Jarrett v. Jarrett, (1996) 149 Sask.R. 58 (FD)

• Judge: Carter, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 149 Sask.R. 58 (FD)

Jarrett v. Jarrett (1996), 149 Sask.R. 58 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Lynda Lee Jarrett (petitioner) v. Ronald Wray Jarrett (respondent)

(1996 F.L.D. No. 305)

Indexed As: Jarrett v. Jarrett

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Carter, J.

October 4, 1996.

Summary:

A 1994 separation agreement provided, inter alia, that the husband pay $600 month­ly spousal support which was to continue until June 30, 1996 and "shall be reviewable at that time to determine if any further support is required". The agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment. The wife subsequently sought a variation of the spousal support order.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found that further spousal support was required. The court ordered that the $600 was payable to the wife, retroactive to July 1, 1996, and continuing until September 1997, to be reviewed at that time.

Family Law - Topic 4006

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Effect of agree­ments - A 1994 separation agreement provided, inter alia, that the husband pay $600 monthly spousal support which was to continue until June 30, 1996 and "shall be reviewable at that time to determine if any further support is required" - The agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment - The wife subsequently sought a variation of the spousal support order - The husband argued that it was the under­standing at the time of signing the separ­ation agreement that support was not reviewable and that if it was it should not be extended - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the agreement and divorce judgment must be taken to mean exactly what they said - The wife had not sought a variation upwards of the $600, rather she sought to have support continued for a further period - See paragraphs 18 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Periodic payments - The parties married in 1988 and sepa­rated in 1994 - A separation agreement provided that the husband pay $550 monthly support for each of the two children and $600 monthly spousal support - The spousal support was to continue until June 30, 1996 and "shall be review­able at that time to determine if any fur­ther support is required" - The agree­ment was incorporated into the divorce judgment - The wife subsequently sought a variation of the spousal support order - Financial statements showed the husband's gross monthly income as $3,953.84 and the wife's as $2,305 (including the $1,100 child support) - The wife also had a $10,000 student loan debt - The Sas­katchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found that further spousal support was required - The court ordered that the $600 was payable to the wife, retroactive to July 1, 1996, and con­tinuing until September 1997, to be reviewed at that time.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Variation of peri­odic payments or lump sum awards - [See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Family Law - Topic 4018.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Review of maintenance v. variation of maintenance - A 1994 sepa­ration agreement provided, inter alia, that the husband pay $600 monthly spousal support which was to continue until June 30, 1996 and "shall be reviewable at that time to determine if any further support is required" - The agreement was incorpo­rated into the divorce judgment - The wife subsequently sought a variation of the spousal support order - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "[t]he petitioner has made her application under the provisions of the Divorce Act for variation proceed­ings. There is no specific provision under the Divorce Act for applications to 'review' a court order. But as the agreement men­tions that an application must be brought, I take it to mean that it must be brought to a court and not to any other place" - See paragraph 15.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards to wife - Extent to obligation - [See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Cases Noticed:

Guselle v. Guselle (1995), 138 Sask.R. 245 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), consd. [para. 24].

L.G. v. G.B., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 370; 186 N.R. 201; 15 R.F.L.(4th) 201, refd to. [para. 27].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 27].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, consd. [para. 27].

Masters v. Masters, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 883; 168 N.R. 11; 120 Sask.R. 318; 68 W.A.C. 318; 4 R.F.L.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 28].

Haigh v. Haigh (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 109; 11 W.A.C. 109; 33 R.F.L.(3d) 161 (C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

Millward v. Millward (1987), 8 R.F.L.(3d) 67 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

N. Turcotte, for the petitioner;

M. McAdam, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Carter, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 4, 1996.