Lepage v. Lepage, 2006 SKQB 18

JudgeWilkinson, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 12, 2006
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2006 SKQB 18;(2006), 283 Sask.R. 1 (FD)

Lepage v. Lepage (2006), 283 Sask.R. 1 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.007

Beryl Gay Lepage (petitioner) v. Ronald Colin Lepage (respondent)

(1997 DIV. No. 12; 2006 SKQB 18)

Indexed As: Lepage v. Lepage

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wilkinson, J.

January 12, 2006.

Summary:

Spouses divorced. Litigation involved the issues of custody, access, support and family property division.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, in a decision reported at 179 Sask.R. 34, determined the issues. The wife applied for variation of child support. The issues were (1) the wife's entitlement to retroactive child support; (2) determination of the husband's current income for child support purposes where he had taken a voluntary reduction in income (25%) in keeping with a long-standing retirement plan; (3) quantum of child support, including s. 7 expenses in light of the husband's income exceeding $150,000 at all material times; and (4) whether the husband should be ordered to produce his income tax returns for the years 1997 to 2001 inclusive.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the wife's application for retroactive child support for any period preceding June 2004. The other issues were remitted to a viva voce hearing given the lack of evidence. The court ordered interim monthly child support of $10,222.

Family Law - Topic 2392

Maintenance of wives and children - Variation of - Interim orders - A 1999 judgment awarded the wife monthly child support of $4,886 for the four children of the marriage based on the husband's income of $292,613 - The husband made all the required payments and voluntarily provided additional financial support - The husband's income steadily increased - The wife applied for variation of support - She sought retroactive support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that most of the issues had to be resolved following a viva voce hearing given the lack of evidence on the application - While interim orders were not the norm when dealing with variation applications, here it would have been manifestly unfair to maintain the status quo - At the very least, there should be an interim variation to the extent of increasing support to an amount representative of the husband's most reliable income information to date ($630,332) - To do otherwise would require the wife to bear the consequences of the husband's shortcomings in discharging the evidential burdens - Accordingly, the court ordered that the husband pay, on an interim basis, monthly support of $10,222 - See paragraphs 32 to 34.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Retroactive awards - Spouses divorced - A 1999 judgment awarded the wife monthly child support of $4,886 for the four children of the marriage based on the husband's income of $292,613 - The husband made all the required payments and voluntarily provided additional financial support - The husband's income steadily increased - The husband's counsel learned in June 2004 that the wife had the intention of seeking an increase in support - In 2005, the wife applied for variation of support - She sought retroactive support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the wife's application for retroactive child support for any period preceding June 2004 - Any order for retroactive support for the period prior to the father receiving notice of intention to seek increased support, a period when he was meeting his legal obligations under the court order for support, and, making additional voluntary contributions, could not be justified - See paragraphs 13 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

Milleker v. Milleker (2005), 272 Sask.R. 223; 2005 SKQB 455 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 14].

Park v. Thompson (2005), 197 O.A.C. 158; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 730; 13 R.F.L.(6th) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Macdonald v. Macdonald (2005), 207 B.C.A.C. 201; 341 W.A.C. 201; 37 B.C.L.R.(4th) 121; 2005 BCCA 23, refd to. [para. 15].

L.S. v. E.P. (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 28; 206 W.A.C. 28; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Cornelissen v. Cornelissen (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 97; 311 W.A.C. 97; 46 R.F.L.(5th) 366; 2003 BCCA 666, refd to. [para. 16].

Tedham v. Tedham (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 297; 308 W.A.C. 297; 44 R.F.L.(5th) 204; 2003 BCCA 600, refd to. [para. 16].

Hubbard v. Gore-Hickman (2005), 266 Sask.R. 192; 2005 SKQB 265 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 17].

Murray v. Murray (2005), 201 O.A.C. 254; 17 R.F.L.(6th) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R.W.G. v. S.I.G. (2002), 218 Sask.R. 262; 2002 SKQB 167 (Fam. Div.), revd. in part (2003), 232 Sask.R. 283; 294 W.A.C. 283; 2003 SKCA 37, refd to. [para. 21].

Donovan v. Donovan (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 116; 230 W.A.C. 116; 9 R.F.L.(5th) 306; 2000 MBCA 80, refd to. [para. 27].

Martel v. Martel (2000), 193 Sask.R. 225; 2000 SKQB 227 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Tice v. Tice (1997), 153 Sask.R. 73 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Molitor v. Andreou, [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 834 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Keogan v. Weekes (2005), 263 Sask.R. 309; 2005 SKQB 114 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Frey v. Frey (1987), 59 Sask.R. 153; 8 R.F.L.(3d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

J.A. Morrison, for the petitioner;

F.N. Turcotte, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Wilkinson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on January 12, 2006.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...SJ No 174, 179 Sask R 34 (QB)........................................ 132, 145, 330, 331, 395, 396, 401 Lepage v Lepage, [2006] SJ No 16, 2006 SKQB 18..................................................................................................540 LePine v LePine, 2015 ONSC 7341..............
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2020
    • June 23, 2019
    ...174, 179 Sask R 34 (QB) ................................................. 127, 139, 313, 314, 377, 383 Lepage v Lepage, [2006] SJ No 16, 2006 SKQB 18 .................................................................................................508 LePine v LePine, 2015 ONSC 7341 ..............
  • Prescesky v. Prescesky, 2015 SKCA 111
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • May 27, 2015
    ...refd to. [para. 40]. Keogan v. Weekes (2005), 263 Sask.R. 309; 2005 SKQB 114 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Lepage v. Lepage (2006), 283 Sask.R. 1; 2006 SKQB 18 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Ford v. Ford, [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 217; 2011 SKQB 18 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Rizzo ......
  • Sane v. Sane, 2015 SKQB 313
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • October 7, 2015
    ...of support orders but left the issue undecided (see: para 21). Justice Wilkinson adopted the test from Keogan in Lepage v. Lepage , 2006 SKQB 18, 283 Sask R 1, where, despite concerns with respect to financial disclosure and inconsistencies in affidavit evidence on an application to vary a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 cases
  • Prescesky v. Prescesky, 2015 SKCA 111
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • May 27, 2015
    ...refd to. [para. 40]. Keogan v. Weekes (2005), 263 Sask.R. 309; 2005 SKQB 114 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Lepage v. Lepage (2006), 283 Sask.R. 1; 2006 SKQB 18 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Ford v. Ford, [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 217; 2011 SKQB 18 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 40]. Rizzo ......
  • Sane v. Sane, 2015 SKQB 313
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • October 7, 2015
    ...of support orders but left the issue undecided (see: para 21). Justice Wilkinson adopted the test from Keogan in Lepage v. Lepage , 2006 SKQB 18, 283 Sask R 1, where, despite concerns with respect to financial disclosure and inconsistencies in affidavit evidence on an application to vary a ......
  • McIllwraith v. McIllwraith, (2007) 325 N.B.R.(2d) 389 (FD)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
    • December 13, 2007
    ...21]. Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (2001), 286 A.R. 248; 253 W.A.C. 248; 2001 CarswellAlta 1357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34]. Lepage v. Lepage (2006), 283 Sask.R. 1; 2006 CarswellSask 10 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Borden v. Cachene, 2004 CarswellSask 863 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36]. Counsel: Avocats: Dav......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...SJ No 174, 179 Sask R 34 (QB)........................................ 132, 145, 330, 331, 395, 396, 401 Lepage v Lepage, [2006] SJ No 16, 2006 SKQB 18..................................................................................................540 LePine v LePine, 2015 ONSC 7341..............
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2020
    • June 23, 2019
    ...174, 179 Sask R 34 (QB) ................................................. 127, 139, 313, 314, 377, 383 Lepage v Lepage, [2006] SJ No 16, 2006 SKQB 18 .................................................................................................508 LePine v LePine, 2015 ONSC 7341 ..............

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT