Thomson v. Thomson, 2011 MBCA 28

Citation: Thomson v. Thomson, 2011 MBCA 28 Date: 20110309 Docket: AF 10-30-07451 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Scott Mr. Justice Richard J. Chartier Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin BETWEEN: TERRI-LYN THOMSON ) S. D. Abel ) for the Appellant (Petitioner) Respondent ) ) K. L.

Dane- and - ) for the Respondent ) TROY DOUGLAS THOMSON ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) Appellant ) March 9, 2011 CHARTIER J.A. (for the Court): 1 The husband argues that the motions judge erred in principle by determining the quantum of interim spousal support solelybased on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) as opposed to the means and needs method described in Vauclair v. Vauclair(1998), (MB CA), 126 Man.R. (2d) 136 at para. 7 (C.A.).

While it is always useful for a motions judge to explaintheir reasoning for reaching a certain conclusion, we are all satisfied that in this case, when the judge completed his analysis of thefinancial disclosure, he also assessed the means and needs of the parties. 2 Moreover, in light of the husband’s own reference at the first-instance hearing that the motions judge apply the SSAG, werehe inclined to order spousal support, we are all of the view that the husband’s real objection is not methodology, but quantum. Significant deference is owed to a motions judge’s finding on quantum.

We remain unconvinced that the interim amount set for spousalsupport is clearly wrong. 3 The appeal is dismissed with costs. J.A. C.J.M. J.A.