Beattie v. Beattie, (2013) 418 Sask.R. 119 (FD)

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 418 Sask.R. 119 (FD);2013 SKQB 127

Beattie v. Beattie (2013), 418 Sask.R. 119 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.062

Julie Faith Beattie (petitioner) v. Arthur Summers Beattie (respondent)

(2008 Div. No. 298; 2013 SKQB 127)

Indexed As: Beattie v. Beattie

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

April 9, 2013.

Summary:

The parties separated in 2008 after a 28 year marriage in which they had more or less traditional roles. June 2010 Minutes of Settlement provided that the respondent would pay spousal support of $1,800 per month for three years, commencing October 1, 2009, and at the expiration of the three years "either party may, at or after that date, seek a review of both the continued obligation and quantum of spousal support". The respondent unilaterally ceased paying spousal support in October 2012. The petitioner brought a motion seeking reinstatement of spousal support. The respondent claimed the petitioner had not acted reasonably to move toward self-sufficiency. He also asserted that the petitioner had a lifestyle significantly more luxurious than his and the need for continuing spousal support had ceased.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, concluded that the petitioner was no longer in need and thus there was no justiciable reason to continue to require the respondent to pay spousal support. With respect to the respondent's unilateral ceasing of payment of spousal support in October 2012, the court concluded that the Minutes of Settlement placed upon the respondent an obligation, if he was of the view that there should be no more spousal support, to bring an application to the court engaging that debate. Accordingly, $10,800 was owed for October 2012 to March 1, 2013. The $10,800 was to be paid by the respondent by instalments of $800 per month.

Family Law - Topic 3243

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Terms - Interpretation - June 2010 Minutes of Settlement provided that the respondent would pay spousal support to the petitioner of $1,800 per month for three years, commencing October 1, 2009, and at the expiration of the three years "either party may, at or after that date, seek a review of both the continued obligation and quantum of spousal support" - The petitioner maintained that a plain reading of the Minutes of Settlement demonstrated an intention that the spousal support would continue after three years unless it was terminated or altered by way of agreement or court order - The respondent submitted that the Minutes of Settlement permitted him to cease payment in October 2012 and then either party could apply to the court - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "As a matter of policy, the Court always attempts to discourage unilateral action by one party to a family law dispute. ... Thus, consonant with such policy, I am of the view that it is wrong for the Court to lend an interpretation to a clause such as the one in this case that would permit, and thereby promote, unilateral action" - The court concluded that the Minutes of Settlement placed an obligation on the respondent, if he was of the view that there should be no more spousal support, to bring an application to the court engaging that debate - See paragraphs 55 to 67.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - [See Family Law - Topic 4039 ].

Family Law - Topic 4025

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Effect of income of claimant's spouse (incl. common law spouse) - [See Family Law - Topic 4039 ].

Family Law - Topic 4027

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Effect of income or potential income of claimant - [See Family Law - Topic 4039 ].

Family Law - Topic 4039

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Spousal support - Suspension or termination of - The parties separated in 2008 after a 28 year marriage in which they had more or less traditional roles - June 2010 Minutes of Settlement provided that the respondent would pay spousal support of $1,800 per month for three years, commencing October 1, 2009, and at the expiration of the three years "either party may, at or after that date, seek a review of both the continued obligation and quantum of spousal support" - The petitioner had resided with her new partner (Sanderson) since shortly after separation - The respondent unilaterally ceased paying spousal support in October 2012 - The petitioner brought a motion seeking reinstatement of spousal support - The respondent asserted, inter alia, that the petitioner had a lifestyle significantly more luxurious than his and the need for continuing spousal support had ceased - The respondent produced considerable material, including articles from local publications and numerous Twitter messages by Sanderson, which the respondent maintained illustrated the lifestyle enjoyed by the petitioner and Sanderson - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, accepted the respondent's evidence as showing the petitioner living in a fashion inconsistent with her stated income and that of her partner - The spousal support originally ordered and continued in the Minutes of Settlement was done on a needs based rationale - The court concluded that the petitioner was no longer in need and thus there was no justiciable reason to continue to require the respondent to pay support - It was also reasonable to consider that the petitioner had benefited from a five-year spousal relationship with Sanderson - It could not be said that she was burdened by economic hardship arising from her marriage to the respondent - See paragraphs 40 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

K.A.M. v. P.K.M., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 47; 50 R.F.L.(6th) 165; 2008 BCSC 93, refd to. [para. 42].

Campbell v. Campbell (2012), 395 Sask.R. 36; 2012 SKQB 39 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

Nicholas v. Nicholas (1988), 70 Sask.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

L.G. v. G.B., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 370; 186 N.R. 201; 15 R.F.L.(4th) 201, refd to. [para. 42].

Lowenberg v. Lowenberg, [1998] 7 W.W.R. 135; 162 Sask. R. 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Duarte v. Ulmer, [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 126; 2008 SKQB 303, refd to. [para. 42].

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213; 47 R.F.L.(6th) 235; 2008 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 47].

Jarrett v. Jarrett (1996), 149 Sask.R. 58 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Deringer v. Hill (2007), 308 Sask.R. 122; 2007 SKQB 206 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 60].

More v. Shurygalo (2011), 380 Sask.R. 178; 2011 SKQB 275 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Payne, Julian, and Payne, Marilyn, Canadian Family Law (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 228 [para. 40]; 235 [para. 41]; 302 to 304 [para. 43].

Counsel:

Deryk J. Kendall, for the petitioner;

Tiffany M. Paulsen, Q.C., for the respondent

This matter was heard before R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on April 9, 2013.