Poultney v. Poultney, 2011 SKQB 420

• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 07, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKQB 420;(2011), 386 Sask.R. 164 (FD)

Poultney v. Poultney (2011), 386 Sask.R. 164 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.019

Catherine Elizabeth Poultney (petitioner) v. Artemus Robert Poultney (respondent)

(2010 DIV. No. 360; 2011 SKQB 420)

Indexed As: Poultney v. Poultney

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

November 7, 2011.

Summary:

At issue on the wife's interim application was retroactive and ongoing child support, s. 7 (Federal Child Support Guidelines) expenses and interim spousal support.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the issues.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Retroactive awards - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.12 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.12

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Where income over $150,000 - The parties separated in April 2009 - At issue was retroactive and ongoing interim child support for the two children of the marriage - From July to December 2009, the father's income was $195,664 - Full Federal Child Support Guidelines table support would be $2,554 per month - The mother's income was $57,350 - From January 2010 to May 2011, the father's income was $231,635 - Full table support would be $2,979 per month - As of June 2011, the father's income was $195,000 - Full table support would be $2,514 per month - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that, regarding s. 4(b) of the Guidelines, the full table amount of support was not inappropriate for the period from July to December 2009 - While the father had expenses in exercising access, he had the means to pay the full amount - However, for the period from January 2010 to May 2011, the full table amount was inappropriate - The children's needs were being met - The father's substantial expenses in that period constrained his means - The appropriate balance was to continue child support at $2,554 per month - As of June 2011, when the father's travel expenses ceased, the table amount of support was appropriate - See paragraphs 1 to 17.

Family Law - Topic 4084

Divorce - Corollary relief - Interim maintenance - Awards - The parties separated in April 2009 - At issue was interim spousal support - The motion was brought in December 2010 - From July to December 2009, the husband's income was $195,664 - From January 2010 to May 2011, the husband's income was $231,635 - As of June 2011, the husband's income was $195,000 - The wife claimed an income of $57,350 from a family business - The husband asserted that her disposable income was much higher because the business paid personal expenses - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support of $2,000 per month, commencing in January 2011 - There was a live issue for pre-trial and trial as to the wife's income - However, on an interim basis, the court was satisfied that the company was not covering the wife's personal expenses - An interim order was appropriate - See paragraph 19.

Cases Noticed:

Jacobson v. Jacobson, [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 159; 2011 SKQB 402 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

Dergousoff v. Dergousoff, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 633; 177 Sask.R. 64; 199 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 228, refd to. [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines - see Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (2008), generally [para. 4].

Counsel:

James J. Vogel, for the petitioner;

James N. Korpan, 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 November 7, 2011.