Beutler v. Maki, 2005 SKQB 393

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 21, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 393;(2005), 273 Sask.R. 198 (FD)

Beutler v. Maki (2005), 273 Sask.R. 198 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.039

Garry Allan Beutler (petitioner) v. Melody Faith Maki (formerly Beutler) (respondent)

(1994 Q.B.M. No. 370; 1997 Div. No. 194; 2005 SKQB 393)

Indexed As: Beutler v. Maki

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

R.S. Smith, J.

September 21, 2005.

Summary:

The parties separated in 1994. Their children's primary residence was with the mother. The parties disagreed on their respective obligations for s. 7 university expenses for their oldest child. The mother also sought an order for $50 per month to address the youngest child's hockey expenses.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered the father to pay child support of $369 per month plus $150 per month toward university expenses and $25 per month toward hockey expenses.

Family Law - Topic 2359

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Trust for future education - [See first Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 3998

Divorce - Corollary relief - General - Children's post-secondary education - [See all Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4004.01

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Effect of family allowances, child tax credit, etc. - [See second Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - The parties' oldest child, whose primary residence was with the mother, was registered in a five year university program - At issue was the parties' respective obligations for s. 7 university expenses - The parties had contributed to a Registered Education Savings Plan for the child for 18 years (the CST Fund) - For the first eight years, contributions were made from the parties' joint assets - Contributions for the remaining 10 years were made by the mother alone - If the principal of the CST Fund was divided by five, it would yield $1,315 per year to deduct from the university expenses - The mother argued that the father should not benefit from deducting the full $1,315 as he only contributed to the CST Fund for the first eight years - The father argued that he paid child support, which was part of the income used by the mother to make contributions - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, reduced the university expenses by $1,000 per year by reason of the CST Fund payment - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - At issue was the parties' respective obligations for s. 7 university expenses for their oldest child - The child's primary residence was with the mother and the mother received a tuition credit tax refund in the amount of $1,000 - The father argued that 100% of that amount should be deducted from the university expenses to be shared - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it would be harsh to deduct 100% of the tuition credit tax refund - However, the court stated that it was appropriate that the bulk of it benefit both parties in reducing university expenses and it attributed a $750 deduction from the annual university expenses based on that refund - See paragraphs 27 to 28.

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - The parties separated - Their children's primary residence was with the mother - The oldest child was registered in a five year university program - The child was ineligible for a government student loan, but she received a $30,000 loan from a credit union - The mother argued that since this was a regular loan as opposed to a government student loan, no portion of the loan proceeds should be used to reduce the father's obligation to contribute to s. 7 university expenses - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that it was uncomfortable with the mother's position - The court considered that, prior to the divorce, the child could not have reasonably concluded that she would take a five year university course away from home without incurring a student loan - See paragraphs 29 to 40.

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - The parties separated - The primary residence of their two children was with the mother - At issue was the parties' respective obligations for s. 7 university expenses for their oldest child - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that based on their incomes, the father's share of the s. 7 university expenses would be 42% and the mother's share would be 58% - However, the analysis had to go beyond simply dividing the expense in accordance with income - 42% of the annual expenses faced by the child would be $5,439 - Even if the child contributed income of $2,500, the father's 42% obligation would be $4,389 - The court considered how practical that amount would be where the father's annual income was $25,800 - The court held that it was reasonable that the father contribute $1,800 per year toward the university expenses - See paragraphs 41 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Wesemann v. Wesemann (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 233; 49 R.F.L.(4th) 435 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Magnes v. Magnes (1998), 167 Sask.R. 219 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), consd. [para. 31].

Zaba v. Bradley (1996), 140 Sask.R. 297 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), affd. (1996), 137 Sask.R. 295; 107 W.A.C. 295; 18 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

Michie v. Michie (1997), 162 Sask.R. 1; 36 R.F.L.(4th) 90 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Souliere v. Leclair (1998), 59 O.T.C. 293; 38 R.F.L.(4th) 68 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Rebenchuk v. Rebenchuk (2005), 194 Man.R.(2d) 275; 2005 MBQB 128 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chan, Evan K., and Gardiner, Barry R., ChildView, Version 2005.1.0, generally [para. 42].

McLeod, James G., and Mamo, Alfred A., Annual Review of Family Law (2004), pp. 127 [para. 46]; 144 [para. 39].

Counsel:

J.J. Vogel, for the petitioner;

M.E. Neufeld, 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 Regina, who delivered the following fiat on September 21, 2005.