LaFreniere v. LaFreniere, (2013) 416 Sask.R. 231 (FD)

• Judge: Dufour, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 28, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 416 Sask.R. 231 (FD);2013 SKQB 114

LaFreniere v. LaFreniere (2013), 416 Sask.R. 231 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.040

Sheila Ann LaFreniere (petitioner) v. Bruce Charles LaFreniere (respondent)

(2012 Div. No. 717; 2013 SKQB 114)

Indexed As: LaFreniere v. LaFreniere

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dufour, J.

March 28, 2013.

Summary:

A wife petitioning for a divorce applied for interim spousal support, a restraining order against the husband and an interim distribution of family property.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application for interim support and a restraining order, and made an interim distribution of property.

Family Law - Topic 4082

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Circumstances when refused - Spouses separated in 2011 after 15 years' marriage - The 63 year old husband retired in 2008, living on his $48,000 per year pension - He remained in the family home - The 55 year old wife was a nursing assistant from 1987 until a 2008 workplace injury - She had not worked since and lived with her aged mother - She received $20,000 per year in workers' compensation benefits until she was cut off in 2011 - Her primary income now was $7,800 per year in CPP disability benefits - The wife sought $3,000 per month in interim spousal support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the wife had not established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support - She had a need for support, having a shortfall of $1,250 per month - However, the wife failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that she lacked the capacity to meet her needs without spousal support - The wife did not say when and why her workers' compensation benefits terminated - If she remained unable to work, she failed to testify as to why benefits were terminated and why she did not appeal - The wife's bald assertion that she could no longer work was not evidence - No medical reports or opinions were provided - There was no evidence that the 2008 injury, or other health concerns, limited her ability to work full time at the date of separation or that they currently limited her ability to work - The wife's needs could be met if she either returned to work or, if unable to do so, her workers' compensation benefits were reinstated - See paragraphs 7 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 4085

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Evidence and proof (incl. disclosure) - [See Family Law - Topic 4082 ].

Practice - Topic 5792

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory or interim orders or judgments - To restrain contact between litigants - Spouses separated in 2011 after 15 years' marriage - The wife applied under s. 100 of the Queen's Bench Act for a restraining order based on alleged harassing behaviour by the husband - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application - The court agreed that "a court uses the power to grant a restraining order only in the clearest of cases and where personal safety of the opposing party is at issue or the due process of the litigation would otherwise be interfered with" - The wife complained of years of abusive, intimidating and threatening conduct while the spouses cohabited, but admitted that there was no such conduct in the 15 months since she left the husband - In fact, she admitted that the husband had not even tried to contact her in the last 15 months - The court stated that "I see no reason for her to fear for her personal safety or that she cannot pursue this litigation effectively" - See paragraphs 34 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Blackmore v. Blackmore (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 599; 7 R.F.L.(2d) 263 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Walter v. Silvester-Purdon (2010), 346 Sask.R. 277; 477 W.A.C. 277; 2010 SKCA 40, refd to. [para. 9].

Labelle v. Labelle (1993), 87 Man.R.(2d) 207; 46 R.F.L.(3d) 341 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

Molloy v. Janes & Noseworthy Ltd. et al. (1998), 159 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 21; 492 A.P.R. 21 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (2010), 350 Sask.R. 245; 487 W.A.C. 245; 2010 SKCA 60, refd to. [para. 14].

Halstead v. Anderson et al. (1993), 115 Sask.R. 257 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Hall v. Hall (2000), 188 Sask.R. 293; 2000 SKQB 35 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Minshull v. Chan (2007), 305 Sask.R. 200; 2007 SKQB 420, refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

James A. Morrison, for the petitioner;

Brent D. Barilla, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Dufour, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on March 28, 2013.