Bleoo v. Bleoo, 2011 ABQB 16

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Bleoo v. Bleoo, 2011 ABQB 16 Date: 20110111 Docket: 4803 150262 Registry: Edmonton Between: Stacey Lynn Bleoo Respondent (Plaintiff) - and - Jean-Pierre Bleoo Applicant (Defendant) Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling Sanderman _______________________________________________________

[1] Ms. Bleoo, now known as Ms. Hume, and Mr. Bleoo began to cohabit in 1998. They married in October of 2000. Theyseparated in May of 2009, although both continued to reside in different areas of the matrimonial home. During the time of their livestogether, two children were born. A daughter, Kayla, celebrated her eleventh birthday on [...] 2010. A son, Joah, celebrated his fifthbirthday in July of 2010. [2] In September of 2009, the parents adopted a shared parenting arrangement in relation to the children. The children remainedin the matrimonial home and the parents moved in and out on alternate weeks.

This arrangement continued until January of 2010 whenthe matrimonial home was sold. At the time that this matter was argued in December of 2010, approximately $220,000.00 remained intrust as a result of this sale. Equal sums have been released to both parties from this source. This was done by agreement between theparties. [3] The sale of the matrimonial home did not affect the shared parenting schedule. Both parents obtained alternateaccommodation and were able to continue the weekly transfer of the children without any real difficulty. This arrangement has been ineffect for over 15 months.

It appears to be workable. Both parents have good parenting skills and are committed to insuring that theirchildren are well looked after. It certainly is in the best interests of both children that they have as much contact as possible with eachparent. [4] Although the arrangement is workable, it is not perfect and some problems have arisen that require attention. Those matterswill be dealt with later in this decision. [5] Since February of 2010, Ms. Hume has paid child support to Mr. Bleoo. The usual setoff approach that one often sees inshared parenting arrangements has been in force.

The parties agreed to this approach. Mr. Bleoo wants the child support paid by Ms.Hume increased. He argues that the setoff approach is not fair. He argues that the considerable disparity in their incomes significantlycompromises the standard of living the children have when they are with him. He seeks a greater contribution from Ms. Hume in order toinsure that the children do not have a lower standard of living when they are with him. [6] Ms. Hume’s annual income is slightly in excess of $202,000.00. Mr. Bleoo has an annual income that falls between$60,000.00 and $75,000.00.

The discrepancy is dependant upon how a military pension he receives is characterized. For the purposes ofthe applications brought by both parties, this pension is deemed to be income rather than matrimonial property. It is a pension paid tohim by the armed forces of this country not only for his service but for a recognizable disability he suffered during the time he had thatemployment.

Because of the dual aspect of this pension, it is more appropriate to characterize it as income rather than matrimonialproperty. [7] Because this is a true shared parenting arrangement, s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines governs. That

section states: 9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 percent of the time over thecourse of a year, the amount of child support order must be determined by taking into account (

a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses; (

b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and (

c) the conditions, means, need and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought. [8] The Supreme Court of Canada in Contino v. Leonelli-Contino 2005 SCC 63 , [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217 examined s. 9and gave directions how this approach differs from the usual payer-recipient model found in s. 3. The three factors listed in s.9 determinethe amount of the child support. No one factor is to prevail over the other. The weight given to each one will vary according to the factsof each case. The language of s. 9 mandates an emphasis on flexibility and fairness to insure that the economic reality and particularcircumstances of each family is taken into account.

[ 9 ] The setoff approach is a good starting point for a s. 9 analysis, but it must be followed by a careful examination of the ability of the recipient parent to meet the needs of the children. It is necessary for the Court to closely examine the real contributions that each parent is making compared to the table amount that is fixed to each parent. A close examination of the actual contributions that each parent makes in relation to child related expenses is necessary in order to determine which parent bears what costs. This is the type of analysis that is required by s. 9(a).

If there is a significant variation in the standard of living enjoyed by the children as they move from one home to the other, then an adjustment by the Court would be warranted. [ 10 ]

Section 9(

b) recognizes that the total cost of raising children may be greater in a shared custody arrangement. It is recommended that the Court examine the budgets presented by both parents and determine what the actual expenditures of each parent is in meeting the needs of the children when they have them in their care. If the shared custody results in increased costs that are significant, then the added expenses should be apportioned between the parents in accordance with their respective incomes. [ 11 ]

Section 9(

c) gives the Court a broad discretion to analyze the resources and needs not only of the children but of the parents. The objective of the Child Support Guidelines is to require a fair contribution from both parents while maintaining a standard of support for the children that is fair in the circumstances. The Court is required to look at the standard of living of the children in each household. If there is a discrepancy because of the inability of one parent to maintain the requisite standard of living then an adjustment should be made.

Once again, accurate budgets in relation to the expense of maintaining the children in each home are necessary to aid the Court in this analysis.

Hard and accurate evidence in this regard is required before the Court can properly determine whether or not there is a reduced standard of living in one of the residences and whether an adjustment is necessary pursuant to s. 9. [ 12 ] At para. 82 of their decision, the Supreme Court of Canada directs courts to adopt a contextual approach and to take into account all three factors found in s. 9. [ 13 ] To put this analysis in a proper context, it is necessary to examine why there is a marked difference in the income of the parties. Before and during cohabitation and after marriage, Ms.

Hume actively pursued higher education. She received her BSc. in 1994. She began to cohabit with Mr. Bleoo in 1998. She received her PhD in 2002. Prior to receiving this advanced degree, she earned income as a graduate teaching assistant. She pursued a post doctoral fellowship between 2003 and 2005. [ 14 ] She has been much more focussed on improving her career opportunities through higher education. She has obtained a responsible high income position through her intelligence and industry. [ 15 ] Mr. Bleoo has been much less dedicated to career advancement.

Even though opportunities have been made available to him, he appears to be much less dedicated to pursuing advancement through education and training. Possibly, his attitude has been partially formed by the safety net he enjoys by having a high earning spouse. One cannot discount entirely the claim by Ms. Hume that he viewed her as his “sugar mama”. [ 16 ] Ms. Hume claims that it would be highly improper to increase her child support payments beyond what they presently are.

She argues that his claim for increased financial contribution from her is a thinly disguised attempt to equalize their incomes. [ 17 ] Applying the contextual approach mandated by Contino v. Leonelli-Contino , I come to the conclusion that her position is preferable to Mr. Bleoo’s. Not only must one look at the reason for the difference in incomes, but one must look at the contributions each parent made to the support of the family and the children after separation.

Her superior contributions have been substantiated by her complete and thorough record keeping in relation to expenditures she has made on behalf of the children. Mr. Bleoo can point to nothing other than his claim that he made certain expenditures. Her claims are supported by third party documentation that cannot be questioned. His are not. [ 18 ] Lastly, both parties’ budgets are somewhat inflated as they contain non-recurring costs that have nothing to do with providing for the children. Mr.

Bleoo has clearly failed to establish that there is a difference in the standard of living experienced by the children in the two homes. He has failed to meet the evidentiary burden that would warrant the Court ordering Ms. Hume to pay more than the setoff amount based upon the respective incomes of $202,000.00 a year for Ms. Hume and an imputed income of $70,000.00 a year for Mr. Bleoo. Counsel can determine the setoff amount required to be paid by Ms. Hume to Mr. Bleoo as her child support obligation. This child support regime takes effect on January 1, 2011.

[ 19 ] As indicated earlier, Ms. Hume’s record keeping in relation to expenditures for the children is impeccable. Unfortunately, she has not restricted her record keeping to matters of this sort. For some reason it has become necessary for her to keep score in relation to incidents of embarrassment that have occurred between the parties that do little to advance positively the matters in issue between them.

This unnecessary lashing out in her affidavit evidence destroys lines of communication, hardens positions and makes it difficult to make rational decisions in relation to the best interests of the children. [ 20 ] Both parties need to focus on their children’s present needs and long term goals. They have an overriding obligation to make selfless decisions in order to insure that the future of their children will be happy and productive. Both parents need to make personal sacrifices for the sake of their children’s future. The two of them have a common obligation.

Their task is to insure that their children develop their talents and abilities to the greatest possible extent. A poisoned environment where score keeping is important to the parents is not conducive to the children’s future happiness. [ 21 ] Because the parents cannot put their needs and desires to the side, they cannot reach consensus on relatively simple matters. The Court does not intend to make an order that micro manages matters that are best decided by the parents.

Consequently, there will be no order in relation to lost or damaged clothing. [ 22 ] There are two parenting issues that do require direction from the Court. It is ordered that neither parent will take the children outside of the province when school is in session without the permission in writing of the other parent. Education is an important aspect of any child’s life. School should not be missed in order for the child to accompany a parent for recreational purposes without the permission of the other parent. [ 23 ] It is also ordered that there will be no Monday access for the non-custodial parent.

This interruption of the equal shared parenting regime creates more problems than it solves. It will no longer take place. [ 24 ] Mr. Bleoo suggests that the shared parenting regime take a different form in the summer months. He feels that it would be better if each parent had the children for a period of three uninterrupted weeks during the summer time so that proper vacation plans could be made. He suggests that two blocks of three uninterrupted weeks be set at the beginning and the end of the summer vacation. The parents would change their three-week period from year to year. Ms. Hume resists this suggestion.

She does not quarrel with the fact that each parent should have equal time with the children in the summer but because of her professional obligations she cannot agree to such an inflexible regime. [ 25 ] Her reluctance to accept Mr. Bleoo’s suggestion is not unreasonable. She cannot forecast with any degree of certainty when she might be available to take the children for this length of time because of her work obligations. A more acceptable regime would be for her to make her proposal for the summer of 2011 to Mr. Bleoo by April 1, 2011. If he is content with that proposal then he can accept it.

If he sees some flaw in her suggestion then he can submit an alternate proposal to her in writing by April 15, 2011. If the parties cannot agree to a

schedule then it will be necessary for them to seek mediation or to come to court. [ 26 ] Ms. Hume seeks an order allowing her to take her daughter for counselling without the permission of Mr. Bleoo. Although there is conflicting evidence in relation to emotional difficulties being experienced by Kayla, the weight of the evidence suggests that she would benefit from counselling at this time. Consequently, Ms. Hume is allowed to take Kayla for counselling with Dr. Bonnie Haave without Mr. Bleoo’s permission. Ms. Hume will be responsible for paying for the counselling.

There is no evidence that suggests that Joah is in need of any counselling. [ 27 ] Ms. Hume has been receiving the Child Tax Credit for both children. This is unfair as it does not represent the true status of the arrangement between the parents. Each parent should receive the credit for one child. I leave it to counsel to arrange for this change and to make any necessary financial adjustment to reflect the inequities of the last 15 months.

This sum should have been shared equally since the shared parenting arrangement came into existence. [ 28 ] As a housekeeping matter, the style of cause in relation to this matter will be amended to reflect the reality of the situation. This marriage is over and Ms. Hume chooses to be known by her maiden name. Consequently, in any further applications in relation to this matter, the style of cause will be amended so that she is identified as Stacey Lynn Hume.

[ 29 ] There will be no costs granted in this matter. Each party will bear their own. Heard on the 15 th day of December, 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 11 th day of January, 2011. Sterling Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mr. Hu Eliot Young for the Respondent (Plaintiff) Ms. Tina Huizinga for the Applicant (Defendant)