Anstey v. Anstey, 2012 ABQB 67

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Anstey v. Anstey, 2012 ABQB 67 Date: 20120125 Docket: 4803 156966 Registry: Edmonton Between: Sheila Maureen Anstey Plaintiff - and - Trevor Mervin Anstey Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] Ms. Anstey asks for interim monthly spousal support of $1,000.00, which is at the high end of the spousal support advisory guidelines. Mr. Anstey proposes to pay interlocutory spousal support of $500.00 in light of his high debts, which are reflective of the couple ’ s high debt load. [ 2 ] On an interlocutory basis, Mr. Anstey will pay Ms. Anstey spousal support of $750.00 for each of December, 2011 and January, 2012 and $500.00 per month starting February 1, 2012, until further order of the court. 1. Background

[ 3 ] The parties are the parents of two children, the older of whom is now an adult and living independently and the younger of whom is 17, and living with Ms. Anstey. Mr. Anstey is an electrician; although the parties are still in the disclosure process, the most recent information available about Mr. Anstey ’ s income is that he earns $88,900.00 gross annually. Ms. Anstey is currently on long term disability from which she earns $3,060.00 monthly; Ms. Anstey expected to return to work in early 2012.

Each of the parties has large debts that were incurred during the marriage; each has consulted money managing service providers but neither has gone into bankruptcy. [ 4 ] Mr. Anstey had not been paying child support at the level required by the federal child support guidelines, but he is in the process of bringing himself into compliance with those requirements. [ 5 ] Mr. Anstey indicates that he is unable to pay the level of spousal support requested by his wife. In support of that contention, he relies on a monthly budget prepared with his debt counsellor.

With respect, I am of the view that, for a short period of time, the budget approved by the counsellor can and should be reframed to provide higher support for Ms. Anstey and for the child of the marriage. For example, while a prudent budget presumably does contain an item for vehicle maintenance, in the circumstances here, where Mr. Anstey recently replaced a 2008 truck with a new truck because of some damage the characterization of which is disputed between the parties, the $100.00 budgeted for vehicle maintenance can be over-ridden.

Similarly, while in the medium and long range, any sensible budget must anticipate the cost of replacement clothing, in the short run, the amounts budgeted by Mr. Anstey for clothing and for laundry can be over-ridden. Similar short term restrictions can apply to expenditures on alcohol and entertainment including meals outside the home. Also, in the short term, Mr. Anstey may have to make some adjustment to his accommodation expectations, for example, by sharing accommodation. [ 6 ] Mr.

Anstey indicates that the most important omission from the budget which he presented on the application is the 30% garnishment which is currently taking place relative to his outstanding tax debt to CRA. [ 7 ] Indeed, an important omission from the debt counsellor ’ s budget information is tax information - in particular the net effect on Mr. Anstey of a spousal support payment. That information is, however, found in the Childview “ Assessment of resulting cash flow to the payor and the recipient for various levels of spousal support ” also provided by Mr.

Anstey; according to those tables, at a monthly spousal support payment level of $735.00, the net monthly cost to Mr. Anstey is $480.00 and the net monthly receipt to Ms. Anstey is $410.00. 2. What level of spousal support should Mr. Anstey pay on an interlocutory basis? [ 8 ] Mr. Anstey acknowledges that his wife has established an entitlement to spousal support. The only issue on this application is the appropriate level of interlocutory spousal support given the effort being made by Mr.

Anstey to meet his debt load. [ 9 ] Having considered all of the information available on this application, including the indication that Ms. Anstey expected to return to regular employment in the early part of 2012 and the indication that the parties expected to be able to return to court to finalize their financial arrangements by the end of June, 2012, the court concludes that Ms. Anstey is entitled to, and Mr. Anstey can afford to pay, spousal support of $750.00 per month for each of December, 2011 and January 2012. Beginning on February 1, 2012, and until further order of the court, Ms.

Anstey ’ s monthly spousal support payment will be $500.00. [ 10 ] This order does not affect Ms. Anstey ’ s right to make a claim for retroactive child and spousal support. 3. Costs [ 11 ] The costs of this hearing will be determined when the parties return to court for the settlement of their financial dispute.

Heard on the 1 st , 2 nd and 9 th days of December , 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 24 th day of January, 2012. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Leonard Thom, Thom Law Office for Ms. Anstey Amanda Baretta, Student-at-Law, Cochard Johnson for Mr. Anstey