Seymour v. Seymour, 2012 SKQB 161

• Judge: Wilson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 161;(2012), 396 Sask.R. 143 (FD)

Seymour v. Seymour (2012), 396 Sask.R. 143 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.014

Lloyd Donald Seymour (petitioner) v. Maralee Josephine Seymour (respondent)

(2010 DIV. No. 03947; 2012 SKQB 161)

Indexed As: Seymour v. Seymour

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Yorkton

Wilson, J.

April 19, 2012.

Summary:

Spouses divorced after 11 years of marriage. They had one child (Hannah). At issue was whether the mother should be allowed to move with Hannah from Yorkton to Regina, child support and spousal support.

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

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare or best interests of child paramount - Spouses divorced after 11 years of marriage - They had one child (Hannah) - After the separation, the spouses shared parenting of Hannah for approximately 10 months - Subsequently, pursuant to the terms of a court order, primary residence of Hannah was specified as being the home of the mother - The father was granted reasonable and generous parenting time - At issue was whether the mother should be allowed to move with Hannah from Yorkton to Regina - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered that the mother was not allowed to move Hannah to Regina - The parties were to have joint custody of Hannah and share the parenting of Hannah on an equal basis with Hannah moving from the home of the mother to the home of the father on a one week on / one week off rotation - In considering the best interests of the child, the court noted that if Hannah were to move to Regina, she would face a new school, the prospect of new friends, and have no external family resources as support - Further, the court placed significant weight on Hannah's wishes - She was 12 years old and had given her desire to be parented in a 50/50 arrangement to see her father more - A move to Regina was not in Hannah's best interests - See paragraphs 59 to 91.

Family Law - Topic 1890

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's preference - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations on awarding custody - Changing child's residence - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 1900

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Maximum contact with each parent - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 2072

Custody and access - Joint custody - When available - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 2082

Custody and access - Shared parenting - Considerations (incl. best interests of the child) - [See Family Law - Topic 1881 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - Spouses divorced after 11 years of marriage - The wife was primarily a stay at home mother and homemaker throughout the parties' relationship - It was only near the end of the parties' relationship that the mother obtained employment outside the home - However, she was injured at work and, at the present time, was unemployed - The husband worked as a real estate agent and had an average yearly income of $50,000 - At issue was spousal support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the wife was entitled to support both on a compensatory and a non-compensatory basis - The wife had to be compensated for the role she played in the relationship and she clearly had a need for spousal support now that the marriage breakdown had occurred and she was unemployed due to her injury - Further, the court was not prepared to grant a terminal order in this matter as there were too many unknowns - As there were unknowns, a reviewable order was more appropriate - The court ordered the husband to continue to pay monthly spousal support of $1,000 for a period of two years (to April 2014) at which time a review of spousal support would be undertaken - See paragraphs 92 to 100.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

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

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 60].

Norrish v. Norrish, [2005] Sask.R. Uned. 177; 20 R.F.L.(6th) 366; 2005 SKQB 396 (Fam. Div.), affd. [2006] Sask.R. Uned. 151; 30 R.F.L.(6th) 243; 2006 SKCA 104, refd to. [paras. 60, 61].

Thurston v. Maystrowich (2010), 354 Sask.R. 113; 2010 SKQB 154 (Fam. Div.), affd, (2010), 359 Sask.R. 287; 494 W.A.C. 287; 2010 SKCA 113, refd to. [para. 63].

Spencer v. Spencer (2005), 371 A.R. 78; 354 W.A.C. 78; 257 D.L.R.(4th) 115; 2005 ABCA 262, refd to. [para. 63].

H.S. v. C.S. (2006), 279 Sask.R. 55; 372 W.A.C. 55; 2006 SKCA 45, refd to. [para. 72].

Rask v. Rask (2005), 261 Sask.R. 269; 2005 SKQB 159, refd to. [para. 72].

Rode v. Moyer (2006), 278 Sask.R. 203; 2006 SKQB 126 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 72].

Ingram v. Ingram (2004), 248 Sask.R. 104; 2004 SKQB 224 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 72].

Kuntz v. Allan (2010), 358 Sask.R. 207; 2010 SKQB 276 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 72].

Johns v. Hinkson (1996), 151 Sask.R. 168 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 87].

Moge v. Moge, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 813; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 96].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 96].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (2008), generally [para. 99].

Counsel:

Doreen K. Clark, for the petitioner;

Bonnie S. Racz, for the respondent.

This case was heard by Wilson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Yorkton, who delivered the following judgment on April 19, 2012.