Achkewich v. Achkewich, (1998) 220 A.R. 385 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 220 A.R. 385 (QB)

Achkewich v. Achkewich (1998), 220 A.R. 385 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. AU.016

Sheila Martin Achkewich (plaintiff) v. Stefan Achkewich (defendant)

(Action No. 4812-003390)

Indexed As: Achkewich v. Achkewich

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Rooke, J.

April 8, 1998.

Summary:

At issue in this case was the right of children of divorced parents to support for post-secondary education.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issue accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 3998

Divorce - Corollary relief - General - Children's post-secondary education - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "... the question of parental support for children of divorced parents for post secondary education should be decided on a case by case basis. However, in my view, as we approach the millennium, the presumption of parental support for a first degree of up to four years should apply, absent other considerations." - See para­graph 5 - The court further stated that "... exceptions to the rule that a child is a 'child of the marriage', and dependent, and thereby entitled to support while attending a post-secondary institution for at least the first degree or certificate, will only be made in unusual circumstances." - See paragraph 19.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To children and children defined - [See Family Law - Topic 3998 ].

Cases Noticed:

Crump v. Crump, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 449 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205; 29 D.L.R.(3d) 641; [1972] 6 W.W.R. 419, refd to. [para. 7].

Duncan v. Duncan (1989), 74 Sask.R. 100; 18 R.F.L.(3d) 46 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Baker v. Baker (1994), 147 A.R. 227; 2 R.F.L.(4th) 147 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

O'Keefe v. Clarke (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178; 379 A.P.R. 178; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 398 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ivany v. Ivany (1996), 145 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 453 A.P.R. 106; 24 R.F.L.(4th) 289 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hemming v. Hemming, [1995] O.J. No. 424 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Gartner v. Gartner, [1994] S.J. No. 432 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Martell v. Height (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 318; 367 A.P.R. 318; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Cole v. Cole (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 378; 411 A.P.R. 378; 15 R.F.L.(4th) 399 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Judd v. Judd (1995), 16 R.F.L.(4th) 430 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Caryk v. Caryk (1971), 6 R.F.L. 185 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Sullivan v. Sullivan (1973), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 690; 18 R.F.L. 298 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Saunders v. Saunders (1987), 60 Sask.R. 92; 10 R.F.L.(3d) 437 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Durden v. Durden, [1994] P.E.I.J. No. 134 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Keyes v. Keyes (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 88; 109 W.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Harris v. Harris (1989), 19 R.F.L.(3d) 102 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Swidzinsky v. Swidzinsky (1984), 32 Man.R.(2d) 144; 43 R.F.L.(2d) 456 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

James v. Morris, [1997] A.J. No. 650 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cooper v. Cooper (1983), 36 R.F.L.(2d) 95 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ulmer v. Ulmer, [1997] A.R. Uned. 53 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Wolch v. Wolch (1980), 19 R.F.L.(2d) 307 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Innes v. Innes (1994), 154 A.R. 346 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hoadley v. Hoadley (1996), 177 A.R. 361; 36 Alta. L.R.(3d) 294 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Campbell-Cardwell v. Cardwell, [1997] A.J. No. 788 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Van de Pol v. Van de Pol (1995), 179 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

M. Weir-Andreassen, for the plaintiff;

H.A. Syed, for the defendant.

This case was heard by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered the following judgment on April 8, 1998.