J. U.F.C. of A.D. 1988 876 J.C. S. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: SANDRA CAROL RIEL and RAYMOND ANTHONY JOSEPH RIEL RESPONDENT L.G. TALLIS for the petitioner D.Z. BRAUN for the respondent JUDGMENT HUNTER J. DATE: JUNE 20, 1996 The Respondent father applies to reduce the amountof on-going maintenance of $600.00 per month for his 2 daughtersand to reduce the accumulated arrears of approximately$14,600.00. The original corollary relief judgment was made in 1989. An application for variation was dismissed in 1993 except that an order suspending enforcement of arrears during periods when the respondent is unemployed was granted. The Petitioner resides in Winnipeg, Manitoba and has custody of both daughters. She is employed and while her income has increased since 1989, her expenses have increased correspondingly. Petitioner chose to file material in response to this application and wants the matter dealt with summarily on affidavit evidence and does not want trial of the issue directed. Since the judgment, respondent's employer closed the Saskatoon operation and he has since been working as pipe- fitter. The respondent is hired on jobs in accordance with the union hiring hall practices. The respondent started to fall behind in his child support obligations in 1993. He has worked sporadically since that time. The respondent deposes to the following gross income levels for respective years as follows: 1993 $40,000 1994 $1,792 and some public assistance 1995 6,837 and some public assistance 1996 to date 5,410 Respondent's annual child support obligation is $7,200.00. The records from the maintenance enforcement office indicate the following credits to the child support payment obligation: 1993 $3,172 1994 $1,200 1995 154 1996 828 and $6,257 income tax refund garnisheed for total of $11,611.00 paid and the amount required to be paid was $25,600.00. The respondent has not provided specific informationabout the number of months he was in receipt of social assistancebenefits. However, it is clear that his income during 1995 and1996 does not allow him to meet his support obligations. The respondent proposes that his support obligation be eliminated or at least reduced during his months of unemployment. It is difficult to ascertain an appropriate amount as it is unknown whether any income replacement benefits may be available to the respondent during his periods of unemployment. Counsel did suggest that the obligation be reduced by one-half. Given the significant reduction in incomeexperienced by the respondent since 1994, there has been amaterial change in circumstances. Since his employment isuncertain in his trade a flexible order would be appropriate. Accordingly, there will be an order that the respondent pay childsupport of $300.00 per month per child during months when hisgross monthly earnings are $2,200.00 or greater and $150.00 permonth per child when his gross monthly earnings are less than$2,200.00. Further the arrears are reduced by $7,000.00 andwhen the respondent earns $2,200.00 per month or more he shallpay $200.00 per month on arrears in addition to the on-goingchild support obligation. The order of Dickson J. of September 22, 1993 iscontinued and it is further ordered that the respondent filequarterly, a financial statement or cheque stubs evidencingincome received from employment with the maintenance enforcementoffice commencing September 30, 1996 and every three monthsthereafter until the arrears are paid in full.
The respondent applied to reduce on-going maintenance from $600 per month for his two children and to reduce the accumulated arrears of approximately $14,600. The original corollary relief was made in 1989. An application for variation was dismissed in 1993 except that an order suspending the enforcement of the arrears during the times the respondent was unemployed was granted. The petitioner who had custody of the children and resided in Manitoba was employed. She requested that the matter be dealt with summarily on affidavit evidence and did not want a trial of the issue. HELD: The respondent was to pay $300 per month per child in the months when his gross earnings are $2,200 or greater and $150 per month per child when they are less. Arrears were reduced by $7,000. When he earned more than $2,200 per month he was to pay $200 per month on arrears in addition to the on-going child support obligation. The 1993 order was continued and it was further ordered that the respondent file quarterly a financial statement or cheque stubs evidencing his income with the maintenance enforcement office. 1)There was a significant reduction in the respondent's income since 1994, therefore there was a material change in circumstances. 2)The respondent had not provided specific information about the number of months he was in receipt of social assistance. It was clear, however, that his income during 1995 and 1996 did not allow him to meet his support obligations. Since his employment was uncertain a flexible order was appropriate.