1990 1201‑43833 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Debbie A. Smith Petitioner/Applicant: and Peter Allan Smith Respondent HEARD: Before the Honourable Chief Justice Constance R. Glube, Trial Division in Chambers at Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 3, 1990. DATE: August 15, 1990 COUNSEL: Mark T. Knox, for the Petitioner/Applicant Katherine A. McDonald, for the Respondent 1990 1201‑43833 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Debbie A. Smith Petitioner/Applicant and Peter Allan Smith Respondent GLUBE, C.J.T.D.: This is an application by Debbie A. Smith for interim maintenance. The parties were married on April 9, 1983. Peter Smith left the matrimonial home in July of 1989. There are no children of the marriage. Ms. Smith has been employed at K‑Mart as clerk for fifteen years. Her income is $8.65 per hour for total of $950.00 per month. Mr. Smith is employed by Public Works Canada. His annual salary is $36,817.00. Due to unusual personnel circumstances, he worked considerable overtime in 1989 which brought his income up to $48,000.00. This overtime is non‑recurring event. Ms. Smith wishes to upgrade herself so that she can obtain more lucrative employment. Mr. Smith had concerns during the marriage that she was underpaid. She claims that during their marriage, she spent a lot of time under medical care in an effort to become pregnant. At the time of separation she was pregnant, however, she suffered miscarriage. She claims that it was agreed that if she had child, she would not continue her employment. Ms. Smith claims that she has some particular expenses occurring at this time. She wishes to enroll in Certified General Accounting Course, which may be obtained either through correspondence or at St. Mary's University and would take three to four years to complete. The cost at St. Mary's is $650.00 per year. She would continue her employment while taking the course. She claims that motor vehicle which .she received in the division of property has stopped working and is too costly to repair. She is looking to replace that motor vehicle. Also, that upon the sale of the matrimonial home she resided with relatives. She has now found accommodation for herself and her dog at monthly rental of $595.00. Ms. Smith, in her affidavit, recognizes that she is not entitled to maintenance indefinitely, but instead is seeking lump sum or periodic term of maintenance to allow her to upgrade her education so that she will become financially independent. She is seeking $500.00 month on an interim basis. Mr. Smith disputes her entitlement to any maintenance. He claims he has maintained her from the time of separation until the house was sold on July 19, by paying all the household expenses including light and power, totalling $16,135.00. Ms. Smith claims that out of some of these funds she paid some bills relating specifically to Mr. Smith. He claims she received $17,683.00 as her share of an equal division upon the sale of the matrimonial home and that this money should be invested to provide income. He submits that an award of interim maintenance should not be made on the facts before the court, as there was not time to present all the facts and there is serious question as to whether her inability to earn money can be attributed to her being married. He claims she is neither entitled to nor does she need interim maintenance. The court has the power to grant lump sum in lieu of or in addition to periodic sums on an interim basis (s.15(3) Divorce Act 1985). Section 15(5) of the Divorce Act sets out the factors to be considered by the court and s.15(7) sets out the objectives of support order. accept that there should be some causal connection between the applicant's need and the marriage or cohabitation period. The parties have very disparate incomes. After examining Mr. Smith's financial statement, it would appear that he could afford to pay interim maintenance. The question is whether or not Ms. Smith is entitled to receive any payment. On the one hand, thorough review of the facts is necessary to reach final conclusion as to whether or not Ms. Smith's economic disadvantage arises from breakdown of the marriage. On the other hand, promoting economic self‑sufficiency is another objective which the court will seek to effect even on an interim award. The factors to be considered are the means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse including the length of time the parties cohabited. The parties lived together as husband and wife for just over five years following the marriage, however, there was period of two additional years prior to marriage when the parties resided together as common law spouses. In my opinion, Ms. Smith should attempt to upgrade her education. agree it is doubtful that she will be entitled to maintenance for any lengthy period of time. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to award the requested amount of $500.00 month maintenance until this matter is resolved. propose to award nominal amount plus small lump sum with the understanding that the court could well take that into account if on the hearing of the divorce it is determined that Ms. Smith is entitled to periodic maintenance for period of time. Ms. Smith will no doubt have to invest her proceeds from the matrimonial home so that she receives monthly income. On an interim basis, she will probably not be able to afford to replace her car. To move matters along towards the goal of financial independence and considering the means, and needs, and circumstances of each spouse, acknowledging that this may not be the basis for a lump sum or monthly periodic maintenance being made at the time the divorce is heard, I find there is some causal relationship between Ms. Smith\'s attempts to become pregnant and the fact that she did not upgrade her education during the marriage. I award the sum of $100.00 per month interim maintenance. The first payment is payable immediately, and thereafter on the first day of each month until final determination is made. In addition, award the sum of $650.00 to be made to Ms. Smith upon her producing statement from the Registrar of St. Mary's University or such other body providing correspondence course for Certified General Accounting showing that she has enrolled and has been accepted in course to commence in the fall of 1990. urge the parties to proceed to trial with the issue of maintenance at the earliest opportunity, particularly as this appears to be the only outstanding issue. Constance R. Glube Halifax, Nova Scotia August 15, 1990 1990 1101‑43838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Debbie Smith Petitioner/ and Peter Allan Smith Respondent DECISION OF GLUBE, C.J.T.D.
Where the petitioner demonstrated that she did not upgrade her education during the marriage as a result of her attempts to become pregnant and thus there was a causal connection between the petitioner's need and the marriage, interim maintenance in the amount of $100 per month was ordered ,  having regard to the means, needs and circumstances of each spouse.