Digest: R.A.D. v C.G.C., 2018 SKQB 178

• Date: June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 178

Docket Number: QB17559 , FLD 406/13 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Tholl

Subjects:

• Family Law � Child Support
• Statutes � Interpretation � Family Maintenance Act, 1997, Section 3

Digest: The petitioner and the respondent had one child together, now aged 17. Their son has lived with the petitioner mother since he was born and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a degenerative muscle disease and needed significant assistance. According to expert opinion evidence, the child�s disease would cause further deterioration in his physical and mental capabilities. The respondent had not had a close relationship with his son for some time and there was some evidence that he had refused to see the respondent. The petitioner brought her original petition in 2013 and a number of interim orders were made thereafter regarding custody and child support. At the time of trial, the respondent was paying interim child support in the amount of $903 per month pursuant to s. 3 of the Guidelines and 87 percent of all s. 7 expenses. The petitioner submitted that the support should continue past the child�s approaching 18th birthday and that she should receive payment from the respondent of his share of s. 7 expenses, retroactively and on an ongoing basis. The respondent took the position that child support should cease after his son�s birthday because he would receive monthly payments of $805 per month from the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program. The petitioner�s 2017 income was $7200 consisting of social assistance payments. She had business revenue of $35,200 derived from an in-home daycare, with general expenses of $12,350. She claimed use of her home for business purposes in the amount of $22,800 to reduce her business income to zero. The respondent�s employment income was $107,900. He was married and had two children and claimed his expenses exceeded his income. The issues were: 1) whether the child remained a child for whom support should be paid pursuant to The Family Maintenance Act, 1997 (FMA); 2) what amount of child support, if any should be paid by the respondent pursuant to s. 3 and s. 7 of the Guidelines; and 3) what amount, if any, the respondent owed to the petitioner for past expenses under s. 7.
HELD: The court found with respect to each issue that: 1) the preconditions from s. 3(7) of the FMA had been met so that the child remained a child for...