Bromm v. Bromm, 2010 SKQB 85

• Judge: Ryan-Froslie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2010 SKQB 85;(2010), 353 Sask.R. 198 (FD)

Bromm v. Bromm (2010), 353 Sask.R. 198 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.022

Kelly Gene Bromm (petitioner) v. Leanne Marie Bromm (respondent)

(2004 DIV. No. 315; 2010 SKQB 85)

Indexed As: Bromm v. Bromm

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Ryan-Froslie, J.

February 26, 2010.

Summary:

Spouses divorced in 2005. The father applied to vary the parties' divorce judgment so that he "share" custody of the parties' two children on a week on/week off basis. The mother applied for an interim order of child support.

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

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - [See Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 1951

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Welfare of child - [See Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 2082

Custody and access - Shared parenting - Considerations (incl. best interests of the child) - [See Family Law - Topic 4064 ].

Family Law - Topic 4064

Divorce - Corollary relief - Custody of children - Variation of custody order - Spouses divorced in 2005 - The separation agreement dealt with the parties' parenting arrangements for the children who at the time were four years and 13 months of age - The parties agreed to joint custody with primary residence to be with the mother and the father being entitled to "generous access" to the children - The father applied to vary the parties' divorce judgment so that he "share" custody of the parties' two children on a week on/week off basis - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that there had been a material change in circumstances where the original parenting arrangement had been structured based on the tender years of the children and thus provided for shorter, more frequent access - The fact the children had matured and could spend longer periods away from both of their parents, as well as the fact they were now in full time attendance at school and heavily involved in extracurricular activities supported a change to the existing order - It did not, however, support a finding that shared custody was in the best interests of these children - The status quo was working and while some changes to the current parenting regime were necessary, a shared parenting arrangement would not be in the best interests of the children - The court set out a new parenting regime - See paragraphs 24 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

Talbot v. Henry (1990), 84 Sask.R. 170; 25 R.F.L.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wiegers v. Gray (2008), 307 Sask.R. 117; 417 W.A.C. 117; 2008 SKCA 7, refd to. [para. 24].

Willford v. Schaffer (2007), 289 Sask.R. 261; 382 W.A.C. 261; 2007 SKCA 9, refd to. [para. 25].

Caharel v. Caharel, [2008] A.R. Uned. 264; 2008 ABQB 238, refd to. [para. 25].

M.R.V. v. G.V.G.V., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 6; 2008 SKQB 24 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 25].

E.S. v. D.E.H. (2007), 300 Sask.R. 48; 2007 SKQB 231 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

C.L. v. J.B. (2008), 317 Sask.R. 214; 2008 SKQB 272, refd to. [para. 27].

R.B.G. v. P.M.S. (2008), 315 Sask.R. 1; 2008 SKQB 83 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Johns v. Hinkson (1996), 151 Sask.R. 168 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Elliott v. Loewen (1993), 44 R.F.L.(3d) 445 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

C.P. v. L.H. (2006), 279 Sask.R. 94; 372 W.A.C. 94; 2006 SKCA 61, refd to. [para. 70].

Anderson-Devine v. Anderson (2002), 170 Man.R.(2d) 85; 285 W.A.C. 85; 33 R.F.L.(5th) 29; 2002 MBCA 166, refd to. [para. 70].

Kerr v. Kerr (1998), 174 Sask.R. 167 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 70].

Danchuk v. Danchuk (2001), 151 B.C.A.C. 297; 249 W.A.C. 297; 15 R.F.L.(5th) 328; 2001 BCCA 291, refd to. [para. 75].

Wright v. Zaver (2002), 158 O.A.C. 146; 24 R.F.L.(5th) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

MacKay v. Bucher (2001), 196 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 613 A.P.R. 293; 2001 NSCA 120, refd to. [para. 76].

J.P., Re (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 314; 851 A.P.R. 314; 54 R.F.L.(6th) 13; 2008 NSCA 61, refd to. [para. 99].

D.M.C.T. v. L.K.S. - see J.P., Re.

Matlock v. Matlock (2010), 349 Sask.R. 294; 2010 SKQB 16, refd to. [para. 99].

Counsel:

G. Goebel, for the petitioner;

S. Fitzsimmons, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Ryan-Froslie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on February 26, 2010.