Reported as: 2018 SKQB 171
Docket Number: QB17554 , DIV 696/12 JCR
Court: Court of Queen's Bench
- Family Law � Custody and Access � Variation
- Family Law � Child Support � Variation
Digest: The petitioner and respondent married in 2005 and had two children, one born in 2008 and the youngest in 2011. The parties separated in 2011. In 2014 the court ordered that the parents have joint custody. Based upon the petitioner�s work schedule as a police officer, the children spent five out of every 14 nights with him. The petitioner was to pay $1,000 per month in child support and 57 percent of all activity expenses. The petitioner applied in late 2015 to vary that parenting arrangement and requested that the court order a shared parenting schedule consisting of a week-on, week-off basis and that child support be varied to amounts calculated pursuant to ss. 7 and 9 of the Guidelines based on equal shared parenting and the parties� current incomes. The respondent opposed a change to the parenting schedule. Previous to this trial, the court determined that there had been a material change in circumstances as a result of major changes to the petitioner�s work schedule as he had received a new posting that provided a permanent schedule of working business hours from Monday to Friday. The parties were given an opportunity to discuss a resolution, the application was stayed and the parties referred to the high conflict mediation program. As they were unable to resolve their issues, the petitioner brought another application in late 2016 that sought the same remedies. A chambers judge referred the matter to pre-trial conference on the basis of the finding of material change. Nothing was resolved at the pre-trial and the matter proceeded to trial. The petitioner had been in a relationship with his second wife since 2011. They were married in 2014 and had two children of their own. The petitioner�s new spouse was self-employed and worked at home. Because of her flexible schedule she arranged her work around the needs of the family. She and her children had a very good relationship with the petitioner�s children. A number of the members of their extended families lived nearby. Their home was large enough to allow each of the petitioner�s children to have their own bedrooms during their period of residing...