Stenhouse v. Stenhouse, 2011 ABQB 624

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Stenhouse v. Stenhouse, 2011 ABQB 624 Date: 20111011 Docket: 4803 137669 Registry: Edmonton Between: Rebecca Ann Stenhouse Plaintiff(Respondent) - and - Chad Anthony Albert Stenhouse Defendant(Applicant) _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Stenhouse asks for relief from s.7 expenses ordered in a consent variation order issued in 2007 on the basis that the mother/creditor had not provided receipts for any such expenses.

In an earlier decision, I gave Mr. Stenhouse the opportunity of providing evidence that he had requested s.7 receipts for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Mr. Stenhouse has now indicated that he did not make any such request for the year 2009. Therefore, he is denied any relief with respect to s.7 expenses for 2009. [ 2 ] In 2010, Mr. Stenhouse did serve a Notice to Disclose relating to, among other matters, s.7 expenses; however, on September 2, 2010, Mr. Stenhouse adjourned both his request for disclosure, and Ms. Stenhouse's cross-motion for disclosure, sine die .

Although there is some disagreement about whether the adjournment was made with Ms. Stenhouse's consent, the fact is that nothing more was raised by Mr. Stenhouse with respect to 2010 s.7 expenses during that year. The fact that a cross-motion for disclosure was also adjourned suggests that, on balance, Mr. Stenhouse decided not to pursue any s.7 issues for that year. Therefore, he is denied any relief

with respect to s.7 expenses for 2010, other than as noted hereunder. [ 3 ] In May, 2011, Mr. Stenhouse served a new Notice to Disclose relating to, among other matters, s.7 expenses. On this occasion, Ms. Stenhouse replied that the s.7 expenses consisted of $20.00 monthly for prescription medication not paid for by insurance, a total of $400.00 for dance lessons for one of the children for the period 2010-2011 - a period which, because of the mother's comments concerning that child's post-secondary education plans, presumably coincided with the academic year - and $350.00 for hockey. No receipts were provided..

As I mentioned during the hearing, s.7 expenses for extracurricular activities are only payable where those extracurricular expenses are both extraordinary and reasonable. It may well be that, in most cases, a total of $400.00 a school year for dance lessons, and a total of $350.00 per season for hockey are not extraordinary but, rather, reflect what most families would spend for their children. However, in this case, the previous s.7 orders included that type of expense. Therefore, in the specific circumstances here, the court accepts that these expenses are proper s.7 expenses. While Ms.

Stenhouse has not provided receipts for the s.7 expenses claimed, the amount of those expenses appears on their face to be reasonable; as indicated in the previous decision, from now on, receipts must be provided. Nevertheless, in the circumstances here, given that the original s.7 orders did not require receipts, the court accepts the mother's claim for s.7 expenses without receipts. Coincidentally, Mr. Stenhouse adjourned his previous application for disclosure on September 2, 2010 and Ms. Stenhouse's material refers either to regular monthly expenses or to expenses paid on a seasonal basis.

Therefore, for the period commencing September 2, 2010 to the period covered in my previous written decision, Mr. Stenhouse's s.7 expense will be his proportionate share of: the $20.00 per month prescription cost; the total cost of the dance lessons; and, the hockey registration. Any difference between his share of those costs and the total s.7 expense attributed to him in the consent variation order of 2007 will be credited to his child support account. [ 4 ] There has been divided success on this issue; therefore each party will bear their own costs of this issue.

Heard on the 10 th day of August, 2011, with submissions received September 13 th and 19 th , 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 11 th day of October, 2011. “J.B. Veit” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jerry D. Kiriak, Kiriak Law for the Respondent, Ms. Stenhouse Derek A. Stone, Legal Family Crisis Clinic for the Applicant, Mr. Stenhouse