Gale v. Gale, (2000) 144 Man.R.(2d) 307 (QB)

• Judge: Yard, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2000), 144 Man.R.(2d) 307 (QB)

Gale v. Gale (2000), 144 Man.R.(2d) 307 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.004

Marsha Lynn Gale (petitioner) v. Mark David Gale (respondent)

(FD 98-01-54444; 2000 MBQG 38)

Indexed As: Gale v. Gale

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Yard, J.

April 14, 2000.

Summary:

A wife petitioned for divorce. At issue was her entitlement to spousal support.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted a divorce and awarded the wife lump sum and periodic support.

Family Law - Topic 4012

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Lump sum and periodic payments - A couple separated - They had a 16 year old special needs child (Natalie) who required significant care - She remained in the wife's primary care - The wife earned $39,070.26, the husband over $56,000, the previous year - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench awarded the wife $12,000 lump sum and $500 ongoing monthly spousal support - While each spouse worked during the marriage, from the time of Natalie's birth through the separation, the wife's first priority, function and role in the family was to take care of the family and in particular to insure that Natalie's needs were met - Her job and her career were secondary and supplemental - The husband was able to concentrate on his career and its evolution.

Family Law - Topic 4021.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Considerations - Financial consequences of child care - [See Family Law - Topic 4012 ].

Cases Noticed:

Brockie v. Brockie (1987), 46 Man.R.(2d) 33 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 128 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; 45 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 39].

Hauff v. Hauff (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 83; 70 W.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Monks v. Monks (1993), 88 Man.R.(2d) 149; 51 W.A.C. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Topolnitsky v. Topolnitsky (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 276; 149 W.A.C. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Ross v. Ross (1995), 168 N.B.R.(2d) 147; 430 A.P.R. 147; 16 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Bracklow v. Bracklow (1999), 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

Susan D. Baragar, for the petitioner;

Marcia Knight, for the respondent.

This case was heard by Yard, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on April 14, 2000.