Leepart v. Leepart, 2009 SKQB 47

• Judge: Sandomirsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2009 SKQB 47;(2009), 321 Sask.R. 257 (FD)

Leepart v. Leepart (2009), 321 Sask.R. 257 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.015

Mary Magdeline Leepart (petitioner) v. Donald Robert Leepart (respondent)

(1984 U.F.C. 960; 2009 SKQB 47)

Indexed As: Leepart v. Leepart

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Sandomirsky, J.

January 27, 2009.

Summary:

The parties married in 1968 and separated in 1984. Under the decree nisi for divorce, the husband was ordered to pay $1,000 monthly support. It incorporated the amount that had been determined by a November 14, 1984 interim spousal support order which was subsequently agreed to by the parties in their separation agreement. By consent, the amount was increased to $1,350 on a 1990 variation application by the wife. In 1999, the husband applied to vary the order by terminating his obligation to pay any further spousal support.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, in a decision reported at [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 315, ordered that commencing December 1, 1999, ongoing spousal support would be $750 monthly up to and including May 1, 2000. Thereafter, spousal support would be $650 monthly. In 2008, the husband applied to vary the order, seeking a termination of his spousal support obligation, or alternatively, a reduction in the amount of support.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, reduced the husband's spousal support obligation to $200 monthly.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award - [See Family Law - Topic 4022.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4018

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Variation of - Jurisdiction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that while the mere passage of time itself might not constitute a material change so as to warrant a review of spousal support, the conditions, means, needs or other circumstances might be affected by the passage of time and those events constitute material change - In the present case, the court was satisfied that the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of both parties had changed over the last nine years to warrant a fresh review - The wife was now 75 years old and in declining health - She lived alone and attempted to live frugally upon her modest means - Inflation and the increased cost of living had eroded the purchasing power of both parties' expendable income even though their respective gross incomes might not have changed - The husband's declining health, like that of the wife, placed greater demands upon their expendable incomes - At age 75 and with declining health, the wife was not about to achieve economic self-sufficiency - She could do little to enhance her income - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Family Law - Topic 4021.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Support tables - The parties married in 1968 and separated in 1984 - In 2008, the husband applied to vary the order, seeking a termination of his spousal support obligation, or alternatively, a reduction in the amount of support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "If the spousal support guidelines were to be applied using the without child formula in its most generous provision, one year support for each year of marriage, [the husband's] obligation to pay [the wife] spousal support would have terminated eight years ago. The spousal support guidelines have been endorsed by several of the provincial appellate courts as a useful guide in the application for spousal support and variations thereof. But they are mere guidelines attempting to provide predictability, consistency and certainty to an otherwise amorphous area of law." - See paragraph 24 - The court held that the economic hardship arising from the marriage breakdown continued to exist, even after 24 long years - It was entirely conceivable, barring a windfall, that the wife would continue to endure the economic hardship flowing from the marriage breakdown - See paragraph 26 - The court ordered reduced spousal support.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation - The parties married in 1968 and separated in 1984 - Under the decree nisi for divorce, the husband was ordered to pay $1,000 monthly support - By consent order, the amount was increased to $1,350 on a 1990 variation application by the wife - In 1999, the husband applied to terminate his spousal support obligation - Baynton, J., ordered that commencing December 1, 1999, ongoing spousal support would be $750 monthly up to and including May 1, 2000 - Thereafter, it would be $650 monthly - In 2008, the husband sought a termination of his spousal support obligation, or alternatively, a reduction in the amount of support - The wife was 75 years old, in a declining state of health, had limited resources, lived frugally and sought a nominal sum of at least $200 to balance her present budget - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, reduced spousal support to $200 monthly - Any future and unforeseen contingencies requiring a greater expenditure of funds should come from her capital estate, which was already less than $77,000 - The wife had a demonstrable need, which need might not exist today had the parties' marriage survived - The economic hardship arising from the marriage breakdown continued to exist, even after 24 long years - Both parties' incomes were very low - Still, there was some small wiggle room in the husband's cash flow given the economic synergies he presently enjoyed with his current wife.

Family Law - Topic 4039

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Spousal support - Suspension or termination of - [See Family Law - Topic 4022.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 6].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Talbot v. Henry (1990), 84 Sask.R. 170; 25 R.F.L.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Weigers v. Gray (2008), 307 Sask.R. 117; 417 W.A.C. 117; 2008 SKCA 7, refd to. [para. 10].

Russell v. Russell, [2000] 1 W.W.R. 619; 180 Sask.R. 196; 205 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

Jens v. Jens (2008), 260 B.C.A.C. 185; 439 W.A.C. 185; 2008 BCCA 392, refd to. [para. 14].

Boston v. Boston, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413; 271 N.R. 248; 149 O.A.C. 50; 2001 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 15].

Messier v. Delage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 401; 50 N.R. 16, refd to. [para. 18].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Caron v. Caron, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 892; 75 N.R. 36; 2 Y.R. 246, refd to. [para. 20].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A Draft Proposal (2005), generally [para. 16].

Counsel:

Holly Ann Knott, Q.C., for the petitioner;

Dwayne Z. Braun, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Sandomirsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 2009.