J. D.I.V. A.D.1996 No. 701 J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: JOY ANNE BARTCH and ROBERT CLARENCE BARTCH RESPONDENT M.L. Elliott on behalf of Joy Anne Bartch L.A. Schienbein on behalf of Robert Clarence Bartch FIAT ARCHAMBAULT J. January 31, 1997 On January 29, 1997, awarded interim custody of Kimberley and Lauri to the respondent, Robert Clarence Bartch. I reserved decision on the questions of child and spousalmaintenance, including costs of access and counselling. believe it is common ground that the respondent's 1996 income included the following: Employment 22,950.00 Unemployment insurance benefits 5,197.00 Town councillor's indemnity 700.00 Total $28,847.00 It is argued on behalf of the petitioner, Joy Anne Bartch, that in addition to that income, the respondent has, as shareholder and officer of Bartch Building Movers Ltd., access to additional funds. He and his brother each own 38% of the voting shares of the company. The assets of the company increased significantly in 1996 ($103,752.00) from 1995 ($88,399.00). Wages to officers increased from $50,550.00 in 1995 to $80,900.00 in 1996. Notwithstanding this increase the company showed an operating profit compared to deficit in 1995. It should be noted that the shareholders' loan payable to Robert and Joy Bartch was reduced from $6,400.00 to $2,549.00 in 1996. That clearly was to the respondent's benefit ($3,851.00). In addition, the company advanced the sum of $16,952.00 to the respondent's brother, Greg, and his wife, Olivia. During 1996 the petitioner was paid $781.66 per month by the company. This was done for income splitting purposes. Now that this payment to her has been terminated (as of November 30, 1996), it is reasonable to assume that that amount will revert to the respondent, thereby increasing his receipts from the company by an equivalent amount. am satisfied that the respondent has had and will continue to have access to drawings from the company over and above his stated income. For the purposes of determining maintenance, attribute him yearly income of $38,000.00. The petitioner's position is less rosy. She is currently in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits of $318.00 every two weeks, plus whatever casual work she can obtain. As previously indicated, her employment with Bartch Building Movers, which yielded her $781.66 per month, has been terminated. Her total income, apart from maintenance in the sum of $1,600.00 paid to her by the respondent, for December, 1996, and January, 1997, totalled $1,404.44. As her income from casual employment is sporadic, it is difficult to determine her level of income for the purpose of her application for maintenance. It is to be noted that any income she earns in excess of $42.75 bi-weekly will be deducted from her UIC benefits. Hence believe that an attribution of income of $800.00 per month is fair for the current determination of maintenance. If there is significant change in her income level an application to vary may be brought by the respondent. The oldest child, Brianna, is residing with her mother in Regina and, accordingly, the petitioner must support her. The respondent is supporting the two other children, Kimberley and Lauri, who reside with him. In terms of child support, at an income level of$38,000.00 the respondent, in accordance with the Guidelines,would be required to pay $1,165.00 per month for threechildren, or $388.00 per month per child. Given thepetitioner's modest revenue, I believe he should pay thatamount without any abatement. There is no question that the breakdown of the marriage has resulted in hardship for the petitioner. She has had to set up new home in Regina and despite her good efforts, she is having problems securing employment. She is in need and the respondent is, in my view, in position to assist her. There is no question that the maintenance of two homes, as result of the marriage breakdown, taxes to the limit the available family income. There must, therefore, be an equitable sharing. The petitioner's monthly income at $800.00, together with child maintenance of $388.00 yields $1,188.00 for two persons. The respondent's monthly income ($38,000.00 ï¿½ 12) is $3,167.00. After payment of maintenance for Brianna at $388.00 per month, the remaining gross monthly income for three persons is $2,778.00. An adjustment in favour of the petitioner should be made to better distribute available income among the five members of the family. In so doing am mindful of the fact that there will be tax implications for both parties. am also taking into account the costs of access and counselling which shall be borne by the respondent. The respondent shall be responsible for the travel expenses for Kimberley and Lauri for the purpose of access twice monthly. Any access exercised by the petitioner in excess of two times per month, shall be at her own expense. It is accordingly ordered as follows:(1) The respondent shall pay interim maintenance to thepetitioner in the sum of $388.00 per month for the supportof Brianna, payable on the first day of each and every monthcommencing on February 1, 1997, and until further order ofthis Court. (2) The respondent shall pay to the petitioner interim spousalmaintenance in the sum of $350.00 per month, payable on thefirst day of each and every month commencing on February 1,1997, and continuing until further order of this Court. (3) The respondent shall assume and pay the transportationcosts for the petitioner's exercise of access to Kimberleyand Lauri twice monthly. Any costs for additional access shall be at the petitioner's expense. (4) The respondent shall pay for the cost of counselling forKimberley and Lauri. (5) The petitioner shall within three months from the date ofthis order and every three months thereafter keep therespondent informed of her employment status and revenue. (6) The matter of interim custody and access shall be reviewedon July 4, 1997, if the parties have not settled the matterprior thereto.
FIAT. Interim custody of two of the children was awarded to the respondent in January 1997. The eldest resided with her mother. Decisions on child and spousal maintenance, including costs of access and counselling had been reserved. HELD: 1)The respondent was to pay interim maintenance of $388 per month for the child residing with the mother and $350 per month for interim spousal maintenance. Under the guidelines he would be required to pay $1,165 per month for three children at an income level of $38,000. No abatement was made in view of the petitioner's modest income. 2)The respondent was to assume costs of twice monthly access by the petitioner and counselling costs. 3)The petitioner was to keep the respondent informed of her employment status and revenue. 4)Interim custody and access was to be reviewed July 4/97 if the parties had not settled the matter.