D.I.V. No. 023311 J.C.Y. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF YORKTON BETWEEN: MARGARET MERRIMAN and RONALD WILLIAM CHARLES MERRIMAN RESPONDENT Richard Yaholnitsky for the petitioner Ronald J. Balacko for the respondent JUDGMENT MacLEOD J. October 27, 1997 In this trial the wife/petitioner ("Margaret") seeksmaintenance for herself from her husband/respondent ("Ron"). Margaret was born June 17, 1941, and at the trial was 56 years old. Ron was born November 22, 1935, and at the trial was 61 years old. The parties were married November 11, 1961. The parties separated June 27, 1994, but the husband actually left the residence some time later. Margaret had grade education and part of grade 9. She was then employed briefly in Yorkton, but at the time of the marriage she was helping her parents on the farm and had no outside employment. Ron was employed at the Theodore Credit Union as an assistant manager or the equivalent. Throughout the marriage Ron has been employed by the Theodore Credit Union, and has been the manager for many years. For short time during the marriage, Margaret was employed in sales position in Yorkton, but was dismissed. She blames Ron's interference for her dismissal. Ron says he is unaware of the reasons for her dismissal. The parties started with virtually nothing and built respectable estate and raised children, all of whom are now adults. It was agreed that Margaret would stay home and raise the children and Ron would earn the living. This marital arrangement had the practical effect of having each of them do what each did best. This was to the benefit of the parties and their family. am satisfied that each contributed to the marriage and its goals. The separation occurred after time of deteriorating relations. The terminal event occurred when the parties visited their daughter, Leanne. Ron offered to help, but Margaret said, "Get out of the way". The daughter said something like, "None of that, mother". Margaret sulked and nothing more was said then or on the way home between Ron and Margaret. He found his pillow in the corridor and he went down stairs and never came back to the marital bed. Both parties testified. formed the impression that Margaret was given to exaggeration. Her testimony seemed to produce suspicion of hysteria, although accept that she believes the facts to which she has testified. Her testimony about her searches for employment carried overtones of blame to Ron. Ron suggests that her personality was problem. can believe that. On the question of credibility accept Ron's version on all important matters and his general narrative as to the course of the marriage. The parties have divided the matrimonial property evenly. It is doubtful that Margaret would have done so well had she not been attached to Ron. That does not, however, dispose of her claim. good deal of testimony was directed to her expenses and the money she needed from him to meet her chosen expenditures. This claim misses the point. In the short term, that is, immediately after separation, the expenses of party may be governed by the conditions existing at the separation. Long term arrangements, however, are not the same. Each party must limit his or her lifestyle and expenses to suit the income of that party. spouse's claim is not to be measured by the amount of money that spouse chooses to spend. The claim is to be determined in accordance with the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. (2nd Supp.). Margaret said there is no work for her in Theodore and, in any event, that her health would not permit it. On discovery Margaret dealt with these questions as follows: 281 Have you looked for work in Theodore? What work in Theodore? There is no jobs in Theodore. 285 And there's been nothing physically or mentally preventing you from doing that, is there? don't think that was ever problem. But where am going to get those jobs from? She mentioned trouble with her wrist and that by the time she finished her yard work she did not golf much. The discovery was April 1, 1997, but at the trial her health was emphasized much more as disabling factor. Ron says she is capable babysitter and that there is demand for this service in Theodore. He gave specific examples. I am satisfied that Margaret could become employedbut at a rate at or not greatly over the minimum wage. Shecould earn something in the vicinity of $1,000.00 per month,but has no motivation at the present to do so. She hasconvinced herself that there is no work available and that herhealth does not permit it. Ron plans to retire from his position as manager of the Credit Union in 1998. He also has small income tax accounting business and is presently an elected member of the East Central District Health Board. This last is subject to the decision to run again and subject to being re-elected. accept that his gross income should exceed $60,000.00 for all of 1997 and $5,000.00 per month for eight months of 1998. In addition, take into account that despite his age he will retain certain income earning potential which, at the least, constitutes form of income insurance. Margaret claims support order under s. 15.2(1) of the Divorce Act, the objectives of which are set out in s. 15.2(6) as follows: (6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of spouse should (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within reasonable period of time. Margaret\'s half of the matrimonial property includesher share of a superannuation program which will be enhancedby delay in the actual divorce. She will therefore benefit byhaving bridge income until she attains age 60 on June 17,2001, a total of 42 months from and including January 1, 1998. In this respect consider Ron's prospective earning time remaining as compared to her longer earning years at much lower income, having in mind the factors noted above. The objectives of s. 15.2(6) will be satisfied by the following order: 1. There will be judgment for a divorce in the usualform, but it will not be issued until after January 1, 1998; 2. The interim maintenance order will terminate with thepayment for December, 1997; 3.(a) Subject to subparagraph (b) hereof, Ron shall payMargaret by way of maintenance, the lump sum of $18,000.00which shall be made on or before June 30, 1998. (b) The said lump sum shall be free from any income tax. (M. W. Rashkis, M. L. Benotto, Income Tax and Family Law Handbook (Toronto: Butterworths, 1988, updated 1997, Issue 19) at 1-9(8)-1-9(9). 4. Ron will pay $1,000.00 as costs, payable immediately, to Margaret.
The petitioner sought spousal maintenance. The parties, now 56 and 61, were married in 1961 and separated in 1994. The wife had part of Grade 9 and the parties had agreed she would stay home and raise the four children. HELD: 1)Judgment for divorce was to be issued in the usual form after January 1/98. 2)The respondent was to pay as maintenance a lump sum of $18,000 free from any income tax. The interim maintenance order was to terminate with payment for December 1997. The wife could find employment but at a rate at or near minimum wage. She had no motivation to work, having convinced herself that there was no work available and that her health did not permit it. The wife would benefit from having bridge income until she attained age 60 in 2001. Her half of the matrimonial property included a share of a superannuation program.  3)The respondent was to pay $1,000 as costs to the petitioner.