Martel v. Martel,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 SKQB 227
• Citation: 2000 SKQB 227,(2000), 193 Sask.R. 225 (FD),2000 FCA 227,[2000] 7 WWR 632,6 RFL (5th) 342,[2000] SJ No 322 (QL),193 Sask R 225,(2000), 193 SaskR 225 (FD),[2000] S.J. No 322 (QL),193 Sask.R. 225,193 SaskR 225
• Date: 17 May 2000
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Martel v. Martel (2000), 193 Sask.R. 225 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.003

Linda Jane Martel (respondent/petitioner) v. Edward Anthony Martel (applicant/respondent)

(1992 Q.B. 471002977; 2000 SKQB 227)

Indexed As: Martel v. Martel

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Moose Jaw

McIntyre, J.

May 17, 2000.

Summary:

A court order required a father to pay child support of $1,300 per month. The father sought to vary his child support obligation on the basis that his income had been reduced.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, imputed income to the father of $40,000 per year and ordered him to pay child support of $544 per month.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that it was not a prerequisite to imputing income under s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines that the payor be inten­tionally under-employed or unemployed for the purpose of avoiding his or her child support obligation - However, the court stated that if such a motive existed, it would weigh heavily in the decision to impute income - See paragraph 25.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - A court order required a father to pay child support of $1,300 per month - The order was made when the father was employed with Northwest Territories Power (NWT Power) earning over $100,000 annually - The father sought to vary child support on the basis of reduced income - He con­tended that he had resigned from NWT Power because of health reasons and that his only income was his military pension of $17,276.16 per year - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found that the father did not leave NWT Power because of health rea­sons, but rather because he was unhappy with the reclassification of his position and because he wanted to move closer to his children - However, the court was satisfied that he did not leave NWT Power to avoid his child support obligation - The court found that the father was intentionally under-employed or unemployed and imputed income to him of $40,000 per year - The father was employable and was obliged to seek employment given his child support obligation.

Cases Noticed:

Wolbaum v. Royal (1998), 166 Sask.R. 235 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Neisz v. Spagrud (1998), 174 Sask.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Neyedly v. Reetz, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 173 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

D.N. v. C.R. - see Neyedly v. Reetz.

Dumalski v. Dumalski (1999), 182 Sask.R. 314 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Wozney v. Wozney (1995), 18 R.F.L.(4th) 178 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Josdal v. Josdal (1997), 157 Sask.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Dubyk v. Dubyk, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Ronan v. Douglas-Walsh (1994), 5 R.F.L.(4th) 235 (Ont. C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Woloshyn v. Woloshyn (1996), 109 Man.R.(2d) 35; 22 R.F.L.(4th) 129 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Carson v. Buziak (1998), 166 Sask.R. 8 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Thompson v. Thompson, [1998] A.R. Uned. 598 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lobo v. Lobo (1999), 240 A.R. 257; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 366 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Symons v. Symons, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 817 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Millar v. Millar, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Strand v. Strand (1999), 246 A.R. 70; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (1998), 224 A.R. 68; 39 R.F.L.(4th) 143 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Kolada v. Kolada, [1999] A.R. Uned. 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Beilstein v. Beilstein (1999), 47 R.F.L.(4th) 242 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Magee v. Magee (1997), 159 Sask.R. 223 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

Phillips v. Phillips (1995), 174 A.R. 11; 102 W.A.C. 11; 14 R.F.L.(4th) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Stamp v. McIntosh (1998), 49 R.F.L.(4th) 416 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Gran v. Gran, [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 108 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

R.J. Miller, for Linda Jane Martel;

R.E. Sauer, for Edward Anthony Martel.

This application was heard before McIn­tyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judi­cial Centre of Moose Jaw, who delivered the following decision on May 17, 2000.