Odugbemi v. Odugbemi, 2011 ABQB 763

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Odugbemi v. Odugbemi, 2011 ABQB 763 Date: 20111206 Docket: 4803 156806 Registry: Edmonton Between: Olabisi Olumbimisola Odugbemi Applicant - and - Oluwole David Odugbemi Defendant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B.

Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff asks for solicitor-client costs for: dealings with two lawyers who initially advised that they were acting for the respondent, and the respondent’s failure to provide the financial disclosure ordered by Burrows J. on November 15, 2011. She argues that the respondent’s conduct in each situation has been egregious. [ 2 ] The application for solicitor-client costs is denied.

[ 3 ] With respect to the time spent in sorting out the group of lawyers who purported to represent the respondent at the outset of these proceedings, it is not surprising that a spouse who is in a professional corporation relationship with his wife, who is not the subject of criminal proceedings, with respect to whom there is no reason to suppose that he will become violent if advised of court proceedings, but who must deal, without notice, with an order which requires him to immediately leave his home and his children should rush around to attempt to find legal representation within the short time lines.

It would be unfair to expect that a respondent in such circumstances should be perfectly calm and ordered. On the contrary, stress associated with the breakup of both a personal and a professional relationship is normal and can be even be detected, for example, in the flurry of notices of motion the applicant has served on the respondent. The applicant was, of course, entitled to begin these proceedings with an ex parte application; however, she must bear the associated costs of having chosen to proceed in that manner.

One of those costs is the cost of having to grant adjournments until a response to the ex parte order has been sorted out. I have read the affidavit filed by the respondent in relation to the two lawyers who believed that they represented him at the outset; I see nothing in his affidavit justifying a conclusion that he was deliberately attempting to cause the applicant improper expense.

In the result, each party must bear their own costs which are associated with the problem underlying the initial adjournments. [ 4 ] With respect to the respondent ’ s failure to comply with the order of Burrows J., he will, of course, have to pay costs to the applicant for the appearance on December 1, 2011, required to deal with his failure to respond. The court declares the respondent in contempt of the November 15, 2011 order; he can purge his contempt by providing the information identified in the applicant ’ s letter of November 10, 2011.

In any event, he must provide the requested information three weeks prior to the special chambers hearing. [ 5 ] For the following reasons, I do not, however, impose upon the respondent an accelerated order for costs: - the applicant has admittedly already received a great deal of financial information, much which is the most current information available and pre-dates the separation and might therefore be trustworthy, and some of the information requested exceeds the standard disclosure requirements.

For example, the applicant acknowledges that she has received the financial statements for the Meridian Medical Clinic for 2010, but she wishes to have the statements from 2006 onwards. That request exceeds the Court ’ s standard notice to disclose which requires only statements for the corporation ’ s three most recent taxation years (item 8.a). The applicant can get 5 years of disclosure if she wants it, but at risk of costs to herself if the additional two years of information does not invalidate the three most recent years.

Similar considerations apply to the applicant ’ s request for corporate tax returns; - the time between November 10 and November 30 is relatively short given the amount and nature of the of financial information requested. [ 6 ] In the result, the respondent is ordered to pay $500.00 in costs to the applicant, which costs will be paid or accounted for at the conclusion of these proceedings. Heard on the 01 st day of December, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6 th day of December, 2011.

“J.B. Veit” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Linda L. Long, Q.C., Long Family Law Group for the Applicant Michelle L. MacKay for the Respondent