Omonova v. Omonov, 2013 ABQB 384

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Omonova v. Omonov, 2013 ABQB 384 Date: 20130715 Docket: 4803 153483 Registry: Edmonton Between: Oksana Matnazarovna Omonova Plaintiff - and - Tolibjon Solievich Omonov Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Case Management Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice A.W. Germain _______________________________________________________ 1. Introduction [ 1 ] The parties are former husband and wife. They obtained a divorce on a desk basis, while I later conducted the corollary relief and matrimonial property trial.

That did not end the litigation. The Associate Chief Justice appointed me as their case management judge. I, in turn, have enlisted the support of our case management legal counsel. Through her efforts a group of issues were defined for hearing, and on May 31, 2013, these were discussed. [ 2 ] Each of the parties have a different perspective on life, the negative impact their former spouse had on their life, and their perceptions about the loyalties and needs of their two children. This decision deals with economic matters, but a court can offer nothing to address the unresolvable anger between these two persons.

[ 3 ] The parties are immigrants from the former Soviet Union and it has been difficult for them to assimilate economically into Canada. A lack of resources and the court’s obligation to transfer scarce resources from Ms. Omonova to Mr. Omonov upsets her greatly. 2. Background [ 4 ] The parties, with two children, were divorced January 31, 2011, after a 20 year marriage. The divorce judgment was silent about their oldest adult daughter but gave the mother custody of their son. The father was obliged to pay child support plus Federal Child Support Guidelines , SOR/97-175, s. 7 expenses. The

section 7 expenses include the cost for summer camp, child care, extraordinary school care, hockey, and music. Issues of spousal support and the role of their oldest daughter in their relationship were completely omitted due to a lack of experience on the part of these self-represented litigants. [ 5 ] A matrimonial property ruling made on December 21, 2011 (oral reasons only) divided their matrimonial property. I also concluded that Ms. Omonova was entitled to indefinite spousal support, commencing January 1, 2011, due to her long-term relationship with her husband and as she was disadvantaged by the marriage.

At the time of that decision their son was living with his mother in the matrimonial home. [ 6 ] The relationship between the mother and son deteriorated. The mother blamed the father. This required yet another hearing as the father applied for a change of custody. While I declined to change custody I did permit the child (at that time 15 years of age) to live with his father.

The daughter gave evidence against the mother indicating that her mother drove both she and her brother away, while her father provides a more liberal lifestyle and more compassion to the evolving needs of the children. [ 7 ] That effective change of residence required that Ms. Omonova pay child support. I dealt with those items, obliging Ms. Omonova to make a contribution. Subsequently, Mr. Omonov applied for additional

section 7 child support to assist with the university education of the adult daughter plus

section 7 child support to assist with the cost of raising his son. After one such hearing, and to better use the resources of the court, I directed Case Management Counsel, Sandra L. Schulz Q.C. to conduct a Reference on the issue of

section 7 expenses, pursuant to Alberta Rules of Court , Alta. Reg. 124/2010, ss. 6.44- 6.45 [the “ Rules ”, or individually a “ Rule ”]. [ 8 ] Ms. Schulz filed a report in these proceedings. She recommends certain costs be interpreted by the court to fall within the definition of

section 7 expenses and apportioned accordingly. She recommends rejection of other expenses. [ 9 ] This case is about anger and money. Ms. Omonova disbelieves her husband about his income and property and wants the court to attribute higher income to him. Mr. Omonov takes the view that his ex-wife neither pays enough child support nor

section 7 obligations costs, so that he has difficulty making ends meet. [ 10 ] The current status is this: Mr. Omonov pays his former wife $275.00 per month spousal support, while she pays offsetting child-support of $318.00. On September 26, 2012, I made one

section 7 order, the bottom line of which was that Ms. Omonova owed a total of $1150.41 dollars for her share of the

section 7 expenses in arrears. Flowing from the matrimonial property order, Mr. Omonov has an arrears matrimonial property obligation of $920.00, which was to be paid by offset, but maintenance enforcement has not applied an offset to this amount and it still remains outstanding. 3. The Role of Case Management Counsel [ 11 ] The Edmonton Case Management Counsel pilot project was put in place in 2012 on a trial basis. Court administrators have recently concluded that the value of this unique position is so great that the program will be extended.

I thank Case Management Counsel Sandra Schulz Q.C. for her dedication and support to Albertans who require litigation assistance. [ 12 ] The current role of the Case Management Counsel is to assist self-represented litigants in a neutral way by attempting to reach

negotiated solutions between the parties which can then be confirmed by a court order, or failing that to assist in the orderly collection of the issues for judicial consideration. [ 13 ] In this dispute an eight item issues list has been identified by the Case Management Counsel. I propose to deal with all the issues set out in the case management schedule, but not necessarily in the order expressed. The items for discussion are: • the determination of income, • a review of spousal support, • debt accounting between the parties, • a review of the Referee’s report on

section 7 maintenance (see paras. 7-8 above), • residential control and decision-making, •

section 3 child support, • contempt, and • costs. 4. The Position of the Parties [9] Ms. Omonova indicates that she is in dire economic straits. She argues: 1. The amount of spousal support that I have ordered her ex-husband pay is unreasonably low. 2. The child support and

section 7 expenses that I have ordered her to pay are unreasonably high. 3. Both her children, having turned their backs on her, should not expect her financial support. She has a home where her children can come and live, and their dad can then pay her support. The mother has disowned her adult daughter because her daughter gave evidence against her mother in court, a tactic that the court tried to discourage. Based on this conduct Ms. Omonova feels she has no obligation to that child. 4. Her ex-husband has hidden property assets in the former Soviet Union and she wants more of these. 5.

I should order her husband to pay for her to get a Ph.D. because she helped him get his Ph.D. before they immigrated to Canada. [10] Ms. Omonova has other issues and specific submissions which I will entrain into the specific items discussed in this judgment.

In

summary, by whatever means possible, it is her submission is that I should take more of Mr. Omonov’s money and give it to her.Otherwise, she points out that she may die of cancer because she cannot afford $1600.00 for injections that may have been recommendedto keep a type of cancer she has suffered in remission. [11] Mr. Omonov argues that while he earns approximately 1/3 more than his ex-wife (about $60,000.00 a year), he is currentlyraising two children on a limited income.

One is a 16-year-old high school student who is into extracurricular sports activity, and theother is an adult daughter doing very well in University. He denies factually that he has hidden assets. He points out that the court hasalready divided the matrimonial property. He rejects the position of his ex-wife that she cannot afford $1600.00 worth of cancertreatment injections and that therefore he, or the courts, have put her life in danger. Mr.

Omonov believes his ex-wife wants to createunnecessary guilt in both her children and him that will strain their relationship forever, particularly if she does have a recurrence ofcancer. 5. Legal Analysis A. The Eldest Daughter is a Child of the Marriage [12] When the parties petitioned each other for divorce their eldest daughter was already 18 and not identified in the divorceJudgment as a child of the marriage. The parties took an age-based approach to whether or not the adult daughter was a child of themarriage. Ms.

Omonova’s position is that the eldest daughter should not be added retroactively to the pleadings as a child of themarriage. Mr. Omonov asserts the opposite. A Reference conducted by Case Management Counsel recommended that the court use itsinherent jurisdiction to amend the pleadings to identify this child as a child of the marriage. [13] The age-based approach initially taken by the uninformed litigants was inappropriate. The oldest daughter is the natural childof both of these litigants.

She is unable to fully support herself by virtue of a reasonable decision to attend a post-secondary institution.She currently is supported by her father. She is not yet 22 and is one year away from getting a degree. Her university expenses, generallyher tuition, are proposed as the bare minimum

section 7 contribution. [14] She is a child of the marriage! The court has a parens patriae duty to ensure that children of marriages are protected followinga divorce and the way in which this child can be best protected is by an amendment to the pleadings so that she will be declared to be achild of the marriage. Further the fact that a judge of our court, on a desk basis, granted a divorce without dealing with this issue is notfatal to review at this time. A court process that is defective by virtue of errors of understanding on the part of the litigants cannotdeprive a child of her legal entitlements.

Support is a right of the child, not the parents (D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v.Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37 at para. 60, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231). The divorce judgment did not contain any declaration thatthe daughter was not a child of the marriage. It was simply silent on the issue. I note the well-established principle that any agreementbetween parents cannot affect the right of a child to child support: Pelech v. Pelech, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801 at 845,38 D.L.R. (4th) 641.

I declare that this couple’s oldest child is a child of the marriage, dependent, and deserving of appropriate supportfrom both her parents. B. Monetary Claims Dismissed [15] Ms. Omonova presents a long list of monetary claims under various headings and arguments. These claims are separate from areview of spousal and child support and issues of potential hardship. They are simply claims for additional, other, or substitute economiccontribution from her ex-husband to herself.

All of these claims that are identified in this portion of the judgment [paras. 20-25], aredismissed for the reasons indicated in each paragraph. [16] The first of these broad claims category is a claim in varying amounts representing rent sharing or other compensation forproperty in Uzbekistan which Ms. Omonova alleges is still owned by Mr. Omonov. This issue came up at the parties’ matrimonialproperty trial. The evidence was inconsistent and I preferred Mr. Omonov’s evidence that he did not own any property in Uzbekistan.

Inaddition, as matrimonial property the land was outside of the jurisdiction of our court and no cogent or reliable evidence of its value wasplaced before the court. I gathered that the community in which this couple lived would make land available for a couple to build theirmatrimonial home but there was no evidence the home had been built or what happened to the land. I again reject this claim for anyadditional cash compensation relating to this land. First, we have previously and completely dealt with matrimonial property, with Mr.

Omonov getting any property in Uzbekistan, and the land is outside the jurisdiction of our court. I will not entertain in the case management process any further submissions, arguments, or allegations about property division in Uzbekistan, or compensation in lieu of it. Nothing in this judgment prevents Ms. Omonova from litigating in Uzbekistan about alleged property there. [ 17 ] Second, there is a cultural claim advanced by Ms. Omonova for the cash equivalent of a set of gold earrings.

She asserts that her ex-husband’s deceased father agreed to buy her a set of gold earrings as a wedding present and that he then reneged on that offer. She indicates in her culture her ex-husband is obliged to honour that obligation. This claim is also dismissed. The parties were married over 20 years ago, so the claim would be statute barred after applying the facts as alleged to our Limitations Act , R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12. If there was any basis for an action it would be in contract, and Mr. Omonov is not a party to that.

Further, the courts cannot base monetary claims on cultural historic events, based on honour as opposed to legal obligation. [ 18 ] Third, there is a claim for a significant amount of money to compensate for the fact that Ms. Omonova contributed in a material way for her husband to get a Ph.D. She now feels that fairness dictates that he sponsor her for a Ph.D. There are two problems with this. First, an education obtained by one party is not a divisible property asset although it may lead the way to spousal support. In this case, Ms.

Omonova’s contribution to the marriage, the length of the marriage, and the disadvantages that she has sustained in the marriage, lead to a positive finding on my part that she was entitled to indefinite spousal support. Helping your husband through school does not trigger an automatic reciprocal requirement to have him help you through school. Further, it is not possible for me to assess any economic worth to Mr. Omonov’s Ph.D. He is working as a teaching assistant and earning less than a labourer would in any one of our booming regional economies.

Currently, his Ph.D. would appear to have no economic value to him, although I accept that education is an important element of life satisfaction irrespective that from time to time it does not lead to direct financial rewards. Finally, Ms. Omonova has not in fact created a specific plan to return to school, so I view this claim as simply a mechanism to evoke sympathy on the basis that Ms. Omonova helped her ex-husband through school. Ms. Omonova’s claim for $60,000.00 or some lesser amount so that she can get a Ph.D. is dismissed. [ 19 ] $1600.00 for cancer therapy is claimed by Ms.

Omonova so that she does not die of cancer. The court has urged her to do what she can for her personal cancer therapy. It is not our practice to order spousal support on the basis of per item compensation for medical care and attention beyond the general discretion to award spousal support. This type of recurring payment may present some evidence of hardship that could be a basis to reduce a payment obligation such as child support, or as a ground to globally increase a spousal support obligation, but not a positive claim for matching money. [ 20 ] Ms. Omonova claims $5000.00 or more for a leaky basement.

Ms Omonova purchased the family home during the matrimonial property settlement. The price for the home was set at the value that the evidence revealed. The home is an older home in a more mature community. If Ms. Omonova is unable to pay the cost of repair and maintenance of the home she must consider other options including the sale of it. The court has made its matrimonial property decision. Review at this time of the decision to order the ex- husband to pay a repair and maintenance contribution is an indirect appeal of the matrimonial property order. This claim by Ms. Omonova is also dismissed. C.

Certain Claims by Mr. Omonov are also Dismissed [ 21 ] Mr. Omonov asks for economic relief of a $920.00 unpaid matrimonial property equalization payment .There is no basis to give this relief and this debt remains outstanding. Ms. Omonova reciprocates by requesting 20% per annum interest. This rate is also rejected in favour of the Judgment Interest Act , R.S.A. 2000, c. J-1 rate. The $920.00 and interest will be adjusted in this judgment. [ 22 ] Mr. Omonov also claims that his elder daughter should be entitled to both Federal Child Support Guidelines s. 3 and s. 7 support. The daughter is living with Mr. Omonov.

His seeks both retroactive and ongoing support. This claim is new. I decline to award in his favour any retroactive

section 3 support for his daughter. However an ongoing claim for

section 3 support as well as

section 7 support is both appropriate and equitable. As I previously stated, support is a right of the child: D.B.S. v. S.R.G. ; L.J.W. v. T.A.R. ; Henry v. Henry ; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra . D. The Income of the Parties [ 23 ] The two parents’ income must be determined to lay a proper foundation for considering spousal support, and the apportionment of

section 7 expenses, as well child support for the infant child, and to allegations of hardship.

[ 24 ] Ms. Omonova requests that I impute her ex-husband’s income at $90,000.00 per annum. Her argument is based on the fact that if he is, in fact, raising and supporting two children and paying the university expenses of one of them, so he must be making more money than he has disclosed. However, the benchmark of income for support purposes is line 150 of the annual income tax filings by individuals who are paying Canadian taxes. Both Mr. Omonov’s affidavit and his supporting documents reveal that he earns $61,679.00 per year. This amount will be used to calculate support. I am not satisfied that Mr.

Omonov is earning any additional hidden or under- the-table income. I accept his evidence on this point. [ 25 ] Conversely Ms. Omonova admits she is earning $39,705.00 per year [Affidavit of May 10, 2013, Exhibit A, para. 1]. These are the figures that should be used in my calculations. Ms Omonova’s income will also be adjusted by the spousal support she receives from Mr. Omonov. E. The Obligation to Pay Spousal Support [ 26 ] Historically, I set spousal support at $275.00 per month on an indefinite basis. Mr. Omonov applies to have the spousal support cancelled. Ms.

Omonova wishes it increased. [ 27 ] There is no basis to cancel spousal support. The parties were in a long-term relationship and Ms. Omonova was disadvantaged by it. There is, however, a change of circumstance. First, Ms. Omonova was raising her son in her home and with the benefit of both child and spousal support she was able to meet make ends meet. This has now changed as her son has elected to live with his father. While one would have anticipated that at some point this couple’s son would have matured and moved out of the home, it was hardly contemplated that this would occur so quickly.

In result there is here a true change of circumstance that warrants a review of spousal support. [ 28 ] $275.00 per month is inadequate based on Ms. Omonova’s current situation. Effective September 1, 2013, I increase her spousal support to $400 per month or $4800.00 per annum. This is well within the suggested range ($327.00-$429.00) indicated in the Federal non-binding spousal support guidelines. F. Child Support [ 29 ] Ms. Omonova is obliged to pay

section 3 child support for both the 16-year-old child of the marriage, who is currently enrolled in high school and now living on a day-to-day basis with his father, as well her 22 year old daughter who is also living significantly supported by the father. Ms. Omonova’s view is she not longer has any obligation to pay child support because her children have hurt her by repudiating her in favour of their father. That is not the law. In Canada Ms.

Omonova has a duty, as well legal obligation, to pay child support for her children based on her economic means, until each ceases to be a child of the marriage. [ 30 ] Spousal support is excluded from Ms. Omonova’s income for the purpose of this calculation: Federal Child Support Guidelines ,

Schedule III, s. 3. On this basis, Ms. Omonova’s monthly Federal Child Support Guidelines , s. 3 child support for her two children is $558.00 per month, and this new amount commences September 1, 2013. [ 31 ] Unless extended by a court order the child support payable for the daughter ends April 30, 2014 at the completion of the daughter’s first degree, or when the daughter ceases being a full time student, whichever comes first.. G. Past Federal Child Support Guidelines , s. 7 Expenses [ 32 ] The referee in her excellent work analysed all of the proposed

section 7 expenses that had been brought forward since my last child support order by Mr. Omonov against Ms. Omonova. These are new claims. Not all of the claims presented to me at the hearing had been reviewed by the referee as Mr. Omonov has advanced additional claims.

[ 33 ] It is not necessary for me to recap the referee’s report other than by

summary. The referee’s report is a document filed in this Court preceding. I conclude that the logic and the reasoning expressed by the referee as relates to whether an expense should be allowed or not is unassailable. I therefore incorporate into this judgment the referee’s assessment as to which expenses should or should not be allowed as if I had expressed those conclusions on an individual basis. [ 34 ] Putting this differently, the referee recommended only $76.25 of primarily specialized and sports clothing ought to be accepted as a

section 7 expenses incurred by the father on behalf of their son, and for which the mother is required to make a prorated contribution [section III A 1, Referee Report, p. 3]. [ 35 ] As it relates to the adult daughter, I again agree that the assessment of the referee’s conclusion is unassailable as to those expenses which should not be allowed as a

section 7 expense. The reasoning of the referee is incorporated by reference into this judgment where necessary. The referee indirectly recommends that tuition and related education expenses which total $3,856.50 should be considered a valid s. 7 expense [section III B 4, Referee Report, p. 7]. [ 36 ] This couple’s oldest daughter is nearly 22 years of age and both her mother and her father are experiencing economic difficulty. She has one remaining year of school to go until her degree. I have therefore concluded that it is appropriate that a ceiling be placed on her total apportionable

section 7 expenses, which cannot be more than $3600 per annum. Currently, the recommended expenses that the referee sought to include were $3856.50. These will be deemed to be expenses incurred in the calendar year 2013 and therefore they are capped at $3600.00. No further claims for

section 7 expenses on behalf of the daughter may be made against the mother for the remainder of 2013, with 2014 claims restricted to educational expenses actually incurred in 2014, but again with an upper limit of $3600.00. [ 37 ] The existing child support order divided

section 7 expenses on a 60% and 40% division, based on income of $60,000.00 for the father and $40,000.00 for the mother. Ms. Omonova’s portion of her daughter’s educational cost is 40% of $3600.00, or $1440.00. The mother’s obligation to pay for the son is 40% of $76.25 or $30.50. [ 38 ] My judgment therefore establishes the total

section 7 expenses payable by the mother to the father to this point in time and current with all of the expenses referred to in the referee’s report is a total of $1470.50. I remain mindful that the father has an unpaid matrimonial property debt of $920. That debt was ordered by me in my judgment to be paid on or before March 31, 2012. It has not been paid to date. Applying a 5% post judgment interest rate makes the total debt $966.00. [ 39 ] This outstanding matrimonial property debt is offset against the

section 7 expenses owing and therefore the net effect of this judgment is that Ms. Omonova owes her ex-husband Mr. Omonov $504.50. The enforcement of these arrears, as well as any remaining arrears from my first order obliging Ms. Omonova to pay a share of

Section 7 expenses (if any) are stayed provided that Ms. Omonova pays $50.00 per month towards the arrears. H. Ongoing Federal Child Support Guidelines , s. 7 Expenses [ 40 ] Should Mr. Omonov wish to make a future claim for ongoing

section 7 expenses these claims will be handled in the following manner. The claim will first be submitted to the Case Management Counsel to see if she can work with the parties and reach consensus and agreement. If she cannot reach a consensus I direct a further assessment pursuant to her powers as a referee, and when she has completed her report it is to be referred to me for court ruling. The only ongoing

section 7 expenses that will be considered are: • in the case of the son expenses that were incurred after the last referee report, and; • in the case of the adult daughter expenses incurred after January 1, 2014. [3] Neither party may bring any further applications to the court for

section 7 expenses apportionment until 2014.

[4] The income percentage should also be reset effective September 1, 2013. [5] Calculation of Federal Child Support Guidelines , s. 7 expenses requires that spousal support be taken into account: Federal Child Support Guidelines ,

Schedule III, s. 3.1, see also Jang v. Jang , 2001 ABQB 351 at paras. 53-56 , 300 A.R. 387. In the existing order the father is responsible for 60% of approved

section 7 expenses, while the mother 40%. Their incomes have changed and I am now long no longer going to ignore the economic impact of spousal support. In result, for the purpose of

section 7 calculations the father’s income is $56,879.00 ($61,679.00-$4,800.00) and the mother’s $44,503.00 ($39,703.00 + $4800.00). The corresponding percentages are 56% and 44%. I. Hardship [6] Ms. Omonova also makes a hardship submission. Her real monthly contributions to her two children militates against that argument being successful. The possibility that a

section 3 guideline contribution for the daughter may well end next year adds to that. The net difference between her incoming spousal support and her outgoing child support is about $158 per month, plus a $50.00 contribution to her

section 7 obligations. Even if I factor in the tax implication of her spousal support her real cash flow in favour of her children is less than $250.00 per month. It is not possible for her to successfully argue hardship to the extent that she should pay less support for her children then is set by the Federal Child Support Guidelines . [7] It is likewise inappropriate for Mr. Omonov to disproportionately bear the burden of raising two children. Ms.

Omonova’s budget reflects annual savings, and her home provides her (now that her children have moved out) an opportunity to generate additional funds by renting rooms. I am unable to conclude that she is suffering hardship to the point where her primary obligation to support her children cannot be met. The amounts paid by her are not great, so the potential to reduce these amounts further is limited. Her hardship argument has indirectly increased spousal support and has reduced the payment rate for

section 7 expenses to a fixed sum of $50.00 per month. No further advantage can be extended to Ms. Omonova. J. Change of Custody [8] Ms. Omonova concedes that her son is now living with his father and that at 16 years of age the courts have little, if any, leverage to force him back with his mother. Ms. Omonova strongly believes that her children have been alienated against her by their father. She is entitled to her belief, however I find no evidence that there has been “alienation”, a word that is becoming far too common in family law cases and has ill-defined meaning, if any: M.E.L. (P.) v.

B.J.L. , 2013 ABQB 227 at paras. 55-57 . Ms. Omonova has some strict views about the relationship between a mother and her children, and obviously her children have rejected her views by gravitating towards their father. [9] Ms. Omonova also expresses concern that if her husband gets custody of his 16-year-old son he will immediately flee the country with his children. This seems to be an irrational belief because both children appear to have adapted well to Canada and even Mr. Omonov, despite his underemployment based on his education, expresses the view that Canada is the best place for his children.

Be this as it may there is no reason for me to fuel Ms. Omonova’s expressed fears, even if they may be misguided. I will make no change to the actual parenting order in which Ms. Omonova has custody of the child. This is however conditional on Ms. Omonova applying for a passport in the name of that child which she will retain and not be obliged to release to her husband unless the court further orders such release for a specific trip or travel. Ms.

Omonova must also cooperate in assisting her son in getting a driver’s license by producing his birth certificate and to the extent that she must sign any forms, to do so. The burden will be on Ms. Omonova to report to the court in writing on or before November 1, 2013 about fulfilling these two tasks. If she does not appear to have been diligent in these two tasks Mr. Omonov has leave to apply again to change custody. K. Restriction on Future Applications and Access to the Courts [10] If the parties have any ongoing disputes about

section 7 expenses or

section 3 basic child support they must first meet with the Case Management Counsel to see if those disputes can be resolved. Failing resolution, the Case Management Counsel may acquire an order appointing her referee to create and produce a referee’s report. Neither party may apply to the courts for any other remedy whatsoever (this restriction does not prevent their right of appeal of this order) unless prior approval is obtained from the Case

Management Justice or the Associate Chief Justice. L. Contempt of Court [11] Ms. Omonova asks that I cite her ex-husband in contempt of court for his alleged breaches of various court orders. Anchoring this application is her belief that he has hidden income and property and that he harbored and abetted his son to leave her home. While Ms. Omonova has strong views that her husband disrespects the courts and intentionally breaches the court orders, I have not found that to be the case. To the contrary, I have found Mr. Omonov’s submissions to be polite and factually based while Ms.

Omonova’s are often based on emotional rhetoric, anger, and a sense of deprivation. [12] Contempt of court proceedings should be used sparingly in all cases and particularly so in cases of parental conflict. Although there are many contempt of court remedies it is a serious matter which can result in imprisonment. For this reason contempt of court should not be based on ambiguity or conflict in evidence but based on hard facts that make it impossible to come to any other conclusion. Ms. Omonova has not established a proper foundation for a contempt of court ruling and this claim is dismissed. M.

Court Costs [13] Each of the parties claim court costs against the other. Mr. Omonov claims them by virtue of his assessment that his ex-wife is a vexatious litigant. Ms. Omonova claims court costs because of Mr. Omonov’s alleged general misconduct to her and his dishonesty. This allegation bordered on her suggestion in court that Mr. Omonov is also a thief. [14] While the courts can award court costs as a type of punitive measure (reviewed in Brown v.

Silvera , 2010 ABQB 224 at paras. 29-35 , 488 A.R. 22), in their most common form costs are provided to a successful litigant to offset the costs to that litigant of hiring a member of the bar. In this case both parties are self-represented and the success here was divided. Therefore no court costs are awarded. 6. Judgment

Summary [15] Effective September 1, 2013 the spousal support payable by Mr. Omonov to Ms. Omonova is set at $400.00 per month. The

section 3 child support for both children, paid by Ms. Omonova to Mr. Omonov, is set at $558.00 per month. [16] All the

section 7 expenses that were reviewed by Case Management Counsel in her reference have been accepted and adjusted by this order, and an outstanding debt owed by the ex-husband to the ex-wife of $920.00 plus interest has been adjusted. There is a net payment due and owing from Ms. Omonova to Mr. Omonov of $504.50. This amount shall be paid at a rate of $50.00 per month. Provided that amount is paid enforcement of the balance created both by this order, and my prior order, is stayed. [17] The incomes for the purpose of

section 7 calculations are also reset as of September 1, 2013. Mr. Omonov will contribute 56% of those costs, while Ms. Omonova will contribute 44%. [18] Finally it is again confirmed that any further litigation by this couple in the courts (except the appeal of this order) requires leave of either the Associate Chief Justice or the Case Management Justice. Heard on the 31 st day of May, 2013. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 15 th day of July, 2013.

A.W. Germain J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: O. M. Omonova Appeared on her own behalf for the Plaintiff T. S. Omonov Appeared on his own behalf for the Defendant