Howdle v. Betteridge, (2015) 313 Man.R.(2d) 103 (QBFD)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Rivoalen
• Neutral Citation: 2015 MBQB 12
• Citation: (2015), 313 Man.R.(2d) 103 (QBFD),2015 MBQB 12,313 ManR(2d) 103,(2015), 313 ManR(2d) 103 (QBFD),313 Man.R.(2d) 103
• Date: 20 January 2015
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)

Howdle v. Betteridge (2015), 313 Man.R.(2d) 103 (QBFD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.010

Megan Lorraine Maria Howdle (petitioner) v. Dylan John Betteridge (respondent)

(FD 14-08-01192; 2015 MBQB 12)

Indexed As: Howdle v. Betteridge

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Flin Flon Centre

Rivoalen, A./A.C.J.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

The 21 year old parties separated in May 2014 after a short cohabitation. Their child had been born in October 2013. The father paid the Federal Child Support Guidelines amount of child support, based on his income of just over $60,000. The mother's 2014 income was $3,400, arising from cash tips at her grandmother's restaurant. The mother moved for interim spousal support.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, denied the motion.

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Maintenance - The 21 year old parties separated in May 2014 after a short cohabitation - Their child had been born in October 2013 - The father paid the Federal Child Support Guidelines amount of child support, based on his income of just over $60,000 - The mother's 2014 income was $3,400, arising from cash tips at her grandmother's restaurant - The mother moved for interim spousal support - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, denied the motion - The parties were "common-law partners" under the Family Maintenance Act - The mother had a right to apply for spousal support - However, the evidence did not establish entitlement - The mother was healthy and capable of working full time - She had not been disadvantaged by the relationship's breakdown - While there was a great disparity in incomes, that did not, of itself, establish entitlement - The mother's employment record was "anything but inspiring" - She had done very little to meet her own obligations - Entitlement to spousal support did not arise merely because a parent had the care of a child - Further, this was an interim motion and there was conflicting evidence on critical points, including the relationship's duration and the plans and agreements the parties made while they were together.

Family Law - Topic 2224

Maintenance of spouses and children - Interim relief - Interim maintenance - [See Family Law - Topic 1013 ].

Family Law - Topic 2323

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of wives - Status to apply - [See Family Law - Topic 1013 ].

Family Law - Topic 2328

Maintenance of spouses and children - Maintenance of spouses - Effect of spouse's ability to work - [See Family Law - Topic 1013 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kloos v. Kloos (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 129; 118 W.A.C. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Duder v. Rowe (2006), 402 A.R. 395; 152 A.C.W.S.(3d) 298; 2006 ABQB 518, refd to. [para. 45].

Kowalski v. Grant (2007), 219 Man.R.(2d) 260; 2007 MBQB 235, refd to. [para. 46].

Belcourt v. Chartrand, [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 507; 28 R.F.L.(6th) 157 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Counsel:

Judith F. Eagle, for the petitioner;

Heather A. Dixon, for the respondent.

This motion was heard by Rivoalen, A./A.C.J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Flin Flon Centre, who delivered the following judgment on January 20, 2015.