Docket: CACV2303 Devon Lee Sterling (Respondent) Appellant - v. -, 2013 SKCA 103

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKCA 103 Date: 2013-09-24 Between: Docket: CACV2303 Devon Lee Sterling (Respondent) Appellant - and - Rebecca Jennifer Sterling (Petitioner) Respondent Coram: Richards C.J.S., Ottenbreit and Whitmore JJ.A. Counsel: R. Bradley Hunter, Q.C. for the appellant Drew Filyk for the respondent Appeal: From: 2012 SKQB 298 Heard: September 24, 2013 Disposition: Partially allowed (orally)

Written Reasons: October 2, 2013 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Whitmore In Concurrence: The Honourable Chief Justice Richards The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit Whitmore J.A. [ 1 ] The appellant, Devon Sterling, has appealed the decision of the Chambers judge dismissing an application to vary parenting arrangements and awarding the respondent, Rebecca Sterling, an increase in child support. [ 2 ] After hearing the appeal, the Court allowed the appeal from the judgment regarding the parenting arrangements and dismissed the appeal from the child support order with brief written reasons to follow.

This constitutes the written reasons for the Court’s decision. [ 3 ] In light of the Court’s decision, the facts need not be given in detail. They are summarized in the Chambers judge’s decision. See: 2012 SKQB 298 . [ 4 ] The application before the Chambers judge was comprised of an application to vary:

a) the child support and access provisions of the Interspousal Contract and Separation Agreement (“Separation Agreement”) entered into by the parties on April 21, 2009; and

b) the order granted by Mr. Justice Kraus on December 4, 2009. [ 5 ] The original parenting arrangements were contained in the separation agreement. There is no parenting order. [ 6 ] In Graham v. Tomlinson , 2010 SKCA 101 , 324 D.L.R. (4th) 156, this Court confirmed that neither the legislation nor the Rules of Court provide for an application to vary an agreement. [ 7 ] As such, the Chambers judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the parenting arrangements contained in the separation agreement.

The appeal of the Chambers judge’s decision regarding parenting arrangements is therefore allowed, but the appellant’s application to vary these arrangements is dismissed on the basis that the Chambers judge had no authority to deal with that matter. [ 8 ] Should the appellant wish to pursue the matter of variation of parenting arrangements he should do so pursuant to s. 16 of the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2 nd Supp.). [ 9 ] The application to amend the existing court order in place dealing with child support was properly before the Chambers judge because there was a court order speaking to that issue.

The Chambers judge held that the parties’ increased income provided grounds to amend the existing child support order. There is no evidence to suggest that the amount arrived at is anything but in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines . The appeal therefore with respect to the matter of child support is dismissed. [ 10 ] There is no order as to costs.