The judge noted that the man chose to resign from his Singapore employer in October 2023, shortly after the woman applied for maintenance. - Photo: ST
SINGAPORE: A Canadian man quit his high-paying job in Singapore and moved back to his home country after his estranged wife applied for maintenance for herself and their four children.
A warrant of arrest was issued against him after he failed to attend a court mention in January 2024.
The warrant was cancelled only in December that year after he attended a court mention held via Zoom with his lawyers.
He has been ordered by a district judge to pay nearly S$634,000 in maintenance backdated to September 2023, when he reduced financial support to the family after he moved out to live with another woman.
The sum covers the period between September 2023 and September 2025.
The judge also ordered him to pay $23,500 in monthly maintenance starting from October 2024, when he started working for an employer in Canada.
In a judgment dated Dec 29, 2025, District Judge Phang Hsiao Chung said that until the man started in his job in Canada, his earning capacity should be based on his income while he was employed by the Singapore employer.
The man’s annual income in 2023 was more than $860,000.
The judge noted that the man chose to resign from his Singapore employer in October 2023, shortly after the woman applied for maintenance.
He said: “The responsible thing for the father to do would have been to take steps to secure a new role that would have enabled him to provide an appropriate level of financial support for his family before resigning from the Singapore employer.”
However, the judge said there appeared to be a genuine decrease in the man’s earning capacity after he started working in Canada.
Judge Phang found that the man’s annual income at his job in Canada, net of income tax deducted upfront from his salary, amounted to about C$341,000 (S$315,700).
The judge said the woman would have to reduce her reliance on financial support from the man if she wished to continue with the same standard of living.
He noted that while she cannot work in Singapore as the holder of a long-term visit pass, there is evidence that she has a Canadian private banking account. She also has educational qualifications that may enable her to find a suitable job in Singapore.
“Having regard to the father’s reduced earning capacity, and the mother’s choice to raise the children in Singapore, it was only fair that both parties should contribute equally to the maintenance of the mother and the children from October 2024 onwards,” said the judge.
The couple and their children are Canadian nationals. The family moved to Singapore in 2013.
The man, a senior executive in the Singapore office of a multinational corporation, was employed on generous terms that included expatriate allowances.
The woman was a homemaker and was in Singapore on a dependant’s pass.
Their children, who were born between 2006 and 2013, studied at international schools.
In August 2023, the man unilaterally moved out of the family home to live with another woman.
He initially offered his wife $20,000 a month to support the family, in addition to paying for the children’s school fees, school bus fees and the monthly rent of the family home.
The offer was later reduced to $11,000 a month.
This prompted the woman to file an application on Oct 2, 2023, to obtain maintenance for herself and the children.
On Oct 9, 2023, the man resigned from his job. He left Singapore in January 2024 and moved to Canada.
On April 16, 2024, the woman filed for divorce.
The man resumed participation in the maintenance application after interim judgment was granted in the divorce on Nov 6, 2024.
The woman is currently in Singapore on a long-term visit pass dependent on the children’s student passes.
She contended that since he left the family home, the man had failed to provide reasonable financial support for her and the children.
She admitted that the expenses claimed were higher than those of an average family in Singapore but said this was because they enjoyed a high standard of living, and cited the offer he initially made.
The woman, who was represented by Clement Yap and Jasmine Chang from Harry Elias Partnership, argued that he had quit his job to avoid his maintenance obligations.
The man, who was represented by Peggy Yee from PY Legal, highlighted the woman’s expenditure on her nails and cosmetic treatments, braces for the eldest child, flights and holidays, and Formula One race tickets.
He pointed out dubious and unsubstantiated claims, such as $750 a month for “devices wear and tear/ replacement”.
The man argued that the family should move to Canada, where healthcare and education are free.
The woman countered that only public schooling is free, and that the fees of private schools are similar to those at international schools in Singapore. - The Straits Times/ANN
