nunavuumi iqkaqtuijikkut NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE La Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: Podmoroff v. Podmoroff, 2014 NUCJ 38 Date: 20141215 Docket: 08-14-191 ISO Registry: Iqaluit Applicant: Wayne Peter Podmoroff -and- Respondent: Roza Marina Podmoroff ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Cooper Counsel (Applicant): James Morton Counsel (Respondent): Self-Represented Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: December 8, 2014 Matters: Application to vary spousal support REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This is an application by the husband for variation of a Spousal Support Order issued by the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba on November 14, 2013. [ 2 ] The Order sets the amount of arrears and provides for ongoing spousal support in the amount of $4,000 per month. It is an Interim Order, indicating that the litigation is ongoing. The husband was represented by counsel at the Manitoba hearing, however, it does not appear that he filed an affidavit or other materials. II.

APPLICATION [ 3 ] The husband seeks to rescind arrears and to vary the ongoing payments to $1,688 per month. [ 4 ] The husband filed an affidavit in support of his current application. The affidavit has attached as an exhibit a copy of the Order from Manitoba. The Court does not have the benefit of a transcript from the proceedings in Manitoba, any of the pleadings and materials filed in Manitoba, nor, in particular, the affidavit of the wife. [ 5 ] The husband seeks a variation of the Spousal Support Order [the Order] on the basis of a change in circumstances.

It is argued that the worsening of the husband's financial circumstances since the Order was issued constitutes the change in circumstances necessary to trigger a review and variation. The husband's income was garnisheed leaving him in very difficult financial circumstances. [ 6 ] There are concerns with this application. III. ANALYSIS [ 7 ] The information provided to the Court is insufficient. On the information provided, the Court is unable to even determine the length of the marriage or period of cohabitation as the information that there is on this point is conflicting.

Information regarding the circumstances as they were at the time the Order was made in Manitoba would have assisted the Court in determining if there had been a change of circumstances since that time. [ 8 ] It was submitted on behalf of the husband that the parties did not cohabit for approximately 10 years, that the wife is capable of working, that she has not provided medical reports and financial information as required, and that, if the wife had been cross-examined on her affidavit, the Order made by the Court in Manitoba would have been different. [ 9 ] That may all be correct but these arguments do not speak to a material change in circumstances; they are a restatement of the case as it was before the Court in Manitoba.

The applicant is not pleading a change in circumstances, he is pleading for relief from the consequences of the Manitoba Order. The applicant's remedy is to either appeal the decision or, preferably, to take steps to move the matter on to a final hearing. [ 10 ] The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 13 , is intended to provide an easily accessible, cost efficient method of dealing with issues of support when the parties do not live in the same jurisdiction. It is not intended to provide the parties with multiple opportunities to reargue their case before different decision makers. IV.

CONCLUSION

[ 11 ] This application was filed in April of 2014. For reasons which are not entirely clear it has taken several court appearances and eight months for the matter to be heard. Yet counsel for the husband advises that steps have not yet been taken in Manitoba to compel the production of documents from the wife; documents which they say would lead a court to a different conclusion on the quantum of support. It is unfortunate that so much time and energy has been misdirected, potentially to the detriment of the applicant.

However, the material before the Court does not satisfy the threshold requirement of a change in circumstances necessary to consider a variation. [ 12 ] For these reasons the application is dismissed. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 15th day of December, 2014 ___________________ Justice S. Cooper Nunavut Court of Justice ADDENDUM [1] This matter was heard in Chambers on December 8, 2014, and a Memorandum of Judgment was issued on December 15, 2014. At the time of the Chambers hearing and the issuance of the Memorandum of Judgment I did not have the applicant's Brief.

For some reason it did not make it on to the file until after December 15th, 2014. This was through no fault of the applicant. [2] In the December 15th, 2014, Memorandum of Judgment I was concerned that the delay in bringing the application to a hearing in this jurisdiction was not adequately explained. The Brief addressed that concern.

The reason appears to be a combination of issues in serving the respondent, requests for adjournments by the respondent, and the fact that Chambers is held only monthly in this jurisdiction. [3] The December 15th, 2014, Memorandum of Judgment dismissed the application to vary the monthly spousal support and to rescind the arrears. It is not entirely clear from the materials what the current arrears are as it appears that there have been ongoing garnishees.

There is evidence that at some point the amount of arrears had almost doubled to what they had been when the Court in Manitoba issued its decision. [4] There is some evidence that the applicant is taking on more debt to service the arrears and to meet his other financial obligations and that this is causing significant hardship. In accordance with the principle set out in T(

H) v T (C), 2006 NUCJ 19 , 2006 CarswellNun 23 , I am prepared to grant some relief from the increasing debt until the issues between the parties can be finalized. Accordingly, I direct that enforcement of arrears accrued as of today's date be suspended until October 1, 2015. This direction does not apply to any arrears which accrue onwards from the date of this Addendum. The suspension will be time limited so as to ensure that steps are taken in a timely manner in the originating jurisdiction to bring this matter to resolution.

[5] Counsel for the applicant is directed to prepare a draft Order reflecting the decision on the application. As the respondent is self- represented, it is not necessary to circulate it to her for review and approval. A copy of the Order is to be provided to the Court in Manitoba. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 06th day of January, 2015 ___________________ Justice S. Cooper Nunavut Court of Justice