Cain v. Cain, (1993) 115 Sask.R. 241 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 05, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 115 Sask.R. 241 (QB)

Cain v. Cain (1993), 115 Sask.R. 241 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Linda Joan Cain (petitioner) v. Gerrard Cain (respondent)

(1983 U.F.C. No. 958)

Indexed As: Cain v. Cain

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

November 5, 1993.

Summary:

A husband and wife divorced. The husband was ordered to pay $350 monthly child maintenance. After being deported to Eng­land, the husband defaulted on support payments. The wife registered the mainte­nance order under the United Kingdom's Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforce­ment) Act. The husband filed a complaint to vary the order.

The Magistrates' Court provisionally reduced the maintenance to a nominal amount and rescinded arrears.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to confirm the variations.

Family Law - Topic 4047.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Confirmation of pro­visional order - A husband and wife divorced - The husband was ordered to pay $350 monthly child maintenance - After being deported to England, the hus­band defaulted on maintenance payments - The wife registered the maintenance order in the United Kingdom - The Magistrates' Court allowed the husband's complaint and provisionally varied the order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the Saskatchewan Recipro­cal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act did not apply to the order as it was not a "registered order" under s. 2(k) of the Act and therefore no confirmation hearing could be held under s. 6(2) - See paragraphs 13 to 19.

Family Law - Topic 4047.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Confirmation of pro­visional order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that while an order for child maintenance "... may be enforced under the REMO ACT [the Saskatchewan Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act] and therefore appears to be registerable and enforceable in the United Kingdom under the Main­tenance Enforcement Act, 1991 [U.K.] and the Maintenance Orders [Reciprocal En­forcement] Act 1972 [U.K.], it cannot be provisionally varied under such acts, because the Divorce Act [Can.] fails to recognize provisional orders made by the courts of foreign states, even if such states are reciprocating states for the purposes of the REMO Act." - See paragraph 29.

Family Law - Topic 4047.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Confirmation of pro­visional order - In 1984, a husband and wife divorced - He was ordered to pay $350 monthly child maintenance - After being deported to England, he defaulted on maintenance payments - The wife had the maintenance order registered in the United Kingdom - Pursuant to the husband's complaint, the Magistrates' Court provisionally reduced payments to a nom­inal amount and remitted $32,350 in arrears - From 1988 to 1991, the husband had substantial earnings - Substantial assets - Preferred the needs of his current wife and her children - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench opined that if capable of being confirmed, it would not confirm the variations, because the Magis­trates' Court incorrectly applied the laws of the United Kingdom by not considering the husband's ability to pay and the disregard of his obligations - See paragraphs 30 to 43.

Family Law - Topic 4047.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Confirmation of provi­sional order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the legal prin­ciples and evidence relevant to confirming, varying or revoking a provisional order - See paragraphs 44 to 48.

Words and Phrases :

Registered order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of "registered order" as defined in s. 2(k) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1983, c. R-4.1.

Cases Noticed:

J. v. J. (C. intervening) - see Jones v. Jones and Croall.

Jones v. Jones and Croall, [1989] 1 All E.R. 1121 (C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

Fletcher v. Fletcher, [1985] 2 All E.R. 260 (D.C.), consd. [para. 35].

Pilcher v. Pilcher, [1956] 1 All E.R. 463 (D.C.), consd. [para. 36].

Ross v. Pearson, [1976] 1 All E.R. 790; [1976] 1 W.L.R. 224 (D.C.), consd. [para. 37].

Jones v. Jones, [1971] 3 All E.R. 1201; 115 Sol. Jo. 869 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Lewis v. Lewis, [1977] 3 All E.R. 992 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Suter v. Suter and Jones, [1987] 2 All E.R. 336; [1987] Fam. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Gray v. Gray (1983), 32 R.F.L.(2d) 438 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Rolick v. Rolick, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 80; 22 Sask.R. 144; 32 R.F.L.(2d) 14 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Aime v. Aime (No. 2) (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 195; 27 R.F.L.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Jensen v. Jensen (1990), 86 Sask.R. 257; 28 R.F.L.(3d) 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Harris v. Harris (1980), 110 D.L.R.(3d) 483 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Gluck v. Gluck (1983), 29 Sask.R. 163; 34 R.F.L.(2d) 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Martin v. Martin (1989), 81 Sask.R. 98; 24 R.F.L.(3d) 150 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 17 [paras. 18, 45]; sect. 17(1)(a), sect. 17(2), sect. 17(3), sect. 17(4), sect. 17(6), sect. 17(8) [para. 16]; sect. 18, sect. 19 [paras. 17, 18].

Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. E-9.2, generally [para. 45].

Magistrates' Court Act (U.K.), 1980, c. 43, sect. 60(1), sect. 95(1) [para. 27].

Maintenance Orders Act (U.K.), 1958, 6 & 7 Eliz. 2, c. 39, generally [paras. 20, 21].

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforce­ment) Act (U.K.), 1972, c. 18, sect. 8(1) [paras. 22, 23]; sect. 9 [paras. 25, 26]; sect. 9(1) [paras. 24, 30]; sect. 9(1ZA) [para. 25]; sect. 9(2) [para. 30]; sect. 9(2)(c) [para. 24]; sect. 9(4) [para. 30]; sect. 21(1) [paras. 22, 23, 28].

Matrimonial Causes Act (U.K.), 1973, c. 18, sect. 23(1)(d), sect. 23(1)(e), sect. (23)(1)(f) [para. 31]; sect. 25(1) [paras. 32, 40]; sect. 25(2)(a), sect. 25(2)(b), sect. 25(2)(c), sect. 25(2)(d), sect. 25(3) [para. 32]; sect. 31(1), sect. 31(7) [para. 33]; sect. 35 [para. 20].

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1983, c. R-4.1, sect. 2(h) [para. 14]; sect. 2(k) [paras. 14, 15]; sect. 3(3) [para. 15]; sect. 6(2) [paras. 1, 49]; sect. 6(7) [paras. 42, 43]; sect. 6(9) [para. 15]; sect. 8(1) [para. 14]; sect. 8(2) [para. 15]; sect. 8(2)(b) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Davies, Christine, Family Law in Canada (4th Ed. 1984), p. 511 [para. 46].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 12 [para. 40]; vol. 13, p. 546 [para. 32]; vol. 13, p. 549 [para. 33]; vol. 13, para. 1238 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Leslie Gail Tallis, for the petitioner;

No one appeared on behalf of the respon­dent.

This matter was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered judgment on November 5, 1993.