Digest: Birnie v Birnie, 2018 SKQB 87

Date:March 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 87

Docket Number: QB18071 , DIV 530/09 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-03-18


  • Brown


  • Family Law � Child Support � Interim - Determination of Income

Digest: Pursuant to an interspousal agreement between the parties, the amounts of child and spousal support payable by the petitioner were set until June 2014, whereupon the parties were to exchange income tax returns required by the Guidelines to properly assess their respective incomes and the petitioner�s obligations regarding child support. After making numerous applications to obtain the information from the petitioner, the respondent sought the determination of his income or alternately, an understanding of the resources that he had access to and with which he could provide support for their two children and for her. The petitioner had incorporated his farming and cattle operation in 2015 after carrying on business before then as a sole proprietorship. In 2015 the corporation had a total value of $3,600,000 (net $1,665,000) and in 2016, it was $3,468,900 (net $1,856,200). In its 2016 financial statement, the corporation�s earnings before income tax were $87,900, showing allocations for various expenses. The petitioner stated that his income from the corporation was $38,600 and that it was struggling for various reasons, such as it needed new machinery. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have the entire pre-tax income from the corporation attributed to him, as he was either earning or capable of earning substantially more income than what he claimed. The issues were: 1) whether a final support order should be made based on the material before the court; and 2) if not, what the interim order should be.
HELD: The court granted an interim order for child support. It found that it was not appropriate to make a final order as the real revenue and expense picture for the corporation had to be ascertained and that could be accomplished with greater precision when full reports, additional evidence and cross-examination were available at pre-trial or trial. The matter of spousal support was left for pre-trial and trial because of the terms of the agreement. The court found that for the purposes of making an interim order for child support the petitioner�s line 150 income was not sufficient and not reflective of the money available to him for support, and income should be imputed to him under s. 18 of

To continue reading