Renouf v. Bertol-Renouf, (2004) 368 A.R. 106 (QB)

• Judge: Johnstone, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 368 A.R. 106 (QB);2004 ABQB 885

Renouf v. Bertol-Renouf (2004), 368 A.R. 106 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. DE.080

Simon Mollet Renouf (plaintiff) v. Loretta Jo-Anne Bertol-Renouf (defendant)

(4803 112575; 2004 ABQB 885)

Indexed As: Renouf v. Bertol-Renouf

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Johnstone, J.

December 1, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff husband and the defendant wife were married in 1973 and divorced in 2001. There were three children of the marriage (Daniel, Julia and James). In a 2001 interim order, the plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,800 monthly spousal support. Daniel, who was 22 years old at the time, was declared to no longer be a child of the marriage. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,627 monthly for the two remaining children. The plaintiff sought termination or variation of the spousal support order and termination of child support for Julia, who was now 22 years old, because she was no longer a child of the marriage.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - The plaintiff husband and the defendant wife were married in 1973 and divorced in 2001 - In a 2001 interim order, the plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,800 monthly spousal support based on the plaintiff's income of $128,547 and the defendant's income of $31,000 - The plaintiff sought termination or variation of the spousal support - During the 25 year marriage, the defendant stayed at home to care for the family - She had a university degree - The plaintiff was a self employed lawyer - The defendant had now obtained employment with the Alberta provincial government and earned an annual income of $60,000 - The plaintiff's annual income had increased to $144,000 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench varied the spousal support order and ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,000 monthly - There was a change in circumstances warranting the variation of the order - However, termination of spousal support was not justified - The defendant suffered an economic disadvantage from her traditional role in the marriage and the fact that she remained outside the workforce throughout - She continued to provide the primary residence of two of the three children and continued to be somewhat restricted in her ability to work - See paragraphs 4 to 17.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children and children defined - The plaintiff husband and the defendant wife were married in 1973 and divorced in 2001 - There were three children of the marriage (Daniel, Julia and James) - In a 2001 interim order, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,627 monthly for two of the three children - The plaintiff sought termination of the child support for Julia, who was now 22 years old, because she was no longer a child of the marriage - Julia had completed her four year Science Degree and was registered for another year of university while reflecting on her future plans - She planned to register for a Bachelor of Law - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that child support be terminated on December 31, 2004, and be reinstated only if she returned to full time studies in a post-secondary institution in September 2005 either in law or a combined MBA/LLB program - Julia was still a child of the marriage where, her plans were rational and attainable, she appeared to be economically dependant and her parents would have encouraged the educational goals if they had stayed together - However, there was no evidence that the courses she was currently taking would assist her in the furtherance of her plans - See paragraphs 18 to 47.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award - [See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation -[See Family Law - Topic 4010 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 13].

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 13].

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. 13].

Whitton v. Whitton (1989), 34 O.A.C. 31; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Wahl v. Wahl (2000), 257 A.R. 212; 2 R.F.L.(5th) 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Darlington v. Darlington (1998), 99 B.C.A.C. 134; 162 W.A.C. 134; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

P.T. v. R.B. et al. (2004), 361 A.R. 163; 339 W.A.C. 163; 2004 ABCA 244, refd to. [para. 24].

Olson v. Olson (2003), 320 A.R. 379; 288 W.A.C. 379; 2003 ABCA 56, refd to. [para. 24].

MacLennan v. MacLennan (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 116; 665 A.P.R. 116; 2003 NSCA 9, refd to. [para. 25].

Gamache v. Gamache (1999), 241 A.R. 388; 1999 ABQB 313, refd to. [para. 26].

Clattenburg v. Clattenburg, [2002] N.S.J. No. 357 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Nikita v. Nikita, [2002] O.T.C. 494 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Jackson v. Jackson, [2001] A.R. Uned. 423; 2001 ABQB 1026, refd to. [para. 30].

Ivany v. Ivany (1996), 145 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 453 A.P.R. 106 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Sullivan v. Sullivan, [1996] N.J. No. 275 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Barbeau v. Barbeau (1998), 75 O.T.C. 335 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

Callahan v. Brett (2000), 197 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 29; 591 A.P.R. 29 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Martell v. Height (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 318; 367 A.P.R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Newman v. Thompson (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 177; 149 W.A.C. 177; 30 R.F.L.(4th) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Jonasson v. Jonasson (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 94; 154 W.A.C. 94 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 519, refd to. [para. 37].

Arnold v. Washburn, [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 45 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Ritchie v. Ritchie (2003), 232 Sask.R. 245; 294 W.A.C. 245; 2003 SKCA 43, refd to. [para. 39].

Choquette v. Bruse, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 3; 2002 SKCA 4, refd to. [para. 40].

Brandner v. Brandner (2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 186; 279 W.A.C. 186; 2002 BCCA 394, refd to. [para. 40].

Moore v. Moore (1994), 121 Sask.R. 42 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Mitchell v. Mitchell (1992), 103 Sask.R. 278; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 443 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Keen v. Keen (1990), 89 Sask.R. 114; 30 R.F.L.(3d) 172 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Gray v. Gray (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 161; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Harwood v. Harwood, [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 120; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 357 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Cole v. Cole (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 378; 411 A.P.R. 378; 15 R.F.L.(4th) 399 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Huisman v. Huisman (1995), 17 R.F.L.(4th) 229 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Nadeau v. Mitchell (1997), 36 O.T.C. 34 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

MacDonald v. Rasmussen (2000), 198 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B. Fam Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Chester v. Chester, [2001] A.J. No. 1475; 2001 ABQB 974, refd to. [para. 40].

Ross v. Ross (2000), 287 A.R. 130; 2000 ABQB 847, refd to. [para. 40].

Scott v. Scott (2003), 174 Man.R.(2d) 297; 2003 MBQB 126, refd to. [para. 40].

Bates v. Bates (1995), 165 A.R. 71; 89 W.A.C. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

W. Steven Andrew, Q.C. (Andrew March & Oake LLP), for the plaintiff;

Loretta Jo-Anne Bertol-Renouf, on her own behalf

This matter was heard on September 29, 2004, before Johnstone, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on December 1, 2004.