nan U.F.C. of A.D. 1993 865 J.C. S. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: MARCELLA LAMB RESPONDENT L. BURROWS for the petitioner T.F. KOSKIE for the respondent JUDGMENT DICKSON J. DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1994 The applicant (wife) seeks an interim distributionof matrimonial property and interim support for her two children,ages 16 and 13, and an order prohibiting the respondent (husband)from contacting her and from going to her home or her workplace. In May of this year, an interim order granted the wife exclusive possession of the parties' farm home with the exception of "the tool shed and other parts of the farm yard which the husband is required to enter for the purpose of doing his farming". Both parties were ordered to have no contact with the other and the husband was ordered to pay $2,000.00 lump sum support for the children at the end of the 1994 harvest. It appears that the husband undertook to pay periodic child support if he got job off the farm. An earlier consent order forbade the husband from disposing of matrimonial property. Since then, the wife says her husband has continued to dispose of farm machinery and the 1994 crops. She says he has been earning money trucking and leasing out farm machinery for custom work on neighbouring farms. He has not offered any of the money earned to support his children. She says he harvested canola crop worth $29,400.00 which he delivered to the Wheat Pool. She believes he can pick up grain cheque for this crop whenever he wishes. He has not paid the $2,000.00 lump sum ordered in May. She now asks that she be paid half the value of the crop, $200.00 per month for each of the children, retroactive to July 1, and that her husband be denied the right to enter the tool shed and the farm yard now that he is finished farming for the year. The husband denies disposing of any matrimonial property since the date of the order, other than the canola crop which he harvested from rented land. He sold it to the Wheat Pool for $9,184.00, which, he says, is less than the cost of producing the crop. He has not yet paid most of the production costs. He denies earning any money for driving truck or for custom farm work. Any driving he has done was to help his son and he drew no wages for it. He says he is looking for work but because he is 64 years old, he doesn't expect to find any. I am not prepared to vary or extend the order of May27 and the extended order of October 19 which forbids the husbandfrom approaching the home quarter. The evidence presented by the wife is simply her assertion that her husband has been earning money which enables him to pay periodic support. He denies it. don't know who to believe. He also says the harvested crop has negative value. She doesn't know anything about the unpaid expenses. I am willing only to direct that the Registrar allot apre-trial date acceptable to both parties.
The Wife sought an interim distribution of matrimonial property and periodic maintenance for the 2 children of the marriage, aged 16 and 13. The Husband had not made an interim lump sum payment in the amount of $2,000.00 ordered in May and had undertaken to provide support monies after harvest. The Husband claimed that the value of the crop harvested was less than the farm expenses and resisted any change in the previous interim orders made. HELD: Application dismissed. The Court was not prepared to make the interim orders requested on the basis of the contradictory affidavits filed. A pre-trial was directed.