Bredeweg v Bredeweg, 2024 ABCA 54

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Bredeweg v Bredeweg, 2024 ABCA 54 Date: 20240220 Docket: 2301-0177AC Registry: Calgary Between: Lisa Gerda Bredeweg Respondent (Plaintiff) - and - Gerrit Jan Bredeweg Appellant (Defendant) _______________________________________________________ The Court: The Honourable Justice Kevin Feehan The Honourable Justice Anne Kirker The Honourable Justice April Grosse _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Judgment Appeal from the Order of The Honourable Justice D.V. Hartigan

Dated the 27th day of June, 2023 Filed on the 19th day of July, 2023 (Docket: 4806 022977) _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Judgment _______________________________________________________ The Court: [1] The appellant challenges an interim spousal support order granted in morning chambers, requiring him to pay $3200 permonth to the respondent. [2] The appellant acknowledges that the standard of review is deferential unless there was an error in principle, a significantmisapprehension of the evidence or the award was clearly wrong: Hickey v Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518, (SCC).

This isparticularly so given the interim nature of the award: AAA v KN, 2020 ABCA 141 at para 5. [3] We are not satisfied that the chambers justice made any reviewable error. The respondent has care of the parties’ fivechildren and earns no income other than non-cash dividends from a corporation held jointly with the appellant. The chambers justice didnot err in finding interim entitlement to compensatory and non-compensatory support. With respect to quantum, the $3200 per monthwas rational on an interim basis, based on the existing record.

Having failed to make disclosure as ordered by the court, it does not liewith the appellant to complain that the number ought to have been more refined. Chambers justices are often called upon to do the bestthey can on an incomplete record until the matter can go to trial: Anand v Anand, 2016 ABCA 23 at para 57. [4] The appeal is dismissed. We again urge parties to use their resources towards achieving final resolution of family law mattersrather than appeals of interim orders: for a recent example, see Rutter v Rutter, 2024 ABCA 11.

Appeal heard on February 12, 2024 Memorandum filed at Calgary, Alberta this 20th day of February, 2024 Authorized to sign for: Feehan J.A. Kirker J.A. Grosse J.A. Appearances:

A. Hayher, KC J. Lantz for the Respondent G. Bateyko for the Appellant