Aldridge v. Sundquist, 2010 ABQB 754

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Aldridge v. Sundquist, 2010 ABQB 754 Date: 20101130 Docket: FL03 26869 Registry: Edmonton Between: Joanne Aldridge Applicant - and - Jacquelyn Sundquist Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Sundquist seeks variation of an Ex Parte Order granted to Ms. Aldridge in this matter on November 15, 2010. Amongst other things, the order granted exclusive possession of the parties’ matrimonial home to Ms.

Aldridge, required Ms. Sundquist to vacate the home on very short notice, restrained Ms. Sundquist from attending within 250 metres of the home except to exercise access to the parties’ children, and declared Ms. Aldridge, on an interim basis, to be the primary residential parent of the children. [ 2 ] The parties’ relationship began about 11 years ago. They have 5-year-old twins, a girl and a boy. Both parties are legal guardians of both children. The parties are joint owners of a house which they acquired during their relationship. [ 3 ] In September 2010 Ms. Sundquist advised Ms.

Aldridge that their relationship was at an end. Both parties continued to live

[ 3 ] In September 2010 Ms. Sundquist advised Ms. Aldridge that their relationship was at an end. Both parties continued to live in the house nonetheless. They are both employed and their work schedules are such that Ms. Sundquist can look after the children in the morning and Ms. Aldridge can do so in the evening. [ 4 ] I gather that both parties had consulted lawyers with a view to resolving the issues raised by their relationship ending. On November 12, 2010 Ms. Aldridge’s lawyer applied in this Court for the Ex Parte Order now sought to be varied. Ms.

Sundquist’s lawyer disputes that there was any need for the application to be ex parte and submits that the judge who granted the order was not apprised of all the relevant facts. [ 5 ] Both parties have filed supplementary affidavits and I have read them. [ 6 ] Counsel have both advised that they do not anticipate that it will take long to resolve the property issue -i.e., who gets the house. Both are capable of buying the other’s interest. The question is who should be in the house pending that resolution. [ 7 ] Ms.

Sundquist is understandably upset that a decision regarding that point was made without notice to her. I do not say that the judge who granted the order ought not to have done so. I say only that I understand Ms. Sundquist being upset. [ 8 ] However, it appears to me that the fairest interim arrangement regarding possession of the house is the one effected by the Ex Parte Order. Ms. Sundquist has readily available alternate accommodation. Ms. Aldridge does not. [ 9 ] I appreciate that the real issue is not who stays in the house but who has charge of the children. Ms.

Sundquist’s counsel proposed an arrangement whereby Ms. Sundquist would stay in the house certain nights of the week and take care of the children and whereby Ms. Aldridge would stay in the house the remaining nights and take care of the children. When not in the house, Ms. Sundquist would stay with relatives. Those relatives are willing to accommodate Ms. Aldridge on the nights she is not in the house. [ 10 ] In my view this arrangement is not practical.

I will not order it. [ 11 ] As noted the real issue is as to the interim custody and access arrangements pending the ultimate determination of those issues. [ 12 ] In my view the practical and appropriate interim arrangement is that which was proposed by Ms. Aldridge’s counsel when the Ex Parte Order was served and which has been put into effect informally. Ms. Aldridge will retain exclusive possession of the matrimonial home subject to the following exception. Ms. Sundquist will be permitted to attend at the matrimonial home weekday mornings at 7:15 a.m. to get the children ready for school. Ms.

Aldridge will leave the home upon Ms. Sundquist’s arrival. Ms. Sundquist will see that the children get to school. [ 13 ] In addition to the access effected by that arrangement, Ms. Sundquist will have interim weekend access each Saturday beginning at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. [ 14 ] The Ex Parte Order is varied to that extent. Heard on the 26 th day of November 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 30 th day of November 2010.

Brian R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Julie C. Lloyd for the Applicant Deborah L. Baradziej for the Respondent