Digest: Youle v Galloway, 2018 SKQB 211

• Date: July 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 211

Docket Number: QB18206 , FLD 93/05 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-07-18

Judges:

• Leurer

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Minutes of Settlement � Enforcement
• Civil Procedure � Contempt
• Family Law � Family Property � Minutes of Settlement

Digest: The parties separated in 2003. The parties had two sons, now aged 26 and 22 years of age. In 2016 they entered into Minutes of Settlement after a pre-trial settlement. Regarding child maintenance, the agreement specified that the respondent husband would pay $22,000 directly to the youngest son who was in his first year of a two-year business program to pay for his tuition and other expenses during the 2016 -2017 academic year but in August 2017, the parties would agree as to their share of the child�s expenses for the second year of the program and failing agreement, an application could be made to the court. Another term of the agreement provided that each party would establish a trust for the benefit of the children. The respondent was to establish a trust and other testamentary documents such that each son would receive at least 25 percent of the respondent�s 2015 corporate assets. In January 2017, the petitioner�s application for an order compelling the respondent to complete the documents was successful. In August 2017, the court directed the respondent to establish the trust required by the provision in the agreement on or before December 2017. The respondent failed to meet the deadline. In March 2018, he delivered to the petitioner a copy of his will that contained a testamentary trust in favour of the two children. The petitioner argued that the will failed to fulfill the agreement and applied for orders that: 1) found the respondent in contempt of the August 2017 court order; and 2) compelled him to comply with the previous order and complete a trust as required by the agreement. She submitted that the agreement contemplated an inter vivos, not a testamentary trust. Further, there was a term in the respondent�s will that made the gifts conditional which was contrary to the intent of the covenant. The respondent applied for orders that: 3) fixed the parties� respective obligations regarding the youngest son�s post-secondary expenses from August 2017 to April 2018. The respondent submitted that he had paid the amount stipulated for 2016-2017 but the parties could not agree as to how to share the expenses for the 2017-2018...