In Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, the Court applied Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , alters the approach to retroactive support laid out in the former "3 year rule" of DBS to bring Canada's child support regime in to compliance with international law:
[102] The principles of child support also favour the interpretation that is favourable to children such that the best interest of the child is at the heart of any interpretive exercise (Chartier, at para. 21; K.L.B. v. British Columbia, 2003 SCC 51, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403, at para. 47; Paras, at pp. 134-35; Richardson v. Richardson, 1987 CanLII 58 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857, at pp. 869-70; Francis, at para. 39; Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 1994 ABCA 119 (CanLII), 149 A.R. 210 (C.A.), at pp. 212-14).
[103] Not only is this interpretive approach mandated by Canadian jurisprudence, it also results from Canada’s international obligations. It is presumed that the legislature takes account of Canada’s international obligations, which favour an understanding of legislative intent that is in conformity with customary and conventional international law (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov 2019 SCC 65, at para. 182). Canada is a party to international conventions that affirm the legal principle of “the best interests of the child” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, art. 3(1); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Can. T.S. 1982 No. 31, art. 16(1)(d)). Article 27(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, thus recognizes that parents and custodians are primarily responsible for securing the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development, and art. 27(4) recognizes the duty of state parties to “take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child”. The principles embodied in these Conventions help inform the contextual approach to the interpretation of the Family Law Act, as well as the Divorce Act and the Guidelines, in understanding how to interpret the legislation with a focus on the best interests of the child (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at paras. 69-71).
Taking a contextual approach, the Court asserted that women still play the dominant role in child care. Women generally earn less money than men. Gender, dissolution of marriage or spousal relationships and single parenting contribute to child poverty. As such, women's poverty and child poverty are linked. Allowing support payors to escape their obligations puts an unfair burden on women and limits their ability improve their situation and that of their children.
[102] The principles of child support also favour the interpretation that is favourable to children such that the best interest of the child is at the heart of any interpretive exercise (Chartier, at para. 21; K.L.B. v. British Columbia, 2003 SCC 51, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403, at para. 47; Paras, at pp. 134-35; Richardson v. Richardson, 1987 CanLII 58 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857, at pp. 869-70; Francis, at para. 39; Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 1994 ABCA 119 (CanLII), 149 A.R. 210 (C.A.), at pp. 212-14).
[103] Not only is this interpretive approach mandated by Canadian jurisprudence, it also results from Canada’s international obligations. It is presumed that the legislature takes account of Canada’s international obligations, which favour an understanding of legislative intent that is in conformity with customary and conventional international law (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov 2019 SCC 65, at para. 182). Canada is a party to international conventions that affirm the legal principle of “the best interests of the child” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, art. 3(1); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Can. T.S. 1982 No. 31, art. 16(1)(d)). Article 27(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, thus recognizes that parents and custodians are primarily responsible for securing the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development, and art. 27(4) recognizes the duty of state parties to “take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child”. The principles embodied in these Conventions help inform the contextual approach to the interpretation of the Family Law Act, as well as the Divorce Act and the Guidelines, in understanding how to interpret the legislation with a focus on the best interests of the child (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at paras. 69-71).
Taking a contextual approach, the Court asserted that women still play the dominant role in child care. Women generally earn less money than men. Gender, dissolution of marriage or spousal relationships and single parenting contribute to child poverty. As such, women's poverty and child poverty are linked. Allowing support payors to escape their obligations puts an unfair burden on women and limits their ability improve their situation and that of their children.