M.E.L.(P.) v B.J.L., 2013 ABQB 628

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: M.E.L.(P.) v B.J.L., 2013 ABQB 628 Date: 20131025 Docket: 4803 137592 Registry: Edmonton Between: M.E.L.(P.) Applicant/Plaintiff - and - B.J.L. Respondent/Defendant _ ________________________________________ ______________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice A.W. Germain (End of Stay Application) _________________________________________ ______________ Introduction [ 1 ] The case appears before me as the post - divorce case management justice. The mother of two children applies to end the stay on the father’s obligation to pay costs.

The father continues to seek an adjournment, and alternately opposes the end to the stay. Background

[ 2 ] The chronology of interactions between the parties is extensive and unpleasant. Further information can be found in four other reported decisions that involves this couple and their children: M.E.L. v. B.J.L. , 2008 ABQB 252 , 167 A.C.W.S. (3d) 725; M.E.L. v. B.J.L. , 2011 ABQB 72 ; M.E.L. (P.) v. B.J.L. , 2013 ABQB 227 ; M.E.L. (P.) v. B.J.L. , 2013 ABQB 236 . [ 3 ] The parties are the parents of two children. They were divorced in 2008 following a trial conducted by Justice Hillier: M.E.L. v. B.J.L. , 2008 ABQB 252 , 167 A.C.W.S. (3d).

Stresses between the couple did not abate after the divorce so I was appointed case management judge in a post-divorce setting. The mother of the children was forced for economic and family reasons to relocate to Valleyview, Alberta. A three-day trial was conducted by me to determine the appropriateness of her mobility application. She was successfully represented in that trial by competent legal counsel and as a result had an obligation to ask for and did receive costs.

I directed that payment of those costs be stayed indefinitely to allow the father time to rebuild his financial situation. [ 4 ] The litigants require special permission of the court to bring matters before the court and the applicant sought leave to bring an application to end the stay on the payment of costs. Mr. L. indicated that the date proposed, October 18, 2013, was not a suitable date for him and he wanted an adjournment at least until November, if not into 2014. His stated reasons were that it involved confidential legal matters. I directed the application to proceed on October 18, 2013.

This written memorandum and the accompanying court order which the court will file constitute my rulings. The Adjournment Application [ 5 ] Mr. L.’s application is to adjourn the proceedings on the basis that he has not had a written copy of the materials and that is not convenient to him to proceed at this point because of undisclosed litigation that will affect these matters. This application for an adjournment is dismissed. [ 6 ] It is clear that Mr. L. did receive some type of electronic copy of the materials because Ms. P. had to apply for a fiat to allow the materials to be filed. Mr.

L. criticized the court for granting that fiat because he perceives the court to be unfair against him and that he is certain that he would not have gotten away with documents filed in a comparable manner and format. Mr. L. could not have been aware of that endorsement without having received the papers. Further, when he complained to my judicial assistant that he had not received the materials, she advises me that she sent him a PDF copy. My assistant is satisfied that Mr. L received the materials as the email did not bounce back. Mr.

L. forgets that he cannot get a hard copy of materials because he refuses to provide his address for service. [ 7 ] Mr. L now indicates he has no home and is living in his truck. Mr. L. cannot have it both ways. If he cooperates with the court and provides a way in which he can be reached, we will direct that he receive paper copies. The crucial fact is I am satisfied that Mr. L. has been properly informed of the issues before me in this application. [ 8 ] Mr. L. continues to express anger to the court for not adjourning the matter.

While adjournments can often be achieved, they must be for frank, candid, and meritorious reasons. To suggest that Mr. L. has some big court case coming but that he will not disclose the relevant details, other than to say it does not involve his ex-wife, does not constitute a sufficient reason on a routine matter such as this. Mr. L.’s application for an adjournment is dismissed on the basis that he has not provided a meritorious reason. The Application to End the Stay [ 9 ] The mother proposes that the stay on costs be ended and that Mr.

L. pay $1,000 per month on the 15 th day of each month until the considerable costs have been paid. In support of her application, she draws to the court’s attention the fact that she has not received financial disclosure from Mr. L. for 2011 and 2012. Second, that the stay has been ongoing for extensive periods of time and from a pragmatic point of view, she is effectively raising two children alone in Valleyview relying on assistance from her family and her limited income as a contractor or employee with the Canadian Postal Service. Her application is honest, polite and logical. [ 10 ] Mr.

L. wants the court to address him either by his first name or as an ‘exalted leader’. He indicates that he is ‘broke’, that he has no money and that he is living in his truck. He will not provide the details of his employer but at one point, he let slip that in the last two weeks of trucking, he has earned over $10,000. When the mother calls him on this, he suggests that we misheard and that it was $1,000. [ 11 ] I take judicial notice that dedicated responsible truckers operating in the trucking industry in the province of Alberta earn significant money. Mr.

L. discloses and declares income of approximately $25,000 per year, although there has been no disclosure for the last two years. [ 12 ] It continues to be clear that Mr. L. has emotional and credibility difficulties overlaid with anger management difficulties. It does not surprise me that his employment opportunities would not rival that of a conscientious competent trucker because, to express it kindly but frankly, his attitude and demeanor is off-putting.

He continues to be abusive to the courts - screaming and hollering with invective, profanity laced, nonsensical gibberish. [ 13 ] The courts are required to listen but we are not required to listen to repetitive abusive gibberish. [ 14 ] I have concluded therefore that because Mr. L. has not provided his financial information for the year 2011 and 2012, a reasonable inference can be drawn that financial information will show that he is increasing his income as the economy continues to strengthen from the recession of 2008.

I take judicial notice of the many employment opportunities in the province of Alberta for truckers. I am also sympathetic to the mother’s plight - attempting to raise two children with limited income and relatively modest

support from her ex-husband. [ 15 ] Despite this however, her application for $1,000 per month which would effectively triple that which Mr. L. is currently paying is a goal that is not realistic based on what I perceive to be Mr. L’s psychological barriers to employment efficiency. [ 16 ] I direct that commencing on January 15, 2014 and on the 15 th day of each month thereafter, Mr. L.’s stay previously ordered by me on court costs will partially end to the extent that he will be obliged to pay $250 per month, with the first payment due on January 15, 2014 and thereafter on the 15 th day of each month.

This payment, like other forms of support and maintenance, is directed to be paid to maintenance enforcement. If prior to June 1, 2014, Mr. L. has not provided a full copy of his notice of assessment for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 years, then the amount payable each month shall increase to $500.00, commencing June 15 , 2014 and applied to the cost arrears until the previously ordered costs are paid in full. [ 17 ] If Mr.

L. has provided some or all of the earnings information requested previously and required by this court directive, he is given leave to apply to extend the stay on all arrears costs that exceed the $250 per month that he has been ordered to pay by this decision. Further, if Mr. L. does provide the information required, Ms. P. is given leave to apply based on that information to seek an increase in child support and an increase in the rate of payment of the costs if she concludes it is appropriate to do so. Heard on the 18 th day of October, 2013.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 25 th day of October, 2013. A.W. Germain J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: M.E.L.(P.) Appeared on her own behalf for the Applicant (by phone) B.J.L. Appeared on his own behalf for the Respondent (by phone)