Klapak v. Minty, (2015) 481 Sask.R. 162 (FD)

• Judge: Goebel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 481 Sask.R. 162 (FD);2015 SKQB 230

Klapak v. Minty (2015), 481 Sask.R. 162 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.048

John Klapak, (petitioner/applicant) v. Lindsey Minty, (respondent/respondent)

(2012 FLD No. 259; 2015 SKQB 230)

Indexed As: Klapak v. Minty

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Goebel, J.

July 30, 2015.

Summary:

The parties had two children. A 2013 consent judgment provided the mother with primary care of the children and the father with access every other weekend. The father applied to vary the judgment, seeking an order for shared parenting.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stayed the application pending the parties' participation in a High Conflict Mediation Program.

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Changing child's residence - [See first Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 1900

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Maximum contact with each parent - [See third Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - A consent judgment provided the mother with primary care of the parties' two children - The father applied to vary the judgment, seeking an order for shared parenting - He argued that the mother's plan to relocate with the children from Rocanville to Moosomin, a distance of 28 kilometers, constituted a material change in circumstances - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, rejected this argument - In order for the mother's change of residence to qualify as a material change, there had to be evidence of a significant impact on the children - The mother's change of residence would not materially affect the father's parenting time or disrupt contact between the children and extended family, participation in school or attendance at daycare - A short distance move that had a minimal impact on the children did not meet the threshold required to vary a final judgment - See paragraphs 19 to 26.

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - A consent judgment provided the mother with primary care of the parties' two children - The father applied to vary the judgment, seeking an order for shared parenting - He argued that changes to the employment schedules of both parties constituted a material change in circumstances which impacted their ability to parent - At the date of judgment, the father's job required him to work 60 or more hours per week, including some weekends - He subsequently obtained a position which required him to work 40 hours per week, Monday to Friday - On alternate weeks, he worked 4:00 p.m. to midnight, which impacted his ability to exercise the Friday access contemplated by the judgment - The mother was unemployed at the time of the judgment but was now had a full-time job which made her less available to the children - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated "I do not find that the change in either parent's work schedule constitutes a material change. It was contemplated, anticipated and necessary that the mother return to work to support herself and the children given the time-limited spousal support award. Further, the father has not met the high onus to demonstrate that the change to his work schedule is material." - See paragraph 27.

Family Law - Topic 1947

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Changed circumstances - General - A consent judgment provided the mother with primary care of the parties' two children who were then aged one and three - The father applied to vary the judgment, seeking an order for shared parenting - He argued that judgment was intended to govern during the children's "tender years", and now that they were older (three and 4.5), it no longer met their developmental needs - He noted that the judgment did not anticipate attendance at school, the division of school holidays, the designation of Easter or summer parenting after 2014, or telephone access with the youngest child - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that there had been a material change in circumstances where the judgment was structured upon the tender years of the children - However, the court did not accept that a significant change to the parenting arrangement was required to meet the needs of the children - Although the court was required to consider the maximum contact principle in making any parenting order, interim or otherwise, it did not create a presumption of shared parenting - What "maximum contact" should be in each case depended on the best interests of the children - Rather than impose a somewhat arbitrary parenting schedule, the court was inclined to provide the parents with an opportunity to discuss a resolution that best fit their lives and the children's well-being - Accordingly, the application was stayed pending the parties' participation in the High Conflict Mediation Program - See paragraphs 28 to 39.

Family Law - Topic 1948

Custody and access - Variation of custody and access rights - Change of residence of child - [See first Family Law - Topic 1947 ].

Family Law - Topic 2360.1

Maintenance of spouses and children - Maintenance of children - Variation of award or agreement - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.3 ].

Family Law - Topic 2384

Maintenance of spouses and children - Variation of - Grounds - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.3 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.3

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Child care expenses - A provision in a child support order provided that a father would "pay his proportionate share of daycare pursuant to the Guidelines within 15 days of provision of a receipt" - The father insisted upon timely and detailed proof of payment before he would reimburse the mother, and the mother found these requests insulting and harassing - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found that the daycare provision had generated significant conflict - It was therefore appropriate to vary the order by replacing the provision with a provision that required payment of a fixed amount each month toward anticipated daycare expenses, to be reconciled once per year - See paragraphs 45 to 48.

Counsel:

Kevin J. Bell, for the petitioner/applicant;

Mary Lou H. Senko, for the respondent/respondent.

This application was heard before Goebel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on July 30, 2015.