J. THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2004 SKCA 49 Date: 20040408 Between: Docket: 889 Rhonda Jean Hart and Warren Scott Neufeld Coram: Vancise, Sherstobitoff Jackson JJ.A. Counsel: Diane Ansell for the Appellant Lyle Phillips for the Respondent Appeal: From: DIV/F.L.D./Q.B. 003933 of A.D. 1998, J.C. Moose Jaw Heard: April 8, 2004 Disposition: Allowed (orally) Written Reasons: April 13, 2004 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Vancise In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson Vancise J.A. (orally) [1] The appellant wife appeals the decision of the chambers judge varying the amount of child support and reducing the amount of arrears. She contends that the chambers judge erred in varying the order for maintenance and reducing the amount of arrears in the absence of evidence that there was change in the conditions, means and needs of the respondent or the children as contemplated by s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act.[1] [2] The respondent contends that the amount of child support should be reduced by reason of his reduced income caused by his unemployment or reduced employment over the last four years. The appellant argues that the respondent has failed to satisfactorily explain his unemployment. There is evidence that his change in income is due to his own voluntary action and, as a result, he has failed to establish the threshold “change in circumstances” which could result in a variation of the order. [3] The appeal is allowed and the decision of the chambers judge is set aside. There is evidence from which this Court can impute income to the respondent in the amount of $27,000, and the child support shall be varied to $510.00 per month as of February 1, 2004 in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. The sum of $1,926.78 currently held by the Maintenance Enforcement Office shall be applied to the arrears. The respondent shall pay the sum of $200.00 per month on the arrears commencing April 1, 2004. [4] The appellant shall have her costs in the usual way. [1]R.S.C. 1985, c. (2nd. Supp.).
Fulltext of judgment follows: [1] The appellant wife appeals the decision of the chambers judge varying the amount of child support and reducing the amount of arrears. She contends that the chambers judge erred in varying the order for maintenance and reducing the amount of arrears in the absence of evidence that there was a change in the conditions, means and needs of the respondent or the children as contemplated by s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act.[FOOTNOTE 1][2] The respondent contends that the amount of child support should be reduced by reason of his reduced income caused by his unemployment or reduced employment over the last four years. The appellant argues that the respondent has failed to satisfactorily explain his unemployment. There is evidence that his change in income is due to his own voluntary action and, as a result, he has failed to establish the threshold 'change in circumstances' which could result in a variation of the order. [3] The appeal is allowed and the decision of the chambers judge is set aside. There is evidence from which this Court can impute income to the respondent in the amount of $27,000, and the child support shall be varied to $510.00 per month as of February 1, 2004 in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. The sum of $1,926.78 currently held by the Maintenance Enforcement Office shall be applied to the arrears. The respondent shall pay the sum of $200.00 per month on the arrears commencing April 1, 2004. [4] The appellant shall have her costs in the usual way.1R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd. Supp.).