Hauger v. Hauger, (2000) 268 A.R. 25 (QB)

• Judge: Coutu, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 268 A.R. 25 (QB);2000 ABQB 423

Hauger v. Hauger (2000), 268 A.R. 25 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. JN.154

Dianne Joy Hauger (petitioner/respondent) v. Brent Ervin Hauger (respondent/applicant)

(9404-4151/4804-4747; 2000 ABQB 423)

Indexed As: Hauger v. Hauger

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Grande Prairie

Coutu, J.

June 19, 2000.

Summary:

Prior to the Federal Child Support Guidelines becoming effective, a father was required to pay $1,800 per month. He owed $86,177 in arrears. He sought a declaration that his annual income was $23,859.00, to reduce his child maintenance payments to $362 per month, and to reduce his arrears to $39,989.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the father's application.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the calculation of income for purposes of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, where the payor spouse has his or her own business or is the shareholder of a private company - See paragraphs 25 to 46.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - Prior to the Federal Child Sup­port Guidelines becoming effective, a father was required to pay $1,800 per month - He owed $86,177 in arrears - He sought a declaration that his annual income was $23,859.00, to reduce his child main­tenance payments to $362 per month, and to reduce his arrears to $39,989 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to vary the order requiring the father to pay the $1,800 per month - The court held that expenses declared against income from his private business should be imputed as income for purposes of the Guidelines - When this was done he would actually have to pay more under the Guidelines than under the original order - See para­graphs 24 to 58.

Family Law - Topic 4045.8

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Changed circumstances - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the implementation of the [Federal Child Support] Guidelines is a change in cir­cumstance which justifies an application by either parent and permits the court to review any order made prior to the imple­mentation of the Guidelines (s. 14). This section merely provides a triggering mech­anism to permit a review of the circum­stances to see whether there is a sufficient change in circumstances as defined in the jurisprudence so that a variation should be made in the support payments. However, the court is not mandated to vary the order. In enacting the Guidelines, Parlia­ment did not remove the court's discretion under s. 17(1) of the Divorce Act, to vary or refuse to vary an existing order." - See paragraph 22.

Cases Noticed:

Laird v. Laird (2000), 250 A.R. 193; 213 W.A.C. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, Appendix].

Wang v. Wang (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 302; 178 W.A.C. 302; 39 R.F.L.(4th) 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, Appendix].

Wilson v. Wilson (1998), 165 Sask.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29, Appendix].

Levesque v. Levesque, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 859; 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 429; 4 R.F.L.(4th) 375; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 314, refd to. [para. 32, Appendix].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk (1999), 180 Sask.R. 73; 205 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35, Appendix].

Millar v. Millar, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 36, Appendix].

Yeo v. Yeo (1998), 43 R.F.L.(4th) 408 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 37, Appendix].

Hill v. Hill, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 42; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 110 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38, Appendix].

Holtby v. Holtby (1997), 42 O.T.C. 101; 30 R.F.L.(4th) 70 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39, Appendix].

Jaasma v. Jaasma (1999), 249 A.R. 357 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40, Appendix].

Roy v. Roy, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 232 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 41, Appendix].

Ashworth v. Ashworth, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 300 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 42, Appendix].

Shaw v. Shaw (1997), 120 Man.R.(2d) 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43, Appendix].

Boehm v. Boehm, [1998] Sask.R. Uned. 41 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44, Appendix].

Ashworth v. Ashworth, [1997] S.J. No. 799 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Doege v. Doege (1998), 162 Sask.R. 145; 37 R.F.L.(4th) 52 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

Tidball v. Tidball (1999), 93 O.T.C. 52; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 437 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

Stokes v. Stokes (1998), 167 Sask.R. 107 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 45, Appen­dix].

Seidlikoski v. Hall (1998), 167 Sask.R. 56; 40 R.F.L.(4th) 427 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

McDonald v. Gross (1998), 167 Sask.R. 97 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

Fry v. Hendrickson (1998), 166 Sask.R. 305 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

Cornelius v. Andres (1998), 134 Man.R.(2d) 140; 193 W.A.C. 140; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, Appendix].

Haisman v. Haisman (1994), 157 A.R. 47; 77 W.A.C. 47; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, Appendix].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 11 [para. 30]; sect. 14 [para. 22]; sect. 16 [para. 27]; sect. 17(1) [para. 22]; sect. 18 [para. 28]; sect. 19 [para. 29].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ares, Louise, Determining Income for the Self-Employed (2000), generally [Appendix].

Counsel:

K. Shipley, for the petitioner/respondent;

R. Lewis, Q.C., for the respondent/appli­cant.

This application was heard before Coutu, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Grande Prairie, who delivered the following judgment on June 19, 2000.