FMB v ARA, 2012 ABQB 140

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: FMB v ARA, 2012 ABQB 140 Date: 20120301 Docket: 4803 159240 Registry: Edmonton Between: FMB Applicant/Plaintiff - and - ARA Respondent/Defendant Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta identifying information has been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is an application by the wife for an Order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home; a Restraining Order; an Order requiring the husband to pay spousal support in the sum of $3,000 a month; an Order for Interim Costs for $10,000; an abridgement of time Order for Service of the application; and for further and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

[ 2 ] The wife deposes to serious verbal, physical and emotional abuse suffered at the hands of her husband the Respondent. These parties met in Dubai in 2002, and married there in 2003. At the time of the marriage the husband was employed as a physician in Dubai earning approximately $5,000 a month. There are no children of the marriage. [ 3 ] The present matrimonial home was purchased when the parties moved to Canada a year after the marriage in June 2004. It is worth approximately $600,000.

Over the next few years the wife deposes that she and the husband purchased numerous other properties, The parties jointly own a rental in St. Albert presently estimated to be worth approximately $350,000, which has tenants who pay rent of $1,800 a month. The wife alleges that the husband and HIS business partners purchased an apartment building in St. Albert valued at approximately $1,000,000, in which there are four separate rental units paying a total of $4,500 a month in rent.

All tolled the wife alleges that the husband receives over $8,000 a month in rental income, which goes directly into a corporate bank account belonging to him, which corporate bank account is managed by his children from a prior relationship. [ 4 ] Meanwhile the husband has never allowed the wife to drive, and she is currently employed at a senior’s community association where she is paid $13 an hour or $22,000 a year. [ 5 ] As a result of the physical and other abuse suffered throughout the relationship, the wife obtained an Emergency Protection Order against the husband on July 21, 2006 which was confirmed in August 2006.

However after August 8, 2006, she permitted the husband to return home, where he continued to be abusive. [ 6 ] In April 2010 the husband went back to Dubai and the wife understands that he has a girlfriend there. The marriage between these parties appears to be over, but the husband is expected to return to Edmonton at any time. Conclusion [ 7 ] Service in this matter is somewhat complicated, but I am satisfied that there has been effective service, notwithstanding the non-appearance of the Respondent husband.

Service of the application, along with a Statement of Claim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property, all filed in January 2012 was sent by recorded mail to the husband as evidenced by a Canada Post tracking history for registered mail. As well, an electronic scanned copy of the documents which had been specified as an address to which information or data could be transmitted to the husband.

Service was effected of the registered mail on February 7, 2012; and by email on January 24, 2012. [ 8 ] As for the Order, I conclude that the Applicant shall has exclusive possession of the matrimonial home given that this is her only place to live. Furthermore given that the Respondent may return to Canada at any time, and as a result of the serious allegations made against him by the wife, the husband is restrained from attending within 500 metres of the matrimonial home and the Applicant’s place of employment.

There will be a police enforcement clause preventing the husband from harassing or otherwise interfering or contacting the Applicant either directly or indirectly. [ 9 ] To address the great apparent income disparity here, for a period of three months, the Applicant wife is entitled to receive all the rental income from two properties that she has a direct or indirect interest in, which rental income is estimated to total $3,600 a month, commencing immediately with the February 29, 2012/March 1, 2012 rental payments.

The tenants of these two rental properties are ordered to provide all future rent cheques with respect to these properties to the Applicant up to and including the May 31, 2012/June 1, 2012 payment. The balance of the husband’s apartment rentals as a result of his investments with his business partners will continue to be collected for his benefit and that of his business partners. The wife will not share in those rentals at this time. [ 10 ] These $3,600 rental payments should suffice to cover what effectively would be some immediate spousal support and some interim costs for the wife.

The remainder of her application is therefore adjourned sine die. Either party may apply to vary, or strike the within Order on five days notice.

Heard on the 28 th day of February, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1 st day of March, 2012. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Nora LeBlanc Gaffney & McGreer LLP for the Plaintiff