Docket: CACV 2379 Gregory Brent Amos Appellant - v. -, 2013 SKCA 102

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKCA 102 Date: 2013-09-30 Between: Docket: CACV 2379 Gregory Brent Amos Appellant - and - Bonnie Joanne Fischer Respondent Coram: Jackson, Ottenbreit &Whitmore JJ.A. Counsel: Gregory Amos for the Appellant Kathleen Peterson for the Respondent Appeal: From: FLD No. 295 of A.D. 2002, J.C. Regina Heard: September 23, 2013 Disposition: Appeal Dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: September 30, 2013 By: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson

In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf The Honourable Mr. Justice Whitmore Jackson J.A. (orally) [1] As has been often stated, an appellate court should not overturn a support order unless the reasons disclose an error in principle, asignificant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is clearly wrong (see: Hickey v. Hickey, (SCC),[1999] 2 SCR 518). [2] Mr. Amos seeks to overturn the decision of Schwann J. who increased Mr. Amos’s support obligation for his 11-year-old son(see: 2013 SKQB 49, 413 Sask. R. 126).

He has appealed the Chambers decision on several grounds including on the footing that thejudge misapplied Contino v. Leonelli- Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217 by not imposing a support obligation on his formerspouse’s new husband—and relieving Mr. Amos of any obligation to support his son. In that regard, Mr. Amos believes he should havebeen able to rely upon a Notice to Admit Facts in order to have the new husband declared in loco parentis.

He had served the noticeprior to the return Chambers date for the hearing of his former wife’s application for variation of a support order that had not kept pacewith increases to Mr. Amos’s salary. [3] A Notice to Admit Facts served pursuant to Rule 244 cannot be used in the proceedings or in the manner suggested by Mr.Amos. Further, and more importantly, the Chambers judge did, as a matter of law and fact, consider the new husband’s role andpermitted a set-off of incomes—notwithstanding that Ms. Fischer earns considerably less than Mr. Amos. The Chambers judge alsomade other findings in Mr.

Amos’s favour including making no order as to costs—notwithstanding Ms. Fischer’s successful applicationto vary the existing support order. [4] Mr. Amos has not interpreted The Queen’s Bench Rules correctly (including Rules 156 and 247) and has taken aspects of thedecision of the Chambers judge out of context. This is perhaps understandable, because Mr. Amos is unrepresented, but nonetheless hisreading of the Rules, the Contino decision and the Chambers judge’s decision is without any legal foundation. Mr. Amos has also relied on individual sentences in such decisions as Swindler v.

Swindler, 2005 SKCA 131, 261 D.L.R. (4th) 361—a decision directed not todeclaring a new partner in loco parentis for the purposes of cancelling a parent’s obligation of support, but to prevent the new partnerfrom unilaterally terminating an existing support order. [5] Applying the standard of review from Hickey, there is simply no tenable basis upon which this Court can find fault with thedecision under appeal. [6] Ms. Fischer claims costs in this Court. Given the grounds of appeal, we cannot give the indulgence of an order that each sideshould bear their own costs. The appeal is clearly without merit, but Ms.

Fischer has incurred costs to defend against it. Hence, theremust be an order as to costs which we will fix to eliminate the need to assess them. [7] The appeal is dismissed. Mr. Amos will pay Ms. Fischer’s costs in the amount of $1500.