Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, (2002) 162 Man.R.(2d) 74 (QB)
Judge | Schulman, J. |
Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada) |
Case Date | February 04, 2002 |
Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
Citations | (2002), 162 Man.R.(2d) 74 (QB);2002 MBQB 33 |
Anderson-Devine v. Anderson (2002), 162 Man.R.(2d) 74 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2002] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.031
Sharon Lynne Anderson-Devine (formerly known as Sharon Lynn Anderson) (petitioner) v. Brian Joseph Leo Anderson (respondent)
(FD 95-01-40882; 2002 MBQB 33)
Indexed As: Anderson-Devine v. Anderson
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
Winnipeg Centre
Schulman, J.
February 4, 2002.
Summary:
A mother sought to vary a 1997 consent order, which provided that the father would pay child support of $1,300 per month for two children, now aged 19 and 17. The father sought a reduction in child support.
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the increase in the father's income, from $94,000 in 1997 to $137,000, was a material change in circumstances. The court ordered the father to pay child support of $1,600 per month.
Family Law - Topic 4006.1
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To children - Effect of agreements - [See first Family Law - Topic 4045.6 ].
Family Law - Topic 4045.6
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Exceptions and exemptions - A mother sought to vary a 1997 consent order, which provided that the father would pay child support of $1,300 per month for two children, now aged 19 and 17 - The father argued that the agreement made between the parties contained two special provisions that directly or indirectly benefitted the children and that application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines would result in an amount of child support that would be inequitable given those special provisions (Divorce Act, s. 17(6.2)) - The first provision referred to was the one whereby the father had waived a claim to one half of the equity in the family home (an interest worth about $40,000) - The father also argued that the child support provision of the agreement contained a special benefit for the younger child in that it contemplated a period of time in which the older child would not be entitled to support, but the younger child would still receive the full $1,300 - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that neither of the provisions, alone or together, added up to a special provision for one or both of the children or would result in the table amount of support being inequitable - See paragraphs 7 to 9.
Family Law - Topic 4045.6
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Exceptions and exemptions (incl. undue hardship) - A mother sought to vary a 1997 consent order, which provided that the father would pay child support of $1,300 per month for two children, now aged 19 and 17 - The father sought a reduction in child support - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the increase in the father's income, from $94,000 in 1997 to $137,000, was a material change in circumstances - The court ordered the father to pay child support of $1,600 per month - Neither the father's ongoing responsibility for payment of the debts of the marriage, nor his duty to support two children of a subsequent marriage, taken individually or together, satisfied the undue hardship test in s. 10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - See paragraphs 10 to 23.
Family Law - Topic 4045.8
Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Changed circumstances - [See second Family Law - Topic 4045.6 ].
Cases Noticed:
Addison v. Schneider (1999), 139 Man.R.(2d) 47 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Payne, Julian D., Q.C., Child Support In Canada (3rd Ed. 2002), generally [para. 7], pp. G-3, G-5, G-9 [para. 11].
Counsel:
Jordan Lee-Wing, for the petitioner;
Sandra E. Kliman, for the respondent.
This motion was heard before Schulman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on February 4, 2002.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...Anderson-Devine v Anderson, [2002] MJ No 46, 162 Man R (2d) 74 var’d [2002] MJ No 484 (CA).............................................................................................................316, 424, 547 Andrada v Garcia, [1998] BCJ No 2980 (Prov Ct)......................................
-
Table of cases
...397 Anderson-Devine v Anderson, [2002] MJ No 46, 162 Man R (2d) 74 (QB), var’d [2002] MJ No 484 (CA)...........................................................................................................342, 404, 514 Andrada v Garcia, [1998] BCJ No 2980 (Prov Ct) .............................
-
Table of cases
...Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, [2002] M.J. No. 46, 162 Man. R. (2d) 74 (Q.B.), var’d [2002] M.J. No. 484 (C.A.) ............................................................................................298, 299, 457 Andrada v. Garcia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2980 (Prov. Ct.) ...........................
-
Table of cases
...2724 (S.C.J.) ....................................................................423 Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, [2002] M.J. No. 46, 162 Man. R. (2d) 74 (Q.B.), var’d [2002] M.J. No. 484 (C.A.) .................325, 326, 386, 495 Andrada v. Garcia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2980 (Prov. Ct.) ...........
-
Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, (2002) 164 Man.R.(2d) 29 (QB)
...Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre Schulman, J. March 6, 2002. Summary: The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2002), 162 Man.R.(2d) 74, allowed a mother's motion for a variation of a consent order by increasing the amount of child support payable by the father for their......
-
Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, (2002) 170 Man.R.(2d) 85 (CA)
...Support Guidelines. The father sought a reduction in child support. The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 162 Man.R.(2d) 74, held that an increase in the father's income was a material change in circumstances and ordered the father to pay child support of $1,600 per......
-
Table of Cases
...Anderson-Devine v Anderson, [2002] MJ No 46, 162 Man R (2d) 74 var’d [2002] MJ No 484 (CA).............................................................................................................316, 424, 547 Andrada v Garcia, [1998] BCJ No 2980 (Prov Ct)......................................
-
Table of cases
...397 Anderson-Devine v Anderson, [2002] MJ No 46, 162 Man R (2d) 74 (QB), var’d [2002] MJ No 484 (CA)...........................................................................................................342, 404, 514 Andrada v Garcia, [1998] BCJ No 2980 (Prov Ct) .............................
-
Table of cases
...Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, [2002] M.J. No. 46, 162 Man. R. (2d) 74 (Q.B.), var’d [2002] M.J. No. 484 (C.A.) ............................................................................................298, 299, 457 Andrada v. Garcia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2980 (Prov. Ct.) ...........................
-
Table of cases
...2724 (S.C.J.) ....................................................................423 Anderson-Devine v. Anderson, [2002] M.J. No. 46, 162 Man. R. (2d) 74 (Q.B.), var’d [2002] M.J. No. 484 (C.A.) .................325, 326, 386, 495 Andrada v. Garcia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2980 (Prov. Ct.) ...........