Sawchuk v. Sawchuk,

• Judge: Langston, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 ABQB 5
• Citation: 2010 ABQB 5,(2010), 485 A.R. 183 (QB),485 AR 183,[2010] AJ No 18 (QL),[2010] A.J. No 18 (QL),(2010), 485 AR 183 (QB),485 A.R. 183
• Date: 22 September 2009
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Sawchuk v. Sawchuk (2010), 485 A.R. 183 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JA.066

Stephen Kenneth Sawchuk (plaintiff/respondent) v. Joan Karen Sawchuk (defendant/applicant)

(4806 015766; 2010 ABQB 5)

Indexed As: Sawchuk v. Sawchuk

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Lethbridge/Macleod

Langston, J.

January 6, 2010.

Summary:

Spouses separated after a 24 year marriage. At issue was spousal support.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the husband to pay monthly spousal support of $1,000 for a period of eight years. After this period, all spousal support obligations would cease.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - Spouses separated after a 24 year marriage - At issue was spousal support - Both spouses worked during the marriage - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the wife was entitled to spousal support under either the compensatory or non-compensatory model - Ordering spousal support satisfied the compensatory support objectives in the Divorce Act - It recognized the advantages the husband received during the marriage by being able to focus on his career - It apportioned the financial consequences of the wife having been primarily responsible for child care - It promoted her current economic self-sufficiency towards equal standards of living - Ordering support also satisfied the non-compensatory support objectives in the Divorce Act - It recognized the disadvantages and relieved the hardships the wife was suffering from the marriage breakdown - It promoted her current economic self-sufficiency towards equal standards of living - The court stated that "[i]n a long-term marriage where the parties have reached their at-separation standard of living due to the steps they jointly took throughout the marriage, without substantial assistance from a third party and without having individually established career paths and standards of living prior to the relationship, it is my view that the objectives of both compensatory and non-compensatory support merge to create a presumption of equalized standards of living upon separation."- The court ordered the husband to pay monthly spousal support of $1,000 for a period of eight years - After this period, all spousal support obligations would cease - See paragraphs 8 to 28.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - Spouses separated after a 24 year marriage - At issue was spousal support - Both spouses worked during the marriage - The husband was an electrician - After the separation, the husband changed employers and his income increased substantially - The wife asserted that she should be entitled to increased spousal support because she contributed to the husband's ability to earn an increased income - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the assertion - There was very little evidence of the wife's contribution to the husband's ability to earn increased income - Further, there was no temporal link between the marriage and the husband's wage increase - Rather, the increase was due to an intervening change - The husband decided to apply for a new job, and upon receiving it, he decided to work overtime in order to increase his salary - The court was not satisfied that the wife was entitled to increased support because the husband was working increased hours at a new job - See paragraphs 29 to 51.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation - [See both Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

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. 9].

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. 9].

Gardner v. Gardner (2008), 444 A.R. 271; 2008 ABQB 527, refd to. [para. 11].

Bennett v. Bennett (2005), 22 R.F.L.(6th) 399; 2005 ABQB 984, refd to. [para. 14].

Boyd v. Boyd, [2008] A.R. Uned. 629; 2008 ABQB 781, refd to. [para. 14].

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213, 88 O.R.(3d) 241; 2008 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 14].

Riad v. Riad (2002), 317 A.R. 201; 284 W.A.C. 201; 2002 ABCA 254, refd to. [para. 23].

D.B.C. v. R.M.W., [2006] A.R. Uned. 809; 69 Alta. L.R.(4th) 170; 2006 ABQB 905, consd. [para. 29].

Rozen v. Rozen, [2003] B.C.T.C. 973; 37 R.F.L.(5th) 205; 2003 BCSC 973, consd. [para. 34].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 698; 70 R.F.L.(6th) 106; 2009 BCSC 698; 2009 BCSC 1180, consd. [para. 43].

Leskun v. Leskun, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920; 349 N.R. 158; 226 B.C.A.C. 1; 373 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

John Evans, for the plaintiff/respondent;

Anita Wahl, for the defendant/applicant.

This case was heard on September 22, 2009, by Langston, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Lethbridge/McLeod, who delivered the following memorandum of judgment on January 6, 2010.