Billett v. Billett, (2013) 425 Sask.R. 217 (FD)

• Judge: Wilkinson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 09, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 425 Sask.R. 217 (FD);2013 SKQB 269

Billett v. Billett (2013), 425 Sask.R. 217 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.069

Brenda Marie Billett (petitioner) v. Scott Jeffrey Billett (respondent)

(2010 Div. No. 409; 2013 SKQB 269)

Indexed As: Billett v. Billett

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wilkinson, J.

July 9, 2013.

Summary:

The parties commenced cohabitation in 1982. They were married in 1988, and separated in 2009. There were three children. The issues to be determined in this proceeding were: (1) spousal support, and whether the wife was taking adequate steps to achieve self-sufficiency; (2) child support, and whether retroactive Table support for two children over 18 was appropriate; and (3) division of property, with some dispute around valuation dates.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the issues.

Family Law - Topic 3997

Divorce - Corollary relief - General - Self-sufficiency - [See Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - When the wife's petition issued in 2010, the eldest child was 21 years of age; the middle child had just turned 18; the youngest was 14 - The wife claimed retroactive child support - The eldest had graduated from a program of post-secondary education out of province and had received significant parent support - The middle child was living at home, attending university, and earning a substantial income - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, calculated child support on the Table amounts alone - The parties, based on their conduct in relation to the eldest child, would have provided the Table amount of financial support to the middle child, at least for her first year of post-secondary education - Beyond that, an analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, rather than s. 3(2)(a), was more appropriate, given her significant earnings - However, the required evidence was not available - With respect to the eldest child, any claim after age 21 should similarly have been undertaken under s. 3(2)(b) - Accordingly, the court ordered support for the middle and the youngest children, from the date of separation to April 2010 (the end of the middle child's first academic year); and Table support for the youngest child from May 2010 to the date of the parties' interim support order - See paragraphs 24 to 46.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - The parties, both 48 years of age, began cohabiting in 1982 - They married in 1988, and separated in February 2009 - The youngest of their three children was in Grade 11 - The wife petitioned for spousal support - She had managed the home and child-rearing for the first 15 years of marriage - In 2003, she obtained a position as an educational assistant, and earned some $30,000 a year - She was on the wait list for a two-year licensed practical nurse program - The husband's income exceeded $100,000 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered spousal support of $1,400 a month, until further order - The husband ཁfell considerably short of the mark ཁ, based on a "misapprehension as to what is meant by ཇself-sufficiencyཇ as described in the spousal support objectives laid down by the [Divorce] Act in the context of a 25 year spousal relationship.ཁ - Viewed in that context, and in all the circumstances, ཁthe husband is some considerable distance from being relieved of his spousal support obligation.ཁ - See paragraphs 49 and 87.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation - [See Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.11

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Children over the age of majority - [See Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 20].

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. 20].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 20].

Henry v. Henry - see D.B.S. v. S.R.G.

Hiemstra v. Hiemstra - see D.B.S. v. S.R.G.

T.A.R. v. L.J.W. - see D.B.S. v. S.R.G.

Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269; 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. 22].

Olszewski v. Willick (2009), 343 Sask.R. 247; 472 W.A.C. 247; 2009 SKCA 133, refd to. [para. 29].

Smith v. Smith (2008), 314 Sask.R. 187; 435 W.A.C. 187; 59 R.F.L.(6th) 280; 2008 SKCA 141, refd to. [para. 32].

Zaba v. Bradley (1996), 137 Sask.R. 295; 107 W.A.C. 295; 18 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Hagen v. Rankin (2002), 213 Sask.R. 257; 260 W.A.C. 257; 2002 SKCA 13, refd to. [para. 33].

Geran v. Geran (2011), 371 Sask.R. 233; 518 W.A.C. 233; 2011 SKCA 55, refd to. [para. 35].

Lewi v. Lewi (2006), 209 O.A.C. 344; 80 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Materi v. Materi, [2012] Sask.R. Uned. 181; 2012 SKQB 473 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Koback v. Koback, [2012] Sask.R. Uned. 116; 2012 SKQB 365 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Peterson v. Peterson (2011), 384 Sask.R. 22; 2011 SKQB 365 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

B.H. v. R.H. (2012), 410 Sask.R. 85; 2012 SKQB 436 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

Heath v. Heath - see B.H. v. R.H.

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213; 47 R.F.L.(6th) 235; 2008 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 50].

Bergquist v. Bergquist (2012), 403 Sask.R. 302; 2012 SKQB 354 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Chutter v. Chutter et al. (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 109; 443 W.A.C. 109; 60 R.F.L.(6th) 263; 2008 BCCA 507, refd to. [para. 63].

Peterson v. Ardiel, [2007] A.R. Uned. 347; 39 R.F.L.(6th) 41; 2007 ABCA 218, refd to. [para. 77].

Kives v. Kives (1984), 43 R.F.L.(2d) 126 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Doerksen v. Houlahan (2012), 278 Man.R.(2d) 117; 2012 MBQB 110 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 80].

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. 85].

Russell v. Russell (1999), 180 Sask.R. 196; 205 W.A.C. 196; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Benson v. Benson (1994), 120 Sask.R. 17; 68 W.A.C. 17; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

LeVan v. LeVan (2008), 239 O.A.C. 1; 51 R.F.L.(6th) 237; 2008 ONCA 388, refd to. [para. 93].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, generally [para. 52].

Counsel:

Valerie G. Watson, for the petitioner;

Sherry L. Fitzsimmons, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Wilkinson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment, dated July 9, 2013.