Thomas v. Lavoie, 2008 SKQB 93

• Judge: Goldenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2008 SKQB 93;(2008), 317 Sask.R. 204 (FD)

Thomas v. Lavoie (2008), 317 Sask.R. 204 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.013

Rebecca Ann Thomas (petitioner) v. John Joseph Lavoie (respondent)

(2002 F.L.D. No. 257; 2008 SKQB 93)

Indexed As: Thomas v. Lavoie

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Goldenberg, J.

February 25, 2008.

Summary:

A mother of one child applied to vary a child support order and sought retroactive child support and an order for financial disclosure. The father sought to vary the parties' custody agreement, an order for a home study and an order enjoining the mother from removing the child from the jurisdiction prior to trial.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, determined the father's income, made an order for ongoing child support and for financial disclosure. The court declined to make a retroactive order or to order a home study. The court ordered the mother not to remove the child from the jurisdiction prior to trial. The custody issues were to be determined at trial.

Family Law - Topic 2055

Custody and access - Interim custody - Removal of child from jurisdiction - On a mother's interim application to vary a child support order, a father applied for an order enjoining the mother from removing the child from the jurisdiction prior to trial - The mother wanted to move with the child to Edmonton where her husband was stationed with the armed forces - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the father's application - The status quo was that the child had been residing with the mother, who was the primary caregiver - The father had access, but there was a dispute between the parties regarding his access rights - There were issues regarding whether the move was in the child's best interests and whether the child should be spending more time with the father - Further, the move would separate the child from the father and his new partner, her maternal grandparents and her friends - The child was managing well under the status quo - That should not be interfered with - See paragraphs 26 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Retroactive maintenance - Under a November 2002 interim order, a father paid child support for one child of $375 per month - In a February 2005 agreement, the payment was increased to $200 every two weeks - The payment slightly exceeded the Federal Child Support Guidelines amount based on an average of the father's income for the preceding three years - The father was paid in excess of $100,000 in 2006 and 2007 - The mother applied to vary child support and sought retroactive support to January 2006 - The father agreed to pay the Guidelines amount of support commencing January 2008, but asserted that the mother sought the retroactive award to pay for her upcoming wedding - Further, the father noted that he was seeking to have his income tax returns reassessed regarding subsistence and travel allowances that had been included as income - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, declined to make a retroactive order - There was no evidence as to the child's needs at the times in question - Further, there were the issues regarding the purpose for which the award was sought and whether subsistence and travel allowances were to be included in the father's income for Guideline purposes - These matters were best left to the trial judge - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Gilbert v. Wildman, [2006] Sask.R. Uned. 101; 2006 SKQB 291 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

C.P.-N. v. J.J.M.M., [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 132; 2002 SKQB 299 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

Flasch v. Flasch, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 83; 2002 SKQB 206 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

M.L.N. v. D.W.B., [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 136; 2000 SKQB 266 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

L.M.S. v. S.J.S., [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 233; 1999 SKQB 159 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

Whitford v. Penner, 1994 CarswellSask 506 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Solonenko v. Stice (2006), 276 Sask.R. 270; 2006 SKQB 74 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

MacDonald v. Bryzgalska (2007), 296 Sask.R. 79; 2007 SKQB 127 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

D.B.S. v. S.R.G., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; 351 N.R. 201; 391 A.R. 297; 377 W.A.C. 297; 2006 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 39].

Wyper v. Wyper (2006), 288 Sask.R. 17; 2006 SKQB 394 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

Jordan v. Jordan (2005), 260 Sask.R. 188; 2005 SKQB 129 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

Gavelin v. Pateman (2007), 297 Sask.R. 240; 2007 SKQB 51 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

K.J.S. v. B.C.K. (2007), 294 Sask.R. 184; 2007 SKQB 122 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

J.R. v. M.R., [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 115; 2007 SKQB 409 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Michael P. Hudec, for the petitioner;

Lori L. Gollan, for the respondent.

These applications were heard by Goldenberg, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following fiat on February 25, 2008.