The disputed consent order reduced child support payments
The Alberta Court of Appeal has permitted a challenge to a consent order which reduced child support payments.
The decision addressed whether the applicant, Brandy Rafuse, who was self-represented and medicated then, could consent to the order. Rafuse, separated from the respondent Kirk Behrisch since 2019, with whom she has five children, initially sought ongoing support and arrears, especially for their eldest child with disabilities. However, post-application, Rafuse underwent serious medical treatments that she claims affected her understanding during the legal proceedings.
The disputed consent order came after Rafuse's hospitalization from December 6 to 15. Her subsequent challenges in securing legal representation during the holiday season led to a delayed appeal application filed on January 24.
Most Read
Despite not specifying grounds for appeal, Rafuse argued her non-consent to the order, particularly objecting to a $7,500 travel credit offset against the respondent's child support obligations. Her appeal also brought to light the broader legal question of the validity of consent under such compromised circumstances.
In granting the appeal, the court recognized the significance of whether a litigant truly consents to an order and the potential implications of such decisions. Rafuse's medical records and statements during the conference, which indicated confusion and lack of comprehension, formed the basis of the court's decision to allow the appeal.
The respondent, Kirk Behrisch, reportedly did not observe Rafuse's alleged cognitive difficulties during the conference, aside from issues with mathematical calculations. Nonetheless, the court found sufficient preliminary evidence suggesting Rafuse might not have fully consented to the terms discussed.
Ultimately, the court emphasized the importance of clear and informed consent in legal agreements, particularly where one party may be in medical distress. The court's decision also underscored the need for legal mechanisms to reconsider consent where new evidence suggests it may not have been fully informed or voluntary.
