Beaupre v. Beaupre

Beaupre v. Beaupre Court Supreme Court Date 2014-10-24 Citation 2014 NSSC 363 Docket 1201-67759, SHF-D- 090488 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Jollimore, Elizabeth (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Beaupre v. Beaupre - 2014 NSSC 363 - 2014-10-24 - Library Sheet Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Beaupre v. Beaupre, 2014 NSSC 363 Date: 2014 - 10 – 24 Docket: 1201-067759; SFH-D 090488 Registry: Halifax Between: Shawn Leonard Beaupre Petitioner v. Melissa Anne Beaupre Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Heard: September 26 and 29, 2014 Counsel: Vanessa L. Jass and Christopher White for Shawn Beaupre Karlan S. Modeste for Melissa Beaupre By the Court: Introduction [1] This is a divorce proceeding in which Melissa and Shawn Beaupre have resolved the division of property, the parenting arrangements for their two daughters, and the quantum of support for their younger daughter. They have also agreed on Ms. Beaupre’s entitlement to spousal support. I am to resolve a claim for child support for the parties’ older daughter, Mackenzie, and the quantum of spousal support. Ancillary to determining these support claims is determining each spouse’s income. Neither party claimed costs. Family history [2] According to Ms. Beaupre, the parties met in 1993 and began to cohabit later that year. Melissa Beaupre said she’d completed three years at Mount Royal College when she met Shawn Beaupre. They became engaged in April 1994, and she left school so she could work to help with their wedding costs. She said she worked as a nanny and at a department store. In contrast, Mr. Beaupre said that they met in 1995 and “we were married the following year”. He said that Ms. Beaupre had recently graduated with her Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Mount Royal College when they met. [3] The parties married in 1995 according to their marriage certificate. This is inconsistent with Mr. Beaupre’s statement that they met in 1995 and were married the following year. I accept that Ms. Beaupre did not complete her undergraduate degree: she, more than Mr. Beaupre, would be aware of this. [4] The couple’s older daughter, Mackenzie, was born in December 1995. Ms. Beaupre said she stayed home until October 1997 following Mackenzie’s birth. She then returned to work as a hostess at Montana’s Cookhouse Saloon. She continued to work there until September 1999 just before Sianna was born. When Sianna was six months old, Ms. Beaupre returned to work. Her maternity leave was at an end, and she said Mr. Beaupre’s income wasn’t enough to support the family. [5] Ms. Beaupre said she left her job at Montana’s in 2007, and went to work at a daycare for four months. She then worked for the Calgary Catholic School Board as a special education assistant from February 2008 until 2009 when the family moved to Nova Scotia. [6] Mr. Beaupre said that when they met, Ms. Beaupre was a waitress for Montana’s, and her income there “frequently” exceeded his, given her tips. He said that after she left Montana’s she worked for the Calgary Catholic School Board for roughly three years. Mr. Beaupre did not say when Ms. Beaupre left Montana’s, but this would have had to occur in 2006 if she worked for the school board for three years before the family moved to Halifax in 2009. According to Ms. Beaupre, she only worked for the school board from February 2008 until they moved to Nova Scotia in 2009. Mr. Beaupre said Ms. Beaupre was unemployed for six months following the move to Halifax. Again, I accept Ms. Beaupre’s recollection of her work circumstances over her husband’s. [7] Mr. Beaupre is employed by Canada Post as a letter carrier. The family’s move to Halifax was a result of a transfer by Mr. Beaupre’s employer. [8] Ms. Beaupre has succeeded in establishing a career in Halifax. She began working for the Halifax Regional School Board in February 2010 as a substitute in the Excel program. She was promoted to assistant instructor and is now a head instructor, a position she took on in 2011. She has applied for further promotions. She works each year from late August until the end of June and receives Employment Insurance benefits for five weeks each summer. [9] There were difficulties in the marriage from 2007 until 2013 when the parties separated for the last time. Once, they separated for one and one-half months, and they separated for thirteen months on a second occasion. [10] During the marriage, each spouse had secondary employment. Ms. Beaupre offered past life regressions, helping people explore their previous lives through hypnosis. Mr. Beaupre said that she had a “thriving” business, while Ms. Beaupre says that she earned a maximum of $400.00 annually from this business. She feels she needs more training and she stopped doing this work prior to the separation. For his part, Mr. Beaupre did psychic readings which he continues to do. He said he schedules three client sessions each week and works forty-two weeks each year doing readings. He claims this income on his tax return and offsets various expenses against it. Divorce [11] The parties have lived in Nova Scotia since 2010. They separated over one year ago, and there is no prospect that they will reconcile. I grant Mr. Beaupre’s request for a divorce. Issues [12] I’m asked to determine the quantum of child support and spousal support. Where both child support and spousal support are claimed, child support is given priority according to subsection 15.3(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, so I will deal with this claim first. The nature of this claim changed over the course of the proceeding, and I’ll try to address all aspects of the claim. Taken step-by-step, the child support claim means deciding whether Mackenzie remains a child of the marriage: Mr. Beaupre says she is not. If I conclude that Mackenzie is a child of the marriage, I must determine Mr. Beaupre’s income so I can fix the appropriate amount of child support. [13] Mr. Beaupre didn’t dispute that his wife is entitled to spousal support. He argued that he can’t afford spousal support. The spousal support claim demands that I consider the factors and objectives contained in subsections 15.2(4) and (6) of the Divorce Act as they relate to quantum. Child support [14] The parties have agreed that, for the purposes of Sianna’s support, Mr. Beaupre earns an annual income of $60,300.00, and he must pay $525.00 each month. They do not agree on Mr. Beaupre’s income for the purposes of determining Mackenzie’s child support. [15] In her brief, Ms. Beaupre asked for child support for Mackenzie payable every month. In her closing submissions, she asked for child support for Mackenzie only during the summer months, meaning that payments would not start until the summer of 2015. Ms. Beaupre also asserted that that Mr. Beaupre’s annual income was in the range of $68,000.00 for the purpose of determining how much support he should pay. Is Mackenzie a child of the marriage? While a minor [16] Mackenzie was born in December 1995 and is eighteen years old. She is a full-time student at Mount Saint Vincent University, studying toward a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology. As part of a student exchange program at the university, she’s spending the current semester in Seoul, South Korea. Mackenzie lived with her mother until she left for South Korea and will return to her mother’s home in December 2014. It’s anticipated she will continue to live with Ms. Beaupre until she completes her degree, in three years’ time. [17] According to Ms. Beaupre, during this past summer, Mackenzie worked full-time at the Sackville Boys’ and Girls’ Club to pay for her trip to South Korea and related expenses. She worked thirty-five hours each week and earned eleven dollars per hour. [18] Because the Beaupre children are members of the Conne River Indian Band, they are entitled to financial assistance while pursuing post-secondary studies, as long as they are exclusively attending school and not working. The Band also pays for tuition, fees and books. It does not provide financial support during the summer months when Mackenzie is not in school. [19] While she is in Seoul, Mackenzie receives $1,000.00 each month from her Band. I was told that this money will be spent as follows: Expense Amount Residence 1,100.00 Food 800.00 - 1,000.00 Transportation 200.00 emergency fund 500.00 Clothing 200.00 Recreation 320.00 Spending 1,500.00 Total (allocating food at $200.00 per month) 4,620.00 [20] Mackenzie has also paid for tutoring in statistics and Korean language. The semester in Seoul created additional expenses for Mackenzie: travel health insurance, a student visa, her dormitory application, her passport, a tuberculosis test, her plane ticket, ground transportation to the university and arranging to have her phone work in South Korea. These expenses aren’t shown in the table above. [21] While Mackenzie allocates $1,500.00 for spending money, this isn’t possible if she’s to stay within the $4,000.00 provided to her by her Band. [22] While Mackenzie is in South Korea, she must also maintain her car payments which are $108.10 biweekly. She also pays to operate and insure her car. These payments aren’t shown in the table at paragraph 19. She pays for her own personal expenses, such as her grooming, clothing, computer supplies and entertainment costs. The expenses she pays typically have been between $700.00 and $850.00 each month. [23] When she returns from South Korea, Mackenzie will receive $470.00 each month from her Band while she is in school. This isn’t enough to cover her expenses, but if she tries to supplement these funds by working she will lose the Band money. [24] The briefs filed by both parents are premised on the mistaken view that Mackenzie is over the age of majority. Mr. Beaupre’s brief claims Mackenzie “has reached the age of majority”, and Ms. Beaupre’s recites only those provisions of the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 that relate to children over the age of majority. [25] According to subsection 2(1) of the Age of Majority Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 4, Mackenzie will reach the age of majority on her nineteenth birthday. This will not happen until December of this year. Until then, I am required to approach her claim for child support on the basis that she is under the age of majority. [26] Subsection 2(1) of the Divorce Act defines “child of the marriage” to be a child who, at the material time, “is under the age of majority and who has not withdrawn from [the parents’] charge”. [27] Mr. Beaupre argued that Mackenzie is not a child of the marriage because she receives financial support from her Band. Mackenzie’s financial circumstances are not the issue while she is under the age of majority: the issue is whether she has withdrawn from her parents’ charge. In that regard, I have the uncontroverted evidence that unless she is out of the country pursuing her education, she resides in her mother’s home and has not withdrawn from her mother’s charge. [28] While Mackenzie is under the age of majority, subsection 3(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines says that the amount of child support for her is the amount set out in the applicable table and the amount, if any, determined under section 7. In her closing submissions, Ms. Beaupre took the position that Mr. Beaupre should pay child support for Mackenzie only during the months that she does not attend university, when she is not being supported by her Band. On reaching the age of majority [29] To determine the amount of support Mackenzie should receive, I must determine Mr. Beaupre’s income. Before I do that, I want to address circumstances in the near future. [30] In deciding any case, I’m to focus on the facts as they actually exist at the time of my decision. I’m not to speculate on the future and what that might hold. Within ten weeks of this decision, Mackenzie will reach the age of majority. The statutory context for her entitlement to child support and the regulatory framework for its calculation will change on this birthday. Formally, considering these new circumstances would require a variation application. [31] I am mindful of Justice Cromwell’s comment at paragraph 46 in MacLennan, 2003 NSCA 9, that “it is easy for lawyers and judges to say that parties can always return to court for variation, the costs and delays of legal proceedings regrettably often make this unrealistic for parties with modest means and immediate needs.” I do not require the parties to return to court if Mackenzie’s future unfolds as anticipated. It is, to borrow Justice Cromwell’s words, “pragmatic and just” to deal with those circumstances now. [32] If Mackenzie’s future unfolds as anticipated, she will return from South Korea and resume her studies at Mount Saint Vincent University. She will return to her mother’s home, though this will not be the home that she left, since Mr. Beaupre will be retaining the matrimonial home, and Ms. Beaupre will be moving. Mackenzie will continue to receive financial assistance from the Conne River Indian Band while she is in full-time attendance at university and unemployed, albeit at a rate reduced from her payments this fall. She will continue to work when school is not in session to earn additional money for her expenses. [33] Mr. Beaupre questioned the necessity of Mackenzie studying abroad for a semester, saying that while it is potentially a positive experience, it isn’t required by her degree. [34] The Court of Appeal has considered post-secondary education in the context of child support disputes on a number of occasions in the last twenty-two years: Yaschuk v. Logan, 1992 CanLII 2595 (NS CA), Martell v. Height, 1994 CanLII 4145 (NS CA), and MacLennan, 2003 NSCA 9. These decisions recognize that an undergraduate degree doesn’t guarantee self-sufficiency, and the necessity of an education that will prepare a child for a career. Mackenzie is diligently pursuing an education, even seeking out tutoring to enhance her learning. [35] There isn’t any particular educational path that is the correct path. Ms. Beaupre need not prove that Mackenzie’s semester overseas is “a necessity”. The semester and the accompanying language skills are a positive educational experience. The experience can be afforded, given her Band’s financial support and her own earnings. [36] Mr. Beaupre also questioned Mackenzie’s need for a car. Mr. Beaupre testified that students are provided with a bus pass, and he felt that Mackenzie “should be adopting a more cost effective form of travel.” The car was purchased late in September 2013, after the parties separated, when Mackenzie was seventeen and in her first year of university studies. It’s difficult to reconcile Mr. Beaupre’s opinion with his admission that he bought the car for Mackenzie. Mr. Beaupre explained that Mackenzie needed the car because bus access from her home to the university was very difficult and, because Mackenzie was under the age of twenty-one, she couldn’t buy a car, so he was required to buy the car for her, though she makes all the payments on it. [37] A child over the age of majority remains a child of the marriage where she remains under her parents’ charge and “is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life” according to clause 2(1) of the Divorce Act. Based on the information Ms. Beaupre provided about Mackenzie’s expenses, it won’t be possible for Mackenzie to support herself, remove herself from her mother’s charge or obtain the necessaries of life, after she turns nineteen. The financial support from her Band is important, but this is not adequate for her to be self-sufficient. Accordingly, I find that Mackenzie will remain a child of the marriage following her nineteenth birthday in December 2014. Determining Mr. Beaupre’s income [38] Mr. Beaupre filed two Statements of Income: one was sworn and filed in March 2014 and one was sworn and filed one month later, in April 2014. The former reported his monthly income as $5,717.36, comprising income from his work at Canada Post and his self-employment as a psychic. The latter Statement showed his monthly income to be $4,946.84. The difference of approximately $770.00 is largely attributable to a dramatic decrease in the amount of income reported from his work as a psychic. [39] There are discrepancies in his April 2014 Statement of Income. For example, Mr. Beaupre reported receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits. In his testimony, he said that he had knee surgery in 2012 and in 2013 and received Workers’ Compensation benefits after his surgery. He was clear that he was not receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits in 2014. As well, Mr. Beaupre identified income earned as a psychic on the first page of the Statement, but did not report it on the second page when calculating his gross monthly income. He also acknowledged that he had received a raise in his income as a postal worker, saying it would be reflected on his current paystubs. However, he didn’t provide a current paystub. Based on his testimony, the raise would increase his annual income by $200.00 to $300.00. [40] The Statement of Income instructs deponents to disclose their “gross income”. Comparing his Statements of Income to his Statement of Expenses and his testimony about his expenses, it appears that on his April Statement of Income Mr. Beaupre disclosed his net business income instead, using the figure from line 135 of his 2013 tax return. [41] Looking at Mr. Beaupre’s April Statement of Income, I must make some adjustments to it. According to his Canada Post paystubs, he receives a rest period allowance and a householder bonus. I have only two paystubs, so it is difficult to determine how frequently these are paid: it appears the rest period allowance is received every pay period, while the householder bonus is paid on alternate ones. The best I can do to estimate his income is to extrapolate his most recent pay statement over the course of twenty-six pay periods, and add $250.00 to reflect his raise. In this fashion, I calculate his annual earnings from Canada Post are $56,061.46. [42] The self-employment income Mr. Beaupre reported on his April Statement of Income was the net income shown on his 2013 tax return. His March Statement of Income provided a three page explanation of his earnings and expenses from this work. According to this explanation, he would gross $21,600.00 each year doing psychic readings. He calculated expenses for use of his home, his vehicle and direct office costs of $2,345.70, resulting in net business income of $19,254.30. [43] The three page explanation of earnings and expenses differs quite a bit from the Statement of Business or Professional Activities prepared by his accounting firm and attached to his 2013 tax return. Mr. Beaupre’s summary shows expenses of $2,345.70, while the 2013 tax return shows expenses of $5,693.20. [44] Mr. Beaupre says he does three readings each week for forty-two weeks each year. He charges $150.00 per reading. This results in gross income of $18,900.00. I don’t know why there is such a discrepancy between the expenses Mr. Beaupre estimates and those his accountant calculated. His accountant did not testify. Recognizing that business expenses will vary from year to year and considering Mr. Beaupre’s explanation of his expenses and his 2013 tax return, I estimate his annual business expenses to be $5,000.00. So I calculate Mr. Beaupre’s net self-employment income by deducting business expenses of $5,000.00 from gross annual income of $18,900.00, resulting in net income of $13,900.00. [45] Combining his self-employment income with his income from Canada Post, I conclude that Mr. Beaupre has an annual income of $69,961.46. For child support purposes, I must deduct his union dues which are $958.44, leaving income of $69,003.02. Mackenzie’s child support [46] As a result of Ms. Beaupre’s clear statement that she is only seeking child support for Mackenzie during the summer months, I am focusing on her claim for support calculated pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the Guidelines and not making any award for child support otherwise. According to subsection 3(2) of the Guidelines, Mackenzie’s child support may be based on the Guidelines or it may be calculated in another way, if applying the Guidelines is inappropriate. Clause 3(2)(a) relies on the tables and clause 3(2)(b) requires me to consider the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or the child who’s entitled to support. [47] In Wesemann, 1999 CanLII 5873 (BC SC) at paragraph 31, Justice Martinson suggested that the closer a child’s circumstances match those where the Guidelines apply (for example, the child lives at home, the parent who provides the home makes a significant contribution to the child’s support by providing the home, the child does not earn an income and is dependent on the parents), the less likely the approach in clause 3(2)(a) will be inappropriate. [48] Mackenzie lives in the home provided by her mother; however, she earns an income and receives money from her Band while she is in school. More significantly, her Band pays her direct university costs (tuition, fees and books). Mackenzie’s primary dependency on her parents is not financial. Because of Mackenzie’s financial circumstances, the approach in clause 3(2)(a) is inappropriate, so I must use the approach in clause 3(2)(b). [49] During the 2014 – 2015 academic year, Mackenzie’s Band will pay her $1,000.00 for each of the four months she’s in South Korea and $470.00 for each of the remaining four months. She worked during the summer of 2014 but I don’t have evidence of her actual earnings for the summer. I estimate that, working thirty-five hours for nine weeks at $11.00 per hour, she earned $3,465.00, so her total income from all sources is approximately $9,500.00. I’ve rounded that figure up because I don’t know exactly how many weeks she was employed. Ms. Beaupre was asked if Mackenzie earned $3,800.00 from her summer’s work and her response was that Mackenzie didn’t work the last week of the summer. The figure of $3,800.00 was based on Mackenzie’s hours and her hourly rate of pay. While Ms. Beaupre didn’t answer the question directly, I take her response to mean that Mackenzie earned less than $3,800.00. [50] Mackenzie’s expenses for her trip to South Korea are $4,620.00. While she’s in South Korea she must continue to make her car payments of approximately $1,000.00. According to Ms. Beaupre, Mackenzie’s monthly expenses are typically between $700.00 and $850.00. Assuming average monthly expenses of $775.00 for the remaining eight months of the academic year, her expenses this year are roughly $11,800.00 and the shortfall between her income and her expenses during this school year is $2,300.00. [51] During the 2013-2014 academic year, Mackenzie received $930.00 each month she was in school. She worked and, without evidence on this point, I will assume that she earned approximately $3,500.00 during the summer, bringing her total income to $10,940.00. With monthly expenses of $9,300.00, she would have a surplus of almost $1,640.00 in meeting her own costs. [52] These calculations ignore the costs Ms. Beaupre incurs for providing Mackenzie’s home. Mackenzie doesn’t make any direct financial contribution to her mother’s home. She doesn’t pay board or buy household items. She doesn’t contribute to groceries. She pays her own direct expenses for her car, tutoring, entertainment, clothing, computer supplies and grooming. [53] At Mr. Beaupre’s income level, the difference between the amount of child support for one child and two is approximately $370.00. Because of Mackenzie’s payment of her own expenses, child support is only needed to assist Ms. Beaupre in providing Mackenzie’s home. Ms. Beaupre seeks this assistance only during the summer months and, having regard to Ms. Beaupre’s Statement of Expenses, I find that a monthly contribution of $150.00 in May, June, July and August is an appropriate amount. The incremental costs of Mackenzie’s living at home are not great. They relate essentially to operating the home and providing meals. These payments will begin in May, 2015 and will be made in May, June, July and August of each year. Spousal support [54] Mr. Beaupre agrees his wife is entitled to spousal support. In his closing submissions, he said that both the quantum and duration of spousal support were contested; however, he offered no argument on the issue of duration and there was no evidence relating to this point. Mr. Beaupre argues that he cannot afford spousal support, and that Ms. Beaupre should be earning more money. [55] The objectives of spousal support include recognizing any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; apportioning any financial consequences arising from the care of children (beyond the obligation to pay child support); relieving economic hardship occasioned by the marriage breakdown; and, insofar as practicable, promoting each spouse’s economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable period of time. These are found in subsection 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act. The factors I am to consider are found in subsection 15.2(4): the length of the spouses’ cohabitation; the functions each performed during cohabitation; and any order, agreement or arrangement relating to the support of either one of them. [56] Ms. Beaupre is forty-two years old, as is her husband. This is a relationship of almost twenty years’ duration. Only Ms. Beaupre has experienced absences from the workforce and these relate entirely to the marriage: maternity leaves and unemployment following their relocation from Alberta to Nova Scotia when Mr. Beaupre was transferred by his employer. Otherwise, both spouses were employed. She continues to act as primary caregiver to the couple’s younger daughter, while providing a home to their older daughter. [57] There was no specific evidence about the parties’ incomes in Alberta. It’s clear that Ms. Beaupre earns considerably less than her husband, earning approximately one-half of what he earns at Canada Post. She is doing the same sort of work she did in Calgary, and since the separation, she has pursued promotions in her employment. [58] Ms. Beaupre will receive an equal share of the pension her husband earned at Canada Post during their relationship. He continues to contribute to this pension, while Ms. Beaupre has none. She has budgeted for no retirement savings. Ms. Beaupre’s income and financial circumstances [59] Ms. Beaupre earns $25,131.00 each year from the Halifax Regional School Board. She receives Employment Insurance benefits of $413.00 biweekly, for a period of five weeks each summer, providing her with an additional $1,032.50. She receives a monthly Canada Child Tax Benefit payment of $153.63. Her HST credit is being garnisheed because of an earlier overpayment, so I am not considering this. Ms. Beaupre will receive child support of $6,300.00 each year. Her annual income from all sources will total approximately $34,310.00 [60] The parties have agreed that Mr. Beaupre will keep the family’s home, and Ms. Beaupre will relocate with the girls. Her Statement of Expenses was prepared before concluding the agreement that she would leave the home, so it didn’t reflect the expenses she will have when she moves. Her current monthly housing cost is approximately $1,670.00 (mortgage, property taxes, property insurance, electricity and household maintenance). Based on her search for housing so far, she anticipated rent would be between $1,200.00 and $1,400.00 each month. This amount does not include utilities or a tenant’s insurance package. In the absence of exact figures, I estimate that all costs associated with her new housing will be $1,500.00 each month. [61] A review of her Statement of Expenses shows Ms. Beaupre’s expenses are reasonable. Her discretionary expenses are considerably less than her husband’s: he budgets $800.00 each month for gift giving, holidays, entertainment, savings and miscellaneous items while she allocates $190.00 for these costs. [62] Ms. Beaupre has made some errors in calculating her expenses. For example, she said she pays $111.71 each month in Canada Pension Plan premiums and $47.91 each month in Employment Insurance premiums. Both these amounts exceed what she is required to pay. (These overpayments may be the reason why she has received income tax refunds in each of the past three years. Certainly, her Notices of Assessment explicitly identify a CPP overpayment.) Ms. Beaupre’s annual CPP premium for 2014 should be approximately $1,070.00 (4.95% of her earnings above the $3,500.00 threshold) and her annual EI premium should be approximately $435.00 (1.88% of her total earnings). [63] Reducing the expenses shown on her Statement by $170.00 to reflect her new housing cost and by $34.00 to reflect her overstatement of CPP and EI premiums, Ms. Beaupre spends approximately $3,637.00 each month paying all her bills, excluding her income taxes. Her monthly income from all sources is approximately $2,859.00, leaving her with a monthly deficit of $778.00. This deficit does not consider her income taxes. [64] In order to meet her deficit and to pay the income taxes on her current income and her spousal support payments, Ms. Beaupre would need to receive monthly spousal support payments of approximately $1,155.00. [65] Mr. Beaupre’s Statement of Expenses shows he has a monthly surplus of $882.00. After his child support payments are made, he will continue to have a surplus of $307.00. At his marginal tax rate of thirty-seven percent, spousal support of $1,155.00 each month would cost him $728.00. He can pay $307.00 of this from his surplus, leaving him with a monthly deficit of $421.00. I acknowledge that awarding $1,155.00 in monthly spousal support creates a deficit for Mr. Beaupre while leaving Ms. Beaupre’s budget balanced. I am prepared to do this, recognizing that Ms. Beaupre’s balanced budget contains no savings whatsoever, while Mr. Beaupre has considerably greater spending on discretionary items such as vacations and holidays. [66] Given the duration of the relationship and its impact on the parties’ incomes and retirement positions, I order Mr. Beaupre to pay spousal support of $1,155.00 per month commencing October 31, 2014. Conclusion [67] Ms. Jass shall draft the orders. This shall include the Divorce Order, the Corollary Relief Order and the order dividing Mr. Beaupre’s employment pension. __________________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C. (F.D.) Halifax, Nova Scotia