Marcotte v. Marcotte, (2008) 315 Sask.R. 280 (FD)

• Judge: Popescul, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 315 Sask.R. 280 (FD);2008 SKQB 223;315 Sask R 280

Marcotte v. Marcotte (2008), 315 Sask.R. 280 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.019

Neil Marcotte (petitioner) v. Brenda Marcotte (respondent)

(2007 Q.B.G. No. 430; 2008 SKQB 223)

Indexed As: Marcotte v. Marcotte

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

Popescul, J.

May 22, 2008.

Summary:

Married parents of three young children separated. The mother sought interim child and spousal support and related relief.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, awarded interim child and spousal support and determined the related issues.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. non-divorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - A separated mother sought interim child and spousal support - At issue was the calculation of the father's income for support purposes - He had a base salary of $55,000, with the balance of his income earned by commission - In 2006, his total income was $291,547 and, in 2007, it was $477,566 - In the first four months of 2008, he had earned just under $70,000 - The father asserted that his high income in 2007 was due to a one-time commission of $220,000 and that, with the weakening United States market, sales for his company were falling - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found the father's employment income to be $210,000 - The court concluded that 2007 was an uncharacteristically high earnings year and not reflective of what the father's income would be in 2008 - The court was primarily concerned with the remaining months of 2008, as this was an interim application - The best indicator of the immediate future was the immediate past - Therefore, extrapolating the father's income based on the first four months of 2008 was the best and most accurate indication of projected income available - A more accurate and permanent solution could be achieved by agreement or at trial - See paragraphs 13 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 4084

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Awards - A separated mother of three young children sought interim spousal support - The father's income for support purposes was $216,000 - He had been ordered to pay child support of $3,609 per month - The mother had no income other than the universal child care benefit of $2,400 per year - The mother filed a financial statement showing a net deficit of $71,388 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered the father to pay interim spousal support of $2,100 per month - An interim order was required to adjust the economic disparity between the lifestyles and means of the parties - The mother's stated needs were realistic - She had not had an opportunity to become employed - The combined cash flow to the mother from child support and net spousal support would be approximately $65,292, which came close to her annual expenses - Taking all of those factors into account, the amount ordered was reasonable, fair and appropriate - See paragraphs 25 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

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. 28].

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. 28].

Hart v. Slotsve, [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 149; 8 R.F.L.(5th) 72; 2000 SKQB 241 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

D.B.S. v. S.R.G., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; 351 N.R. 201; 391 A.R. 297; 377 W.A.C. 297; 2006 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 34].

Algner v. Algner, [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 63; 2008 SKQB 132 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 34].

Franson v. Franson, [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 71; 2007 SKQB 266 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 34].

S.K. v. T.Z., 2007 SKQB 210, refd to. [para. 34].

Kirk v. Hackl (2007), 292 Sask.R. 109; 2007 SKQB 82 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

R. Bradley Hunter, Q.C., for the petitioner;

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard by Popescul, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following fiat on May 22, 2008.