Betts v. Betts, 387 NBR (2d) 152

Judge:Walsh, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:January 23, 2015
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:387 NBR (2d) 152;[2012] NBJ No 77 (QL);2015 NBQB 19;(2015), 433 N.B.R.(2d) 81 (FD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Betts v. Betts (2015), 433 N.B.R.(2d) 81 (FD);

    433 R.N.-B.(2e) 81; 1130 A.P.R. 81

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.022

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.022

Norman Murray Betts (petitioner) v. Bonnie Heather Betts (respondent)

(1301-67391; FDF-486-13; 2015 NBQB 19; 2015 NBBR 19)

Indexed As: Betts v. Betts

Répertorié: Betts v. Betts

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Walsh, J.

January 23, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The parties separated after 38 years of marriage. The husband petitioned for divorce and sought a division of all marital property and debt, excepting a cottage property held in his name which he sought to have either excluded from division or divided unequally in his favour. He also sought occupation rent from the wife in regard to the marital home. He did not take issue with the wife's entitlement to prospective spousal support, but took issue with the quantum and challenged her right to retroactive support. The wife counter petitioned for divorce and sought spousal support, including retroactive spousal support back to the date of separation, and other incidental relief. She requested an equal division of all marital property and debt.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the divorce, awarded the wife prospective and retroactive spousal support and determined the division of marital property. The court awarded the wife $15,000 in costs. The husband was entitled to set-off arrears of prospective spousal support ($5,275), the retroactive spousal support award ($82,882.88) and the costs award against the marital property equalization payment ($156,854.52) required to be made by the wife. The wife was to pay over her 50% share from the sale of the cottage property ($47,701.85) as partial satisfaction of the remaining equalization payment. The wife was to pay the husband the balance of the required equalization payment ($5,994.79) within 45 days.

Editor's note: For a decision awarding the wife interim spousal support, see 416 N.B.R.(2d) 355; 1079 A.P.R. 355.

Family Law - Topic 627

Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - Occupation by one spouse - Claim for occupation rent - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "It has been said that 'the court must exercise a certain amount of discretion in balancing the relevant factors in order to determine whether occupation rent is sensible in the totality of the circumstances of the case' [McColl v. McColl (1995 Ont. Ct of Just.)] ... Such an assessment entails consideration of a number of factors; including duration of the occupancy, the expenses of the occupant, the cost of accommodation incurred by the non-occupying owner, the incomes and other financial resources of the parties, whether the occupying party is caring for children, whether the non-occupying owner left voluntarily, etc. ... As well, a court is entitled to consider 'the other competing claims for adjustment or compensation in litigation'" - See paragraph 24.

Family Law - Topic 627

Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - Occupation by one spouse - Claim for occupation rent - A husband claimed occupation rent by reason of the wife's exclusive occupation of the marital home since their separation - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that the courts were directed to take a "holistic" view, including considering the extent to which the spouse claiming retroactive spousal support would have already received similar advantages to that of spousal support - As a result, there was a compelling reason to entertain the husband's claim so as to assess the overall fairness of the wife's compensation in the post separation period and, if necessary, to assist in making any required adjustments - See paragraph 25.

Family Law - Topic 627

Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - Occupation by one spouse - Claim for occupation rent - In April 2011, after 38 years of marriage, the parties separated and the husband voluntarily left the home - He first went to his mother's place, then to his new partner's apartment and then in September 2011 moved into an admittedly "lavish" condo - The condo was purchased by his partner for $300,000 - The husband contributed approximately $20,000 towards the purchase and was the guarantor on a mortgage in excess of $290,000 - He contributed $1,500 per month towards the condo expenses - He also continued to pay an average of $638.73 per month for expenses related to the marital home (property taxes, insurance, wood and oil heat and general maintenance) - He sought occupational rent of $1,000 per month from the wife - The parties had no dependent children - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, set occupation rent at $850 per month - In addition to the home's value ($200,000) and the cost of alternate accommodations for the husband, the court considered the countervailing fact that the wife was not a third party occupier, but rather, was a half interest owner of the home - See paragraphs 23 to 34.

Family Law - Topic 868.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - The husband asserted that a $50,000 contingent liability was a marital debt subject to division - The liability took the form of a personal guarantee given by the husband as security for a bank loan to a company in which he owned a half interest - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, rejected the assertion - There was little evidence and that evidence indicated that the husband never treated the liability as an obligation that he expected the wife to share - No legal authority was advanced as to why the wife should bear some form of responsibility for the guarantee, a liability that might not become a debt obligation - Further, the liability prima facie related to a business asset, not marital property and the pleadings did not make a contrary claim, excepting the vaguest of generalities - See paragraph 14.

Family Law - Topic 873

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Bars - Unfair and inequitable - After 38 years of a traditional marriage, the parties separated - The husband sought to exclude a cottage property held in his name from the division of marital property pursuant to s. 6 of the Marital Property Act or, alternatively, an unequal division of the cottage in his favour pursuant to s. 7 - The husband's parents had owned the property and had deeded it to him in 1999 - Both before and after the transfer, the parties and their children attended there at various times and different periods in the summer and fall each year - Prior to the trial, the property was sold by the parties to one of the children for $100,000 and the proceeds were placed in a trust pending the court's decision - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the husband had not discharged the onus of establishing that it would be inequitable to apply the presumption of equal division - During the course of the long marriage, the cottage property was both viewed and enjoyed as a family retreat - The monies for the payment of property taxes and the upkeep all came from family assets - The fact that the husband essentially inherited the property paled in comparison to the use that he, his wife and their children had put the property to over the years prior to separation and the wife's contributions to the marriage in general - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions (inc. judicial reapportionment) - [See Family Law - Topic 873 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.3

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Gift, trust, bequest or award - [See Family Law - Topic 873 ].

Family Law - Topic 3997

Divorce - Corollary relief - General - Economic self-sufficiency - After a 38 year traditional marriage, the parties separated - The wife had no income - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year - The issues to be decided included the wife's entitlement to spousal support - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "... another objective of the Divorce Act is to 'in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time' (s. 15.2 (6) (d)). The wife's economic self-sufficiency is not a goal that is practical here for the reasons alluded to earlier, i.e. her age, state of health, level of education and limited outside employment history. Nor is a legal duty imposed to become self-sufficient ..." - See paragraph 42.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Retroactive awards - [See second Family Law - Topic 627 ].

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Retroactive awards - In April 2011, after 38 years of a traditional marriage, the parties separated - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year - The wife had no income - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, noted that the monthly range of support payable under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' "Without Child Support" formula ranged from a low of approximately $11,000 (on $350,000) to a high of approximately $15,700 (on $380,000) - As much legal weight as the Guidelines carried, it could not outright supplant the court's exercise of discretion in determining what was reasonable - An appropriate prospective award was $9,500 per month - The court reached that conclusion for two reasons - First, the court was concerned about the husband's net disposable income, given the extent of mandatory deductions from his university employment (approximately $20,000 annually not including taxes and union dues) and from his remuneration for sitting on various boards of directors ($5,346.96) - Second, the parties were at, or nearing, retirement age - At the very least, the income generating years were dwindling which risked impairing the wife's compensatory entitlement - Support below the Guideline provided an incentive for the husband to continue to work - Viewing the matter holistically, a retroactive award was also required, reaching back 31.5 months from the date of an interim order (December 1, 2013) - There were justifiable reasons for the wife not having sought support until the summer of 2013 which found their main source in the consequences of the marriage breakup - The court set the retroactive support at $12,000 per month, noting that a work incentive was of much less weight than it was in relation to prospective support - From the total amount of retroactive support owing, the court deducted the payments made by the husband during the period and a discount of 46% to approximate the parties' tax consequences - See paragraphs 73 to 97.

Family Law - Topic 4004

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - Income tax - [See second Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - [See second Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4021.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - Leaving labour market for family responsibilities - After a 38 year traditional marriage, the parties separated - The wife had no income - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year - The husband did not take issue with the wife being entitled to support on the ground of financial need, but he did not specifically acknowledge a compensatory component - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "In regard to the latter, although it may be implicit that the respondent sacrificed her own earning power because of marriage, there is a dearth of evidence as to the extent given her young age and limited education at the time of the marriage. Even so, there is ample evidence that by reason of her assuming primary responsibility for child care and home management functions this facilitated her husband's career advancement thereby increasing his earning power through the years and she is now economically disadvantaged by reason of the separation: 'A compensatory award recognizes that such sacrifices, contributions and benefits conferred often lead to interdependency between the spouses and merger of their economic lives' ..." - See paragraph 39.

Family Law - Topic 4021.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - Ability to pay - The parties separated - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year which was derived from his university salary and directors fees - The husband asserted that the use of his gross income for purposes of determining Guideline spousal support was unrealistic because it would not take into account the actual disposable income available to pay support - As examples, he referred to a number of mandatory deductions taken off his salary and directors fees - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "Although the [Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines] do not appear to take account for such concerns for the purposes of the determination and input of incomes into the 'Without Child Support' formula, the Guidelines do appear to account or it may be possible to account for such concerns in other ways. One is by the caution expressed that the formula is not to be to be automatically applied above the 'ceiling' of $350,000. Another is by the inclusion in the formula itself of an 'equalization of net income cap' ..." - See paragraph 52.

Family Law - Topic 4021.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - Ability to pay - The parties separated - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year which was derived from his university salary and directors fees - The husband asserted that the use of his gross income for purposes of determining Guideline spousal support was unrealistic because it would not take into account the actual disposable income available to pay support - He referred to the expenses that he incurred to supplement his mother's care in an "assisted living" facility and related pharmacy expenses (approximately $1,800 per month) and to maintain the upkeep of her home ($3,000-$4,000 per year after rental income) - He stated that those expenses were a priority to the payment of spousal support - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "The answer is harsh but simple, it is not. Sentiments and moral obligations aside, spousal support ranks in priority because it is an enforceable legal liability. Nor is it lost on the Court that he does have an option, as difficult as he might find it. He is the only surviving child and would stand to inherit his mother's home, which expense he also keeps up through rental or, at least, tries to. Given the apparent health condition of his mother, if there is no appropriate power of attorney the appointment of a 'committee' under the Infirm Persons Act would appear an avenue, whereupon the home could be sold and any net proceeds used to supplement her care. Although he is not required to take any such steps, at the same time he cannot be heard to complain that those expenses reduce his net income available to pay his wife support." - See paragraph 53.

Family Law - Topic 4021.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - Ability to pay - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "In New Brunswick jurisprudence a court cannot go behind a person's reason for retiring, that is to say, a court cannot inquire into and assess the reasonableness of a spouse retiring; except in circumstances where it appears it was done in 'bad faith', i.e. to frustrate a child or spousal support obligation ..." - See paragraph 56.

Family Law - Topic 4021.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Support guidelines - [See first and second Family Law - Topic 4021.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4021.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Support guidelines - The parties separated in April 2011 - The husband's income was $389,995.13 in 2009 and $394,267.74 in 2010 - In 2011 and 2012, his income jumped to $445,042.38 and $419,633, respectively, because of the vesting of shares for which the wife had been compensated by the marital property division - His had earned $380,257.31 in 2013 and had estimated earnings of $368,486.31 in 2014 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "Keeping in mind that there is a compensatory element to the [wife's] entitlement, but also having regard to the anomalous income in the year of separation and the year after separation by reason of the vesting of share units, the Court finds that the averaging of the [husband's] incomes for the two full years prior to separation along with the two more recent years provides a fairer determination of the petitioner's gross income for [Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines] purposes. This reveals an average gross annual income of $380,000 (rounded down). I note that the [husband's] income for 2015 would be expected to increase by approximately $7,500 over the estimated 2014 income of $368,486.31 ... if everything else remains the same. In my view, the average gross income as determined of $380,000 roughly captures two aspects: the household marital standard of living and the husband's on-going ability to pay support (subject to certain later adjustments)." - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Family Law - Topic 4021.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Support guidelines - The parties separated - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year - The wife had no income - The husband asserted that since the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' "Without Child Support" formula worked on the parties' combined incomes, some income should be attributed to the wife so as to reduce his obligation - The husband suggested imputing $30,000, relying principally on the fact that the wife had received and invested approximately $300,000 of his pension monies - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "Although the law expects that spouses will reasonably encroach on assets in the form of investment income so as to contribute towards his or her self-sufficiency, it need not be done completely or immediately ... It depends on the particular circumstances of the case and the situation of the spouse. In my view, it is a reasonable decision of the [wife] not to encroach on those pension proceeds at this time." - See paragraph 54.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To wife - Considerations - After a 38 year traditional marriage, the parties separated - The wife had no income - The husband had an income for Guideline support purposes of $380,000 per year - At issue was the wife's entitlement to spousal support - The husband asserted that the marital standard of living was a lifestyle and that the wife wanted more than what she was used to - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "The Court has no intention of chasing after such an elusive concept, even though some time was spent at trial by the parties trying to capture the notion and apply it to their lives together and even though the term 'lifestyle' appears employed (it seems loosely) in some of the reported cases. Certainly for long marriages it is immediately apparent that the characterization of 'lifestyle' is not a very reliable measure given that spouses can live below or above their means during marriage ... or their so-called lifestyle can change over the length of the marriage. ... Rather, one of the more reliable proxies for the marital standard of living in a case like here is the household income around the time of separation ... It is the measure the Court intends to apply, but with the usual caution that as a practical matter the Court could never hope to replicate the parties' marital standard of living given the very fact they now live apart. What the Court is really attempting to achieve on the breakup of a long marriage as here is as close to as possible equal standards of living for them having regard to the reality of their circumstances, both pre and post separation." - See paragraphs 41 to 43.

Family Law - Topic 4026

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of use of marital home - [See second Family Law - Topic 627 ].

Family Law - Topic 4027

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of income or potential income of claimant - [See third Family Law - Topic 4021.5 ].

Family Law - Topic 4034

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of division of matrimonial property - [See third Family Law - Topic 4021.5 ].

Family Law - Topic 4175

Divorce - Practice - Costs - General (incl. considerations) - The husband petitioned for divorce - The issues to be decided included the division of marital property and debt, occupation rent, and spousal support - A two day trial ensued - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, granted the divorce, awarded the wife prospective and retroactive spousal support and determined the division of marital property - Although there had been mixed results on some issues, the wife had been the overall successful party and was entitled to costs - The court recognized that Tariff "A" under Rule 59 of the Rules of Court could apply to Family Division matters - However, the issues had not been restricted to marital property - On the other hand, significant monetary matters had been involved - The major part of the case was the quantification of prospective spousal support and entitlement and quantification of retroactive spousal support which did not lend itself to a neat consideration of "amount claimed and recovered" - Further, there was no "clean break" arising from the litigation as ongoing and substantial financial obligations had been imposed on the husband - The court had to be concerned about the balance it had strived to achieve for the parties - The court awarded the wife $15,000 in costs - See paragraphs 99 to 102.

Practice - Topic 7003

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Amount involved - [See Family Law - Topic 4175 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 627

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Foyer matrimonial - Occupation par un des conjoints - Demande d'indemnité d'occupation - [Voir Family Law - Topic 627 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 868.2

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Ordonnances de répartition - Dettes - [Voir Family Law - Topic 868.2 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 873

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Ordonnances de répartition - Obstacles - Injustice et inéquité - [Voir Family Law - Topic 873 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 875

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Ordonnances de répartition - Lois exigeant une répartition égale - Exceptions (y compris la répartition judiciaire) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 875 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 880.3

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Ordonnances de répartition - Biens propres - Donation, fiducie, legs ou jugement - [Voir Family Law - Topic 880.3 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3997

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Généralités - Indépendance financière - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3997 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4001.1

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Ordonnances rétroactives - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4004

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Effet d'une conséquence fiscale - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4004 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4010

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Versements périodiques - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4021.2

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Facteurs considérés - Quitter le marché du travail pour se consacrer à sa famille - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4021.2 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4021.4

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Facteurs considérés - Capacité de payer - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4021.4 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4021.5

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Lignes directrices sur les pensions alimentaires - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4021.5 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4022

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Ordonnances en faveur du conjoint - Facteurs considérés - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4026

Divorce - Measures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Effet de l'utilisation de foyer matrimonial - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4026 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4027

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Effet du revenu réel ou éventuel du demandeur - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4027 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4034

Divorce - Mesures accessoires - Ordonnances alimentaires - Ordonnances - Effet de la répartition des biens matrimoniaux - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4034 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 4175

Divorce - Procédure - Dépens - Généralités (y compris facteurs considérés) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 4175 ].

Procédure - Cote 7003

Dépens - Dépens entre parties - Principes généraux et définitions - Montant clé - [Voir Practice - Topic 7003 ].

Cases Noticed:

Boston v. Boston, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413; 271 N.R. 248; 149 O.A.C. 50; 2001 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 10].

Thurrott v. Thurrott, [2011] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 32; 2011 NBQB 125 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Greenglass v. Greenglass (2010), 276 O.A.C. 62; 2010 ONCA 675, refd to. [para. 11].

Yorke v. Yorke (2011), 378 N.B.R.(2d) 141; 973 A.P.R. 141; 2011 NBCA 79, refd to. [para. 17].

McColl v. McColl (1995), 13 R.F.L.(4th) 449 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 24].

Maber v. Maber (2007), 313 N.B.R.(2d) 208; 809 A.P.R. 208; 2007 NBQB 99 (Fam. Div), refd to. [para. 24].

Griffiths v. Zambosco et al. (2001), 146 O.A.C. 83; 54 O.R.(3d) 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kerr v. Baranow (2011), 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 25].

Thompson v. Thompson, [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 5500; 2013 ONSC 5500, refd to. [para. 36].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 37].

Cassidy v. McNeil (2010), 266 O.A.C. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Leskun v. Leskun, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920; 349 N.R. 158; 226 B.C.A.C. 1; 373 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 40].

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213; 88 O.R.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Katay v. Katay (1995), 168 A.R. 31 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Scott v. Jabora-Scott (2011), 368 N.B.R.(2d) 281; 949 A.P.R. 281; 2011 NBCA 7, refd to. [para. 43].

Reid v. Gillingham (2014), 419 N.B.R.(2d) 138; 1090 A.P.R. 138; 2014 NBQB 79 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

Smith v. Smith (2011), 375 N.B.R.(2d) 208; 969 A.P.R. 208; 2011 NBCA 66, refd to. [para. 47].

Garey v. Garey (2002), 254 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 664 A.P.R. 1 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 54].

Vaughan v. Vaughan (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 1076 A.P.R. 286; 2014 NBCA 6, refd to. [para. 55].

Chapman v. Chapman, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. X43 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

Savoie v. Savoie (2009), 345 N.B.R.(2d) 214; 889 A.P.R. 214; 2009 NBQB 134 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 55].

Lalonde v. Lalonde, [2008] O.T.C. Uned. N86 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

LeMoine v. LeMoine (1997), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 173; 472 A.P.R. 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Hoar v. Toner (2010), 361 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 931 A.P.R. 94; 2010 NBQB 167 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Milton v. Milton (2008), 338 N.B.R.(2d) 300; 866 A.P.R. 300; 2008 NBCA 87, refd to. [para. 63].

D.B.S. v. S.R.G., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; 351 N.R. 201; 391 A.R. 297; 377 W.A.C. 297; 2006 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 75].

Dow v. Dow (2013), 403 N.B.R.(2d) 249; 1045 A.P.R. 249; 2013 NBQB 106 (Fam. Div.), appld. [para. 83].

Bastarache v. Bastarache (2012), 387 N.B.R.(2d) 152; 1001 A.P.R. 152; 2012 NBQB 75 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 88].

B.P. v. A.T. (2014), 423 N.B.R.(2d) 99; 1103 A.P.R. 99; 2014 NBCA 51, refd to. [para. 95].

C.J.G. v. L.T.G. (2011), 369 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 952 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 12, refd to. [para. 99].

Simms v. Simms (1996), 182 N.B.R.(2d) 362; 463 A.P.R. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Rademaker v. Rademaker (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 177; 654 A.P.R. 177; 2002 NBCA 47, refd to. [para. 101].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines - see Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A New and Improved User's Guide to the Final Version (2010), ss. 4.2 [para. 64]; 7 [para. 52]; 9 [para. 55]; 9.1 [para. 64]; 9.4 [para. 65]; 9.5 [para. 67]; 12 [para. 68].

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (2008), s. 9.4, fn. 89 [para. 52].

Wilton, Anne C., and MacDonald, James C., Spousal Support in Canada (2012), pp. 1 [para. 38]; 247 [para. 48]; 427 [para. 47]; 442, 443 [para. 64].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Shannon Doran, for the petitioner;

Grant Ogilvie and Jennifer Hanson, for the respondent.

This petition was heard on November 19 and 20, 2014, by Walsh, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following judgment on January 23, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP