Geran v. Geran, 2008 SKQB 460

• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 13, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2008 SKQB 460;(2008), 325 Sask.R. 89 (QB)

Geran v. Geran (2008), 325 Sask.R. 89 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.044

Brenda Lee Geran (petitioner) v. Calvin George Geran (respondent)

(1986 Q.B. No. 9931; 2008 SKQB 460)

Indexed As: Geran v. Geran

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

November 13, 2008.

Summary:

The parties' 22 year old daughter had one unsuccessful year of post-secondary studies. She then worked full-time for a year, living on her own. When she was readmitted to university on a probationary basis, she returned to the mother's home. The mother sought to vary a 1992 order for child support for the daughter. The father had ceased making payments under the order.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The daughter was a child of the marriage entitled to support calculated in accordance with s. 3(2)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Family Law - Topic 3998

Divorce - Corollary relief - General - Children's post-secondary education - The parties' 22 year old daughter had one unsuccessful year of post-secondary studies - She then worked full-time for a year, living on her own - When she was readmitted to university on a probationary basis, she returned to the mother's home - The mother sought to vary a 1992 order for child support for the daughter - The father had ceased making payments under the order - The daughter anticipated an income of $12,000 per year from part-time employment - Her adjusted personal expenses, exclusive of school expenses, were approximately $12,000 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the daughter was a child of the marriage entitled to child support in the Federal Child Support Guidelines amount, based on the father's income - The daughter remained financially dependent on her parents - It was not unreasonable for her to return to her parents' charge after one year out of school - Her goal for her education was reasonable - The daughter had an ability to cover her school expenses and had a reasonable amount available for her personal expenses - However, she did not have an ability to contribute to the expenses the mother incurred in providing a home for her - In the context where the daughter was to be responsible for her own school expenses, the circumstances were close enough to the usual guideline approach that support calculated in accordance with s. 3(2)(a) of the Guidelines was appropriate for as long as the daughter remained a child of the marriage.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To children and children defined - [See Family Law - Topic 3998 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.11

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Child over the age of majority - [See Family Law - Topic 3998 ].

Cases Noticed:

Brooke v. Hertz (2008), 327 Sask.R. 162; 2008 SKQB 461, refd to. [para. 13].

Ritchie v. Ritchie, [2003] 8 W.W.R. 422; 232 Sask.R. 245; 294 W.A.C. 245; 2003 SKCA 43, dist. [para. 14].

Willie v. Willie, [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 270; 2000 SKQB 482 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Longhurst v. Longhurst, [2005] B.C.T.C. 1189; 141 A.C.W.S.(3d) 787; 2005 BCSC 1189, refd to. [para. 16].

Rebenchuk v. Rebenchuk (2007), 212 Man.R.(2d) 261; 389 W.A.C. 261; 35 R.F.L.(6th) 239; 2007 MBCA 22, refd to. [para. 23].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 228, refd to. [para. 24].

McConnell v. McConnell, [2002] 5 W.W.R. 180; 215 Sask.R. 195; 25 R.F.L.(5th) 341; 2002 SKQB 72 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Alonzo v. Alonzo, [2000] B.C.T.C. Uned. 548; 101 A.C.W.S.(3d) 567; 2000 BCSC 1702, refd to. [para. 25].

Herriot v. Herriot, [2003] B.C.T.C. 838; 124 A.C.W.S.(3d) 142; 2003 BCSC 838, refd to. [para. 25].

Barnett v. Barnett, [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 69; 20 R.F.L.(5th) 8; 110 A.C.W.S.(3d) 131 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Wright v. Wright (1996), 141 Sask.R. 44; 114 W.A.C. 44; 212 R.F.L.(4th) 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

James J. Vogel, for the petitioner;

R. Bradley Hunter, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard by McIntyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on November 13, 2008.