J. Dated: 19971119 Docket: 2808 THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Coram: Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling JJ.A. JUDY MARGARET SJOGREN and THEODORE GEORGE PIPCHUK COUNSEL: Ms. P. Cuelenaere for the appellant Mr. S. Eisner for the respondent DISPOSITION: On Appeal From: QB 513/93 and 1037/92 J.C. Prince Albert Appeal Heard: 19 November 1997 Appeal Dismissed: 19 November 1997 (oral) Written Reasons: 26 November 1997 Reasons By: The Honourable Mr. Justice T.C. Wakeling In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.F. Tallis and The Honourable Mr. Justice S.J. Cameron WAKELING J.A. (oral) [1] The appellant seeks to have the support payments ordered by the chamber judge increased on the basis the income of the respondent was incorrectly estimated and should have been found to be much greater. [2] The respondent’s income is largely the product of the operation of relatively small farm, augmented by some outside earnings. The appellant seeks to have the respondent’s income increased by adding the value of unsold grain on hand and 100 percent of his capital cost allowance. [3] There is clearly no basis for adding the value of the grain on hand to the income of the respondent. There is no indication of any underhanded or inappropriate action on the part of the respondent and this grain is therefore to be viewed as part of the gross income of the respondent in the year in which it is sold. [4] The respondent agreed to include 20 percent of his capital cost allowance as part of his income and this was accepted by the trial judge who recognized that commercial realities require the replacement of farm equipment. What, if any, portion of the capital cost allowance should be added to establish available income must be based on the facts of each case and we see no reversible error in the acceptance of this figure by the chamber judge in this instance. [5] The appeal is dismissed with the usual costs on double Column V.
The appellant sought to have the support payments ordered by the chambers judge increased on the basis the income of the respondent was incorrectly estimated and should have been increased by adding the value of unsold grain on hand and 100 percent of his capital cost allowance. HELD: The appeal was dismissed with costs. 1)There was clearly no basis for adding the value of the grain on hand to the income of the respondent. There was no indication of any underhanded or inappropriate action on the part of the respondent and the grain was to be viewed as part of his gross income in the year in which it was sold. 2)There was no reversible error by the chamber judge in accepting the respondent's agreement to include 20 percent of his capital cost allowance as part of his income. What if any portion should be added must be based on the facts of each case.