Digest: K.A.W. v S.R.W., 2018 SKQB 205

Date:January 18, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 205

Docket Number: FLD 392/17 JCR , QB17588

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-01-18

Judges:

  • Brown

Subjects:

  • Family Law � Spousal Support � Interim

Digest: The petitioner wife issued a petition in October 2017 and brought an application for an order respecting custody, access and child and spousal support in May 2018. The court made an interim order that the parties� three children should have their primary residence with the petitioner and that the respondent should pay $2,400 per month in child support, based upon the petitioner�s income of $41,000 and the respondent�s of $133,400. In this application, the petitioner sought interim spousal support. When they separated in 2015, the respondent had just graduated from RCMP training. The petitioner and their three children moved to Saskatchewan to live with him at that point but when they arrived, the respondent ended the marriage. The petitioner rented a house in Regina at a cost of $1,400 per month and had lived there with the children since. She was able to find employment. Her family expenses totaled $62,900 and when the child support payments and child tax credit were taken into account, the petitioner had a $12,400 surplus annually. The respondent relocated to Gravelbourg for a posting and was in a new relationship. His financial statement showed $111,900 in expenditures and his surplus income was $21,400. The respondent argued that as the family had a history of low income prior to him becoming an RCMP officer, this was a relevant factor in denying the petitioner�s claim for spousal support.
HELD: The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support in the amount of $850 per month. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to spousal support because of the disadvantage she had suffered due to the breakdown in the marriage. The parties had had a long-term marriage and there was a current large disparity in their incomes. The respondent had been able to become an RCMP officer because the petitioner remained in Ontario and took care of the children. In
...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP