McConnell v. McConnell, (2002) 215 Sask.R. 195 (FD)

• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2002), 215 Sask.R. 195 (FD);2002 SKQB 72

McConnell v. McConnell (2002), 215 Sask.R. 195 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.008

Shirley Ann McConnell (petitioner) v. Kenneth Brent McConnell (respondent)

(1990 Q.B. No. 011887; 2002 SKQB 72)

Indexed As: McConnell v. McConnell

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

February 28, 2002.

Summary:

A couple's two children lived with the mother while attending university. The father argued that he should not have to pay child support for their son because he could meet his own needs. Further, he argued that support to their daughter should be reduced by a living allowance that she received from her student loan. The mother sought to increase child support based on the father's increased income.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered the father to pay the Guideline child support amount.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children and children defined - A couple's children lived with the mother and attended university - The father, who earned $96,300, argued that he should not have to pay support for their son, claiming that the son was not dependent upon the parents - Student loans covered most of the son's direct education expenses - He earned part-time employment income and received a living allowance as part of his student loan - The father also argued that support for the daughter should be reduced by any living allowance she received - The daughter had no part-time employment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the children were children of the marriage - The court ordered the father to pay the table amount during the academic year - The daughter was unable to contribute to her food and shelter and the son's means were minor.

Family Law - Topic 4045.11

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Child over the age of majority - Section 3(2)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines provided that support for a child the age of majority or over was to be determined by the Guideline amount as if the child was under the age of majority - However, s. 3(2)(b) provided that the court could award a different amount if it considered the approach in s. 3(2)(a) to be inappropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and financial ability of each spouse to contribute - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, set out the principles applicable to s. 3(2)(b) - See paragraph 20.

Family Law - Topic 4045.11

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Child over the age of majority - [See Family Law - Topic 4014 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.14

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Where child has income - A father earning $96,300 argued that he should not have to pay child support for the couple's son who was attending university, claiming that the son was not dependent upon the parents - Student loans covered most of the son's direct education expenses - He earned part-time employment income and received a living allowance as part of his student loan - Further, the father had guaranteed a student line of credit for the son - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, refused to consider the line of credit as part of the son's means available to meet his needs - The father had a reasonably substantial income and could not seek to reduce or avoid a child support obligation by guaranteeing a loan which the son would have to repay - See paragraph 22.

Family Law - Topic 4045.14

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Where child has income - [See Family Law - Topic 4014 ].

Cases Noticed:

Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 9].

Wahl v. Wahl (2000), 257 A.R. 212; 2 R.F.L.(5th) 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (B.C.S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Zaba v. Bradley (1996), 137 Sask.R. 295; 107 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hagen v. Rankin (2002), 213 Sask.R. 257; 260 W.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Dergousoff v. Dergousoff, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 633; 177 Sask.R. 64; 199 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Hamel v. Hamel (2001), 213 Sask.R. 197; 260 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 228, appld. [para. 20].

Metzner v. Metzner (2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 84; 231 W.A.C. 84; 9 R.F.L.(5th) 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

S.R.M. v. I.A.M. (2002), 162 B.C.A.C. 285; 264 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Wright v. Wright (1996), 141 Sask.R. 44; 114 W.A.C. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 3(2) [para. 11].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Wahl v. Wahl (2000), 2 R.F.L.(5th) 307, p. 310 [para. 15].

Counsel:

J.T. Schuck, for the petitioner;

G.B. Heinrichs, for the respondent.

This application was heard by McIntyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on February 28, 2002.