Guderyan v. Meyers, 2006 SKQB 535

• Judge: Ryan-Froslie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKQB 535;(2006), 290 Sask.R. 280 (FD)

Guderyan v. Meyers (2006), 290 Sask.R. 280 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.014

Teresa Michelle Guderyan (formerly Meyers) (petitioner) v. Terry Gareld Meyers (respondent)

(2004 Div. No. 329; 2006 SKQB 535)

Indexed As: Guderyan v. Meyers

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Ryan-Froslie, J.

December 14, 2006.

Summary:

The parties divorced after seven years of marriage. At issue was the division of the family home and property, spousal support, child support and access costs.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the issues accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions - The parties divorced after seven years of marriage - Before her second marriage, the wife had received insurance proceeds as a result of the death of her first husband - After the marriage, she received a settlement arising from a negligence action - Most of the funds had been expended - The wife had used $30,000 as a down payment on the parties' home (before the marriage) and $13,000 to pay down the mortgage - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that it would not be unfair or inequitable to divide the family home equally (Family Property Act, s. 22(1)) - The wife's use of the proceeds from her first husband's life insurance policy to purchase the home did not result in an extraordinary circumstance - Both parties had benefited from the refinancing of the home which occurred during the marriage, not just to consolidate debt, but also to assist with renovations to the home which the wife was going to enjoy to the exclusion of the husband - See paragraph 27.

Family Law - Topic 880.7

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Award or settlement of damages - The parties divorced after seven years of marriage - Before her second marriage, the wife had received insurance proceeds as a result of the death of her first husband - After the marriage, she received a settlement arising from a negligence action - Most of the funds had been expended - The wife claimed an exemption under s. 23(3) of the Family Property Act of $85,000 respecting: a $30,000 used as a down payment on the parties' home, $13,000 used to pay down the mortgage, $12,000 being the trade-in value of a car, and $30,000 put towards the purchase of a transport truck for the husband's business - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the wife could not claim an exemption respecting the first three items as the family home and household goods were specifically excluded from the exemption provisions - The court allowed the $30,000 exemption respecting the transport truck - See paragraphs 18 to 29.

Family Law - Topic 890.5

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Dissipation or disposal of assets - The parties divorced after seven years of marriage - At issue was, inter alia, the division of family property - The wife argued that the husband had dissipated family property as a result of his gambling addiction - The husband had not gambled, except for very small amounts, since 1998 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that s. 28 of the Family Property Act, which dealt with dissipation, did not apply as the dissipation had occurred more than two years prior to the application date - Therefore, the court was to consider the property as though it were not dissipated - See paragraph 16.

Family Law - Topic 4002.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Circumstances when refused - The parties divorced after seven years of marriage - They had two children together - The wife claimed spousal support on the basis that she suffered an economic disadvantage as a result of the marriage and its breakdown - The husband argued that the marriage was relatively short and the wife's ability to earn income was not negatively impacted by the marriage - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, refused to award spousal support - It is difficult to determine if, and to what extent, the wife may have been economically disadvantaged by the marriage itself - During the marriage she took an esthetician's course which improved her ability to earn income - She was currently self-employed as an esthetician - There was no evidence that she could not obtain similar employment to that enjoyed at the start of the marriage (teacher's assistant) - The court was not satisfied that the mother could not become self-sufficient - Alternatively, the husband did not have the "means" to pay given the family debt he had to assume, the property division he had to pay and his child support obligations - See paragraphs 48 to 55.

Family Law - Topic 4021.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Considerations - Ability to pay - [See Family Law - Topic 4002.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Benson v. Benson (1994), 120 Sask.R. 17; 68 W.A.C. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Russell v. Russell (1999), 180 Sask.R. 196; 205 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Deyell v. Deyell (1991), 90 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Dembiczak v. Dembiczak (1985), 42 Sask.R. 314; 48 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Haughn v. Haughn (1983), 25 Sask.R. 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Penteluk v. Penteluk Estate (1992), 100 Sask.R. 178; 18 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Kochylema v. Fulton (1999), 177 Sask.R. 179; 199 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Gardiner v. Gardiner (1987), 54 Sask.R. 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Ivanochko v. Ivanochko (1994), 119 Sask.R. 113 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk (199), 180 Sask.R. 73; 205 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Beeler v. Beeler (1997), 161 Sask.R. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 50].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 53].

Cooper v. Cooper, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 53; 2002 SKQB 15 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

B.B. W.-B. v. D.M.B. (2005), 268 Sask.R. 146; 2005 SKQB 293 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

M.W. Owens, for the petitioner;

C. den Hollander, for the respondent.

This matter was heard before Ryan-Froslie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on December 14, 2006.