Wright v. Wright, (1996) 141 Sask.R. 44 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 24, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 141 Sask.R. 44 (CA);1996 CanLII 4915 (SK CA);[1996] 4 WWR 1;21 RFL (4th) 201;141 Sask R 44

Wright v. Wright (1996), 141 Sask.R. 44 (CA);

    114 W.A.C. 44

MLB headnote and full text

Christopher David Wright (appellant/respondent/petitioner by counter-petition) v. Yvette Elizabeth Wright (respondent/petitioner/respondent by counter-petition)

(Appeal File No. 1880)

Indexed As: Wright v. Wright

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.

February 12, 1996.

Summary:

A mother had custody of two children. The father was ordered to pay $600 per month child support for each child. He appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced child support to $440 per month per child.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children - A mother had custody of two children - The father was ordered to pay $600 child support per month per child - He appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced maintenance to $440 per month per child - In determining the appropriate amount of child support payable, the court determined the monthly costs attributable to raising the children and the proportion of these costs that each parent should bear - See para­graphs 33 to 70.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of - [See Family Law - Topic 4014 ].

Family Law - Topic 4030

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of relationship of claimant - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the effect of a custodial parent's new partner on the issue of the child sup­port - The court stated that "there is no obligation on the new partner to support the children, but, to the extent that he or she enables the custodial parent to apply more of her own income to household and child care expenses, the new partner's presence is a relevant factor to be con­sidered" - See paragraphs 20 to 27.

Family Law - Topic 4161

Divorce - Practice - Appeals - General - A father appealed a child support order - At issue was whether the court should consider the evidence as it existed at trial or at the time of the appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, having found error in the trial judge's failure to give appropriate weight to the substantial access exercised by the father, held that it was appropriate to re-assess the mainte­nance award - Accordingly, the court con­sidered the evidence as it existed at the time of the appeal - The court stated that "generally speaking, events occurring since trial are properly the subject of a variation application ... in some circumstances, it is preferable to consider new evidence in order to put an end to litigation, at least for the time being" - See paragraphs 14 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

Grohmann v. Grohmann (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 275; 11 W.A.C. 275; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ceulemans v. Ceulemans (1986), 50 Sask.R. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Beal v. Beal (1994), 123 Sask.R. 159; 74 W.A.C. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hersey v. Hersey (1993), 135 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 344 A.P.R. 67; 47 R.F.L.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Levesque v. Levesque, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 589; 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Hambleton v. Hambleton (1995), 126 Sask.R. 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Snelgrove-Fowler v. Fowler (1993), 138 A.R. 192; 46 R.F.L.(3d) 353 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Feltz v. Feltz (1993), 44 R.F.L.(3d) 277 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 33].

Edwards v. Edwards (1994), 133 N.S.R.(2d) 8; 380 A.P.R. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Skelton v. Skelton (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 311; 61 W.A.C. 311; 4 R.F.L.(4th) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Paras v. Paras (1971), 2 R.F.L. 328 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Thomson v. Thomson (1988), 69 Sask.R. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Pasterfield v. Pasterfield (1993), 109 Sask.R. 71; 42 W.A.C. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Impey v. Impey (1973), 13 R.F.L. 240 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Sawchyn v. Sawchyn (1985), 41 Sask.R. 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lane-Ingenthron v. Ingenthron (1988), 69 Sask.R. 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Harrop v. Harrop (1991), 95 Sask.R. 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

S.C.C. v. P.P.C. (1993), 122 N.S.R.(2d) 205; 338 A.P.R. 205; 47 R.F.L.(3d) 253 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

C.(S.C.) v. C.(P.P.) - see S.C.C. v. P.P.C.

Murray v. Murray (1991), 123 A.R. 68; 35 R.F.L.(3d) 449 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Squires v. Squires (1983), 42 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 148; 122 A.P.R. 148 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Cranford, Re (1983), 41 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55; 119 A.P.R. 55 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Allan v. Allan (1983), 81 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 255 A.P.R. 271 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Williamson v. Perry (1986), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 257; 189 A.P.R. 257 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48].

Blanchard v. Blanchard (1987), 64 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 197 A.P.R. 15 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Murray v. Murray (1989), 93 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 242 A.P.R. 66 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Oldham v. King (1986), 44 Man.R.(2d) 90; 5 R.F.L.(3d) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

House v. Tunney (1991), 95 Sask.R. 73; 35 R.F.L.(3d) 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Pyper v. Neville (1995), 132 Sask.R. 300 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

McCauley v. McCauley, [1995] O.J. No. 2274 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

Conforti v. Conforti, [1993] O.J. No. 1791 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 63].

Anwender v. Anwender (1991), 92 Sask.R. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Da Costa v. Da Costa (1990), 29 R.F.L.(3d) 422 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 64].

Shuparski v. Mair, [1995] N.W.T.R. 4 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Almeida v. Almeida (1995), 166 A.R. 248; 11 R.F.L.(4th) 131 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, S.C. 1986, c. 4, sect. 15(2), sect. 15(2)(b), sect. 15(5), sect. 15(5)(c), sect. 15(8) [para. 34]; sect. 21(5) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee's Report and Recommendations on Child Support (January 1995), ss. 5.2.2 [para. 24]; 7.2 [para. 65]; 10.1 [para. 24].

Douthitt and Fedyk, The Cost of Raising Children in Canada (1990), generally [paras. 45, 59]; p. 5 [para. 51].

Mamo, Alfred A., Apportionment of Child Care Costs: The Emergence of Judicial Guidelines, 13 C.F.L.Q. 111, pp. 113, 114 [para. 59]; 127, 133 [para. 62].

McLeod, James G., House v. Tunney (1991), 35 R.F.L.(3d) 68, p. 69 [para. 66].

Pask, E. Diane, Article, 10 C.F.L.Q. 33, generally [para. 21]; pp. 79 [paras. 51, 58]; 80 [para. 51]; 81 [para. 58].

Pask, E. Diane, The Effect on Maintenance of Custody Sharing (1989), 3 C.J.W.L. 155, generally [para. 66].

Counsel:

J. Billesberger, for the appellant;

P. Elash, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 24, 1995, before Bayda, C.J.S., Lane and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On February 12, 1996, Jackson, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court.