Chepil v. Chepil, 2014 SKQB 341

• Judge: Megaw, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKQB 341;(2014), 458 Sask.R. 289 (FD)

Chepil v. Chepil (2014), 458 Sask.R. 289 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.013

Julie Marie Chepil (petitioner) v. Christopher William Chepil (respondent)

(2013 Div. No. 392; 2014 SKQB 341)

Indexed As: Chepil v. Chepil

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Megaw, J.

October 21, 2014.

Summary:

Married parents of two children, born in 2007 and 2010, separated in January 2013. The mother lived in Wynyard, where she worked full-time as a registered nurse. The father lived in Regina, where he was temporarily unemployed. Each party sought to be the children's primary residential parent. At issue as well were child support and the father's request for spousal support.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the parties were to share joint custody with the children's primary residence being with the mother in Wynyard. The court requested further submissions regarding child support. The mother was ordered to pay spousal support to the father of $583 per month for two years.

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Changing child's residence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, discussed the principles applicable to "mobility" cases and set out 23 factors that were to be considered in such a matter - The list was "necessarily long as the best interests of the child require the court to consider the move from all possible perspectives" - See paragraphs 35 to 41.

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Changing child's residence - Married parents of two children, born in 2007 and 2010, separated in January 2013 - The mother lived in Wynyard, where she worked full-time as a registered nurse - The father lived in Regina, where he was temporarily unemployed - After the mother unilaterally relocated the children to Wynyard, the father obtained an order returning the children to Regina - Under that order, the children resided primarily with the father and the mother exercised access - Each party sought to be the children's primary residential parent - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the parties were to share joint custody with the children's primary residence being with the mother in Wynyard - The children had loving homes with both parents - There would be no long term disruption if the living arrangements were changed - The children's social network was less developed in Regina than it was or would be in Wynyard - The requirement for maximum contact with each parent was very important here - The father was available on weekends, but not during the week - The mother was able to arrange her shifts so that they were mostly on weekends - This meant that she was available without work commitments for most of the week - The children's best interests would be served by having their primary residence with the mother - The father was to have parenting time with the children for a minimum of three weekends per month - See paragraphs 47 to 95.

Family Law - Topic 1900

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Maximum contact with each parent - [See second Family Law - Topic 1895 ].

Family Law - Topic 2076

Custody and access - Joint custody - Principal home - [See second Family Law - Topic 1895 ].

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - Married parents of two children, born in 2007 and 2010, separated in January 2013 - The wife lived in Wynyard, where she worked full-time as a registered nurse, earning approximately $110,000 annually - The husband lived in Regina, where he was temporarily unemployed - He expected to earn $60,000 - The husband sought spousal support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered the wife to pay spousal support to the husband of $583 per month for two years - The husband had suffered a short term economic hardship as a result of the abruptness of the termination of the marriage - Further, he had lost the support and lifestyle that he had previously enjoyed when the parties were together - Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested a duration of support of four to eight years, that was not necessary here - See paragraphs 98 to 105.

Family Law - Topic 4021.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Support guidelines (incl. non-divorce cases) - [See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation - [See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 35].

S.L. v. C.B. (2013), 429 Sask.R. 221; 2013 SKQB 333 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

N.D.L. v. M.S.L. (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 916 A.P.R. 303; 83 R.F.L.(6th) 214; 2010 NSSC 68 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

One v. One, [2000] B.C.T.C. 822; 81 B.C.L.R.(3d) 315; 2000 BCSC 1584, refd to. [para. 36].

Olfert v. Olfert (2012), 402 Sask.R. 71; 2012 SKQB 301 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Gilles v. Gilles, [2008] 10 W.W.R. 610; 311 Sask.R. 223; 428 W.A.C. 223; 2008 SKCA 97, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 43].

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. 43].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 43].

Bird v. Bird (2013), 419 Sask.R. 214; 2013 SKQB 157 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 46].

Frank v. Linn (2014), 442 Sask.R. 126; 616 W.A.C. 126; 2014 SKCA 87, refd to. [para. 104].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (2008), generally [para. 103].

Counsel:

Hal B. Wellsch, for the petitioner;

W. Timothy Stodalka, for the respondent.

This action was heard by Megaw, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on October 21, 2014.