J. Div. A.D. 1995 No. 003228 J.C.B. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF BATTLEFORD BETWEEN: JOAN LOUISE KIRKHAM APPLICANT (RESPONDENT) and RANDOLPH GENE KIRKHAM RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) H.A. Knott for the applicant (respondent) S.J. Demmans for the petitioner FIAT NOBLE J. May 27, 1996 The applicant brings this motion for interim spousal maintenance. The parties separated in the summer of 1994. They were divorced by order dated December 21, 1995. Allother issues raised in the divorce proceeding were left inabeyance including the issue of spousal maintenance. The petitioner and the applicant agreed December 15, 1994 that he would pay her $3,000.00 per month which sum included support for their son Michael as well as her. According to the applicant's affidavit the petitioner has since reduced the monthly amounts down to $1,500.00 for each of the months of September through December of 1995. Since then the petitioner has "unilaterally", according to the applicant reduced the monthly support to $1,000.00 per month and even those have been irregular and not on time. Up until April 26 of this year the applicant says she has received only total of $3,000.00. None of these allegations are refuted. The petitioner's income exceeds $80,000.00 annually but it must be noted that the status of his employment is that he is currently suspended with pay. What is going to happen to his employment situation is up in the air and this factor hangs over all of the issues yet to be settled in these proceedings including this application. Should his pay be suspended for period of time or his job lost then both parties would be required to reassess their respective positions. The material filed indicates that the matrimonial home has been sold and it is expected each party will receive approximately $30,000.00 in early June when the net proceeds are distributed. The applicant seeks interim support based on some maintenance guidelines suggested by the Government which when the petitioner's and the applicant's current income is taken into account indicates that the respondent should pay the applicant around $2,400.00 per month. The petitioner contends this in his circumstances is just too high in the interim. For example, he has the two children living with him and while they are old enough to hold down jobs there is, he contends scarcity of jobs to be had. He anticipates one of them hopes to attend university this fall and the other hopes to attend SIAST. The petitioner conceded, if understood his counsel, that the $1,500.00 he was paying up to the end of 1995 should be brought back. In my opinion it is premature on this application tofix the amount of the spousal maintenance that the applicanthas asked for at the suggested guideline figure. There aretoo many unknown factors surrounding the future situation ofeither party to conclude that what the applicant asks for isfair and reasonable. There is the uncertainty of thepetitioner\'s future job and income. There is no evidence asto what the applicant will require if she does go touniversity this fall. There is uncertainty as to what the twochildren are going to do about future education. As result am of the view that in these circumstances and bearing in mind that this is an interim application it would be premature to apply the amount of maintenance the guidelines suggest. On the other hand I am of the opinion that thepetitioner was not entitled to unilaterally reduce the$1500.00 maintenance he consistently paid up to December 1995to $1,000.00 as noted above without at least consulting withthe applicant. Had these payments continued the applicant would have recovered $6,000.00 at this point in time instead of the $3,000.00 she says she got up to April 26, shortfall of $3,000.00. Accordingly I direct that the petitioner pay spousalmaintenance to the applicant commencing June 1, 1996 asfollows:(a)$1,500.00 on the 1st day of each month; and(b)$200.00 on the 1st day of each month towards the shortfallresulting from the reduction in payent from $1,500.00 to$1,000.00 in 1996 until the said shortfall has been paid infull. The applicant shall have costs of this application to be taxed in the usual way.
FIAT. The parties were divorced in 1995 and all issues including spousal maintenance were left in abeyance. The petitioner had agreed to pay $3,000 per month which included child support but the support was reduced to $1,000 and was irregular and late. The two children were living with the petitioner and although old enough to hold jobs, had been unable to find employment. The petitioner's income exceeded $80,000 annually but he had been suspended with pay and the status of his employment was uncertain. HELD: 1)It was premature to fix the amount of spousal maintenance as asked for by the applicant. There were too many unknowns including the future of the petitioner's future job and income and how much the applicant would require should she go to university in the fall and what the children would do about future education. 2)The petitioner was not entitled to unilaterally reduce the maintenance. 3)The petitioner was directed to pay $1,500 plus $200.00 per month until the shortfall was paid in full.  4)The applicant was awarded costs of the application.