MacInnis v. MacInnis, 2011 ABQB 635

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: MacInnis v. MacInnis, 2011 ABQB 635 Date: 20111018 Docket: 4803 121848 Registry: Edmonton Between: Tracy Lynn MacInnis Plaintiff - and - Troy Douglas MacInnis Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Tracy Lynn MacInnis applies for the appointment of a Parenting Expert under Practice Note 7 to conduct an Intervention as contemplated in that Practice Note.

She also seeks increased access with the child who lives with Troy Douglas MacInnis. [ 2 ] The parties were married August 13, 1994 and divorced on April 12, 2003. They have three sons; 17, 15 and 11. The living arrangements have changed from time to time since the parties divorced. The children all lived with Ms. MacInnis until the summer of 2007. Then when Ms. MacInnis moved to Ontario the three sons went to live with Mr. MacInnis. Ms. MacInnis then joined the military and was stationed in New Brunswick. The eldest child went to live with his mother in New Brunswick in 2009. Ms.

MacInnis was then posted to Cold Lake, Alberta. In July 2010 the second son went to live with her in Cold Lake. The youngest son remains with his father, Mr. MacInnis.

[ 3 ] Ms. MacInnis exercises access to the youngest son approximately one weekend a month at present. She seeks more. She also seeks to have Mr. MacInnis share the driving for her access. Ms. MacInnis also, indeed, primarily, seeks primary residency of the youngest son. [ 4 ] Both parties have filed affidavits in which they indicate that the child in question has communicated a desire to them, in the father’s case, to remain with him, and in the mother’s case, to change his primary residence to hers.

The materials also indicate that the parties are at an impasse in relation to whether the mother’s access should be increased, as an interim or long term order, or remain as it is. [ 5 ] Ms. MacInnis seeks a Practice Note 7 Intervention in the hope that the Parenting Expert might assist the parties to put a parenting plan in place which would be in the best interests of the youngest child. [ 6 ] Mr. MacInnis does not oppose the Practice Note 7 order.

He does oppose any change to the access regime. [ 7 ] I reserved my decision when this application, which was made by telephone, was argued because I had no prior access to the affidavits and because I wanted to consider whether the situation justified a Practice Note 7 order. [ 8 ] I have now done so. I am satisfied that a Practice Note 7 Intervention Order should be made. The purpose of the Intervention will be to assist the parties to resolve their conflict concerning access to, and the primary residence of, their youngest son.

I understand the parties are in agreement as to the Parenting Expert who should be appointed. The cost of the Intervention shall initially be shared equally between the parties without prejudice to the cost being reassigned in a future court order concerning costs. [ 9 ] I have deliberately not made any order adjusting access at this point. In my view that should be a subject initially addressed with the parties by the Parenting Expert. Heard on the 29 th day of September 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 18 th day of October 2011. Brian R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

V. G. Findlater for the Plaintiff The Defendant appeared without counsel.