Letourneau v. Letourneau, 2011 ABQB 529

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Letourneau v. Letourneau, 2011 ABQB 529 Date : 20110826 Docket: 4803 148854 Registry: Edmonton Between: Susan Ombra Letourneau Applicant - and - Leo Joseph Letourneau Respondent Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on September 28, 2011; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Sterling Sanderman _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Letourneaus are married but have been separated for a significant period of time. The marriage is over. Property issues have been resolved. Mr. Letourneau wishes to have a normal relationship with his two daughters. The eldest will celebrate her seventeenth birthday next month. The youngest celebrated her twelfth birthday this month. [ 2 ] This high conflict divorce has been under case management for approximately one year. It entered case management after a Practice Note 7 Intervention was ordered.

The Practice Note 7 Intervention was necessary in order to assist Mr. Letourneau in his desire

to have a normal relationship with his daughters. Minimal progress has been made in this regard. The matter was back before the court at his request on August 18, 2011 in order to have the Practice Note 7 Intervention reestablished. [ 3 ] The matter was removed from this type of framework due to two factors. Firstly, the team charged with the responsibility of assisting this family in dealing with existing problems found it very difficult to work with Ms. Letourneau because of her rigid attitudes in relation to a number of matters.

Secondly, counsel and the parties desired to try to achieve a solution outside of the intervention structure. I accepted this suggestion due to the age of the children and the fact that Ms. Letourneau promised to embrace the alternative approach. Mr. Letourneau now asks to abandon this effort and to reinstitute the Practice Notice 7 Intervention team. [ 4 ] As the case management judge I am aware of the history of this matter. I have read the extensive Affidavits filed by both parties on this application. I have read the respective cross-examinations on the affidavits.

Without a doubt this is a dysfunctional family. It appears as if the daughters possess unreasonable fears that very well may be generated by the anxiety their mother possesses in relation to others. They have an unreasonable fear to ride in a motor vehicle with their father. They have unreasonable fears in relation to their grandparents. Much repair is needed in order to reestablish a proper relationship with their father. It is in their best interest that they have such a relationship. [ 5 ] Not much chance was given to allow the Practice Note 7 Intervention to work.

It is obvious from the materials reviewed that Ms. Letourneau was never willing to give it a reasonable opportunity. She was resistant to the process and to those engaged in seeing that it would work. Because of the age of the oldest daughter, I was prepared to try any solution outside the strict parameters of the Practice Note 7 Intervention that I thought might work. Ms. Letourneau ’ s stated intention to faithfully seek a solution outside the Practice Note 7 Intervention lent hope to the process. The parties were given an opportunity to find a solution without the assistance of third parties.

Unfortunately, the hopes I had for progress have not materialized. [ 6 ] The reason for this is clear. Ms. Letourneau has not fully cooperated with the process she suggested. Her commitment to working with her husband in order to address his failed relationship with his daughters has been questionable. She attended the first meetings he had with his daughters and attempted to control the interaction. She created an artificial environment that was not conducive to allowing the relationship between father and daughters to develop.

The only time that any progress appeared to be made was just before regularly scheduled case management meetings caused her to make concessions that she believed might please the court. Her behaviour with the Practice Note 7 Intervention team and the court has been manipulative. She wants to control the process to her benefit. She has not been committed to working with her husband outside the Practice Note 7 Intervention. [ 7 ] Without her personal assistance, this process is doomed to failure. Ms. Letourneau is not forward looking. She continues to be rooted in the past.

Her affidavit evidence clearly reveals that she is caught up with the minutiae of the disputes that occurred with her husband some time ago. She cannot let go. She revisits the past and has been able to convince her daughters of the righteousness of her position. They are supportive of their mother and they adopt without hesitation her version of the past. Mother and daughters have adopted a fortress mentality in relation to any contentious matter that might exist between mother and father. They have become the collective “ we ” . [ 8 ] Although Ms.

Letourneau vehemently denies engaging in any intentional conduct that has led to the formation of such rigid beliefs on the part of her daughters, the weight of the evidence leads to a contrary conclusion. Even if her behaviour was not intentional, it has led to the same result. [ 9 ] Ms. Letourneau cannot see the need to change her attitudes. A serious problem exists and she does not appear to recognize this. Her behaviour has had a tremendously adverse affect upon her daughters and their ability to form a proper relationship with their father. Professional assistance is required to address this problem.

Working without professionals has not advanced the cause in any fashion. [ 10 ] Mr. Letourneau is an educator. He has been off work for the past seven weeks. His daughters are still enrolled in school. They have been off during the same period of time. If Ms. Letourneau had been serious about wanting to work outside the Practice Note 7 Intervention team and to truly reestablish a positive relationship between father and daughters, the last seven weeks would have provided the perfect opportunity to attempt to make some progress. No extra effort on her part has materialized.

She is content to do the minimal amount she feels will satisfy the court. That is no longer sufficient.

[ 11 ] She argues that some progress has been made and that to return to the Practice Note 7 Intervention team at this time would discourage further candid conversations between father and daughters. She feels that the gains that have been made have been sufficient and that to abandon the present structure would be counterproductive. With this assertion I disagree. It is time to go back to the Practice Note 7 Intervention. [ 12 ] There has been an increase in Mr. Letourneau ’ s income over the past year. That does require an adjustment in relation to the

Section 3 child support he pays for his two daughters. His monthly payment should increase to $1,640.00 per month. His monthly spousal support obligation should rise to $2,242.00 per month. The costs of the Practice Note 7 Intervention can be deducted from his monthly spousal support obligations. Of course, all efforts should be made by the parties in order to reduce the cost of the counselling. [ 13 ] Regular case management meetings will be scheduled at the convenience of counsel. If the Practice Note 7 Intervention team believes that specified access is in order, I would contemplate that.

If they feel that there should be overnight access ordered, I would contemplate that. [ 14 ] Each party will bear its own costs. Heard on the 18 th day of August, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of August, 2011. Sterling Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Harold Hinz Skovberg Hinz For the Applicant Gordon H. Andreiuk Ticoll Andreiuk for the Respondent

_______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of The Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling Sanderman _______________________________________________________ The hearing date on Page 4 has been changed to the 18 th day of August, 2011.