,
1971
which
was
the
basis
for
the
plaintiff
paying
the
extra
monthly
payments
of
$70
per
month
was
not
a
decree,
order
or
judgment
of
a
competent
tribunal
within
the
meaning
of
section
11
[of
the
pre-1972
Act]
and
section
60
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
also
that
these
payments
were
not
payments
pursuant
to
a
“written
agreement”
within
the
meaning
of
the
Act.
The
defendant
also
takes
the
position
that
the
effective
date
of
the
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
dated
October
22,
1973
confirming
the
Registrar’s
recommendation
embodied
in
the
latter’s
report
dated
April
22,
1971
is
only
from
October
22,
1973.
lt
was
within
the
power
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
on
October
22,
1973
to
make
a
judgment
nunc
pro
tunc:
see
Donne
v
Lewis
(1805),
11
Ves
601;
Lawrence
v
Richmond
(1820),
1
Jac
&
W
241:
Re
Jones
(1891),
39
WR
619;
and
Winkley
v
Winkley
(1891),
44
LT
572.
In
my
opinion,
the
Court
did
so.
The
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
British
Columbia
dated
October
22,
1973
confirming
the
Registrar’s
recommendation
dated
April
22,
1971
requiring
the
plaintiff
to
pay
for
support
the
sum
of
$270
per
month
commencing
April
1,
1971,
on
a
true
construction,
is
a
judgment
nunc
pro
tunc.
As
a
consequence,
the
plaintiff
was
entitled
to
make
the
deductions
from
his
income
claimed
in
1971
and
1972.
The
appeal
is
therefore
allowed
with
costs
and
the
assessments
are
ordered
sent
back
for
reassessment,
not
inconsistent
with
these
reasons.
Email this Content