Puddicombe v. Vrban, 2012 ABQB 737

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Puddicombe v. Vrban, 2012 ABQB 737 Date: 20121129 Docket: 4803 155657 Registry: Edmonton Between: Michael David Puddicombe Plaintiff - and - Anita Mathilda Vrban Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is an application by Ms. Vrban for spousal support, and a cross-application by Mr. Puddicombe to compel Ms. Vrban ’ s answers to undertakings arising from her Questioning on Affidavit. Mr.

Puddicombe seeks an adjournment of the spousal support application of Mr. Vrban until Ms. Vrban provided all outstanding answers to undertakings. Further he seeks an Order that this matter not be heard until those answers to undertakings are supplied in full, at which time the matter would be dealt with by way of a Special Chambers hearing only. [ 2 ] Ms. Vrban indicated that she could not wait for a Special Chambers hearing as she had already taken a number of days off from her new job to come to Court, and would be financially destitute by the time this matter could be heard in Special Chambers several

months hence. Ms. Vrban also submits that she had provided all the answers to undertakings she can. Analysis [ 3 ] It is fairly apparent from the record that both Parties have adjourned this matter on a number of occasions previously. Ms. Vrban also did agree to eighteen undertakings that arise from her Questioning of Affidavit which occurred on July 18, 2012. [ 4 ] Although Ms. Vrban agreed to these undertakings, and even though she has not fully answered them, the Court has some difficulty in not allowing Ms.

Vrban to continue with her spousal support application until all of these undertakings have been complied with. [ 5 ] Undertakings five, six and seven require Ms. Vrban provide complete medical records from her medical doctors and from her physiotherapist. While this information would include relevant materials with respect to Ms.

Vrban ’ s alleged carpal tunnel syndrome problems with her wrists, the “ complete ” medical records from 2005 to the present which is part of one of the undertakings with respect to her family doctor would also contain a great deal of irrelevant material which would have to be obtained at considerable costs and expense to Ms. Vrban. As such Ms. Vrban has provided her Consent to allow the husband to obtain those records. [ 6 ] Counsel for the husband objects on the basis that it is Ms.

Vrban that alleges that she requires spousal support because of significant problems with respect to her wrists, and it is she who should provide the records in accordance with her own undertaking. [ 7 ] I conclude that a letter from her family doctor detailing her diagnosis, treatment received, and prognosis in relationship to Ms. Vrban ’ s concerns about her wrists; and a similar letter from her physiotherapist will be much more efficient, productive and relatively inexpensive for Ms. Vrban to obtain, while answering the legitimate concerns of the husband. [ 8 ] Ms.

Vrban ’ s undertaking number 10 requires her to provide monthly updates as to any job searches undertaken by her, as well as any resumes or applications submitted. While once again this may be relevant to her spousal support application given that she alleges that her income has dropped significantly since she was dismissed from Alberta Health Services, I conclude that this undertaking again is too broad and expensive for the purposes of these applications. Ms. Vrban is presently working and she should supply her pay stubs from her current employer(s).

She should also provide copies of all her job applications, cover letters and resumes that she submitted following her Questioning on Affidavit of July 18, 2012. Although she agreed to provide updates on a monthly basis with respect to any job searches undertaken, I conclude that it is not necessary to do such a monthly update retroactively save and except for what I have directed. [ 9 ] Finally there a number of undertakings that require that Ms.

Vrban provide complete records of financial disclosure, but ultimately the main issue with respect to disclosure relates to the source of deposits into her Servus bank account for the period of time from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Accordingly she is required to provide a detailed description of the source of those deposits, including any supporting documentation where available. [ 10 ] If she complies with the abovementioned items, Ms. Vrban is deemed to have completed her answers to undertakings given at the Questioning on her Affidavit.

Simply because an individual agrees to extensive undertakings while self represented, does not mean that those undertakings in and of themselves are reasonable and enforceable. In this matter they are also subject to adjustment given the long delay that has occurred on both sides in some respect or another. Conclusion [ 11 ] These parties were married in November 1985, 27 years ago, and they separated in July 2010. There are no children of the marriage, and the divorce was severed from the corollary relief and matrimonial property matters in this Court on May 25, 2010.

The Parties have been divorced since June 25, 2010. The husband is a journeyman automotive mechanic having obtained his designation in 1989. He has worked for Toyota since 1992. His income ranges between $80,000 to $90,000 plus between 2007 and 2010. He deposes

that his income in 2011 was still approximately $75,000.00 because of some health issues related to his back, and because he is now paid a “ flat rate ” as opposed to an hourly rate. [ 12 ] The wife ’ s income on the other hand has been sporadic since she was laid off/terminated from Alberta Health following her carpal tunnel wrists surgeries. Her present income is approximately a quarter of Mr. Puddicombe ’ s income. On the face of it then it would appear that Ms.

Vrban will be entitled to some amount of ongoing spousal support while she transitions to more permanent and hopefully more lucrative employment. [ 13 ] Accordingly I conclude that this matter does not have to be delayed or sent to Special Chambers for hearing, nor does the fact that Mr. Puddicombe apparently is about to go to the Phillippines for several months, a factor in having this matter heard in the Spring.

Given the framework that I have given these parties I believe that the Defendant ’ s spousal support application can be dealt with in morning chambers, and the Parties have agreed that December 10, 2012 is available for both to appear and complete this matter. [ 14 ] I have directed that Ms. Vrban deliver to counsel ’ s office the following five items which will complete her answers to undertakings given at her Questioning on Affidavit, and that this will be done on or before December 6, 2012:

a) A letter from her family doctor detailing her diagnosis, treatment received, and prognosis in relation to her concerns relating to her wrists;

b) A letter from her physiotherapist detailing her diagnosis, treatment received and prognosis in relation to her concerns relating to her wrists;

c) All of the pay stubs received from her employment with temp agencies;

d) A detailed description of the source of deposits into her Servus bank account for the period from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, including any supporting documentation where available; and

e) Copies of all of the job application, cover letters and resumes that she has submitted to date following her Questioning on Affidavit of July 18, 2012. Heard on the 21 st day of November, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 28 th day of November, 2012. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Lesley R. Kroeker Bishop & McKenzie LLP for the Plaintiff Anita Vrban Self Represented