Glas v. Glas, 2012 ABQB 687

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Glas v. Glas, 2012 ABQB 687 Date: 20121102 Docket: 4801 147804 Registry: Calgary Between: Bradley Stephen Glas Plaintiff - and - Tammy Leanne Glas Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Bruce A. Millar _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This was an application and cross-application by these separated spouses, each seeking to vary child and spousal support and to clarify

section 7 expenses as between them. [ 2 ] The parties, who separated in February 10, 2010, have two daughters, D and B Glas. D is currently 9 years old and B is 6. Custody of the children is shared on a 50-50, one week on, one week off basis.

[ 3 ] Mr. Glas is seeking the following: (

A) An order imputing income of $40,000.00 per annum to the Defendant; (

B) An order setting retroactive and ongoing child support to take into account the Plaintiff ’ s actual income for 2010, 2011 and 2012; as well as an imputed income of $40,000.00 for the Defendant; (

C) In the alternative, if the Court does not impute an income of $40,000.00 to the Defendant, an Order reducing the amount of spousal support payable by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Justice W.P. Sullivan, dated December 7, 2011, filed February 7, 2012; (

D) An order setting the parties ’ proportionate share of retroactive and ongoing

Section 7 expenses; (

E) An order allowing either party to travel outside of Canada with the children, without need of written permission; and (

F) Costs. [ 4 ] Mrs. Glas is seeking: (

A) Retroactive

Section 3 child support in the amount of $26,551.00; (

B) Retroactive

Section 7 child support in the amount of $5,895.00; (

C) An Order imputing income to the Plaintiff in the amount of $232,476.00 for 2012; (

D) Ongoing

Section 7 child support based on a proportionate share; (

E) Ongoing

Section 3 child support in the amount of $3,204.00; and (

F) Costs. [ 5 ] During the course of the parties ’ marriage, Mr. Glas was steadily employed as an engineer. Mrs. Glas worked on a part- time basis from time to time and took some career training classes, but was primarily a stay-at-home mother, particularly after their second child was born. The family enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle which allowed them to purchase and maintain a large matrimonial home in Citadel and made it possible for Mrs. Glas to be a stay-at-home mother and homemaker. [ 6 ] The parties have each found new accommodation which allows the girls to attend the same school as before. [ 7 ] Mrs.

Glas has not worked since the separation, but as at the time of this hearing was scheduled to start a three-year training

[ 7 ] Mrs. Glas has not worked since the separation, but as at the time of this hearing was scheduled to start a three-year training program in Respiratory Therapy at SAIT commencing in September, 2012. [ 8 ] In earlier proceedings, my brother Justice W. P. Sullivan gave an interim order dated December 7, 2011, in which he imputed income of $40,000.00 per year to Mrs. Glas, for spousal support purposes. [ 9 ] There was no interim order regarding child support. [ 10 ] In April of 2012, Mr. Glas ’ employer went into receivership.

He had not yet commenced work at another job at the time of the application, but was scheduled to begin working again at Bonterra Energy as of September 1, 2012 [ 11 ] Currently, both parties are alleging that the other has been intentionally unemployed for the purpose of reducing or evading their child support obligations. [ 12 ] Mr. Glas was out of work for 4 months. There is nothing extraordinary about taking that much time to find a new job, particularly on a professional level. However, as a result of that 4-month period of unemployment, Mr. Glas will only earn about $135,000 this year in salary.

His base salary will be $165,000 starting in 2013, and he may earn significant bonuses in any given year. Mr. Glas seeks a reduction in child support on a retroactive and ongoing basis, to reflect his actual 2012 income. [ 13 ] Mrs. Glas has not worked at all since the separation. She claims that this has been for the purpose of staying home with the children. At the time of this hearing, her stated intention was to begin a three-year program in Respiratory Therapy at SAIT, starting in September.

I assume she has begun the program, and that in June of 2015 she will graduate and find suitable employment almost immediately. [ 14 ] The parties have a dispute regarding certain

Section 7 expenses. Among them is the fact that Mrs. Glas, although not working, has been paying for full-time daycare, and is seeking contribution from Mr. Glas for this amount. Mr. Glas objects on the basis that, if she is not working she doesn ’ t need full-time day care during the times that she has the children. Mrs. Glas insists that “ half-time ” day care isn ’ t available and although she has access to day care, she used it infrequently. [ 15 ] I note that, at the ages of 9 and 6, both children will have started full-time grade school, so that full-time day-care should have become a moot issue. As regards amounts owing under

Section 7, Mrs. Glas did not produce any independent corroborating evidence to show that the daycare expenses were necessary but, by the same token, Mr. Glas did not produce any evidence to show that half-time daycare was available. Accordingly, I will allow that expense and direct that any arrears owed be paid in accordance with the parties ’ proportionate share, which I will address later. [ 16 ] My brother Sullivan J. has imputed an income of $40,000.00 per year to Mrs. Glas for the purpose of calculating spousal support. Mr. Glas seeks to have this same income imputed to Mrs.

Glas for the purposes of child support. No doubt Sullivan J. structured his Order to achieve certain objectives. That matter is not before me and has been previously decided. I am not going to rehear that application. [ 17 ] With regard to child support, I have reviewed the evidence relating to past employment by Mrs. Glas. Specifically, a letter from her last employer, the Crowfoot Village Family Practice (CVFP) indicates she worked 4 days a week at an hourly rate that is, in 2012, $17.50.

Thus her earning capacity would be equal to 4 days per week x 8 hours per day x 49 weeks per year, or $27,440.00. [ 18 ] I acknowledge that Mrs. Glas did not work at her part-time job after the birth of their second child. However, she could have returned to part-time work after separation, particularly since she only had the children half-time and had full-time daycare available to her during the weeks they were with her. Currently, she is in school full-time and could not work such hours, particularly when the children are with her, but she could have some kind of part-time employment.

Accordingly, I propose to impute an income of $20,000.00 per year to Mrs. Glas, for the purposes of child support and

Section 7 expenses, starting as of January 1, 2012.

[ 19 ] Child support will continue as before, adjusted to reflect Mr. Glas ’ actual 2012 income as well as Mrs. Glas ’ $20,000 imputed income, as follows: a. For 2012, based on $135,000.00 income earned by Mr. Glas, and $20,000.00 for Mrs. Glas; b. For 2013, based on $165,000.00 earnings for Mr. Glas and $20,000.00 for Mrs. Glas. c. After 2013, $165,000.00 or his actual earning for Mr. Glas and the higher of $20,000 or her actual earnings for Mrs. Glas. [ 20 ] Any bonuses Mr, Glas earns will be counted as income, and adjustments can be made based on his tax returns at the end of the year. [ 21 ]

Section 7 expenses will be divided in accordance with the relevant proportion from the child support calculations, that is, for 2012, 87% payable by Mr. Glas and 13% by Mrs. Glas. In 2013, assuming no bonuses, this will change to 89% and 11%, respectively. [ 22 ] Either party may travel outside of Canada with the Children, without need of written permission of the other. A detailed itinerary and contact information should be provided to the other parent 30 days in advance of the travel. [ 23 ] Counsel may draft the appropriate Order and have leave to speak to costs within 30 days.

Heard on the 14 th day of August, 2012. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 2 nd day of November, 2012. Bruce A. Millar J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Diana Richmond RCIM LLP for the Plaintiff / Applicant

Leigh Sherry Soby Boyden Lenz LLP for the Defendant / Respondent