Beeching v. Beeching, (1998) 169 Sask.R. 18 (FD)

• Judge: Wilkinson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 08, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1998), 169 Sask.R. 18 (FD);1998 CanLII 13399 (FCA);1998 CanLII 13399 (SK QB);40 RFL (4th) 15;169 Sask R 18

Beeching v. Beeching (1998), 169 Sask.R. 18 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.003

Marlyn Alice Beeching (petitioner) v. Neil Henry Beeching (respondent)

(1987 DIV. No. 484)

Indexed As: Beeching v. Beeching

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wilkinson, J.

May 8, 1998.

Summary:

A wife applied for interim spousal support and child support. At issue was whether income should be attributed to the husband from a corporation in which he was a 50% shareholder for the purposes of determining income for the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, refused to attribute further income to the husband. The court determined child support and affirmed the spousal support that the couple had previously agreed to.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation of income - A husband was a 50% share­holder of a company - He drew a salary from the company - The wife claimed that the com­pany was building up capital assets and reducing its retained earnings - The addi­tional assets allowed the company to claim depreciation - The wife sought to have further income attributed to the hus­band (Federal Child Support Guidelines, ss. 17, 18) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that s. 18(1)(a) of the guidelines prescribed that only the income "for the most recent tax­ation year" could be included in the husband's income - As the company ex­perienced a loss in the most recent taxation year there was no income to attribute to the husband - The court refused to adjust expenses or impute income to the company - See paragraphs 16 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Doege v. Doege (1998), 162 Sask.R. 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

McClurg v. Minister of National Revenue, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1020; 119 N.R. 101; 50 B.L.R. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

Burland v. Earle, [1902] A.C. 83 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Kelly v. Kelly (1997), 162 Sask.R. 74 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ivey v. Ivey (1996), 153 Sask.R. 157 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Bartch v. Bartch, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 010 (Q.B), refd to. [para. 23].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 087 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wilson v. Wilson (1998), 165 Sask.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

O'Hara v. O'Hara, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Beeler v. Beeler (1997), 161 Sask.R. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Seiferling v. Langmaier, [1998] Sask.R. Uned. 015 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Nakonechney v. Nakonechney, [1995] S.J. No. 590 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Gorgichuk v. Gorgichuk (1997), 154 Sask.R. 273 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Addison v. Dornian (1998), 124 Man.R.(2d) 268 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Orth v. Orth (1998), 168 Sask.R. 1; 173 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Hansvall v. Hansvall (1997), 160 Sask.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19(1)(d), sect. 19(1)(g), sect. 19(2) [para. 15].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Counsel:

R.J. Ard, for the petitioner;

C.D. Campbell, for the respondent.

This case was heard by Wilkinson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on May 8, 1998.