Denman v Jamieson, 2013 ABQB 84

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Denman v Jamieson, 2013 ABQB 84 Date: 20130205 Docket: 4803 127885 Registry: Edmonton Between: Clare Jane Denman Respondent/Plaintiff - and - Ronald Ian Jamieson Applicant/Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application to vary child support by Ronald Ian Jamieson, and a cross-application to determine arrears by Clare Jane Denman.

The parties first appeared in front of me in January, 2012. At that time, Ms. Denman was seeking an order allowing her sole decision-making with respect to their daughter. Mr. Jamieson was seeking a review of child support and a direction that Ms. Denman pay him child support based on a shared parenting arrangement. [ 2 ] I have been case managing this matter since April, 2012. I have reviewed numerous affidavits from the parties (Ms. Denman: December 30, 2011, March 9, 2012, March 26, June 7, June 18, July 9 and November 28; Mr.

Jamieson: January 18, 2012 (2), March 12, March 21, June 6, June 22, July 16 and December 10.

[ 3 ] Some of the affidavits deal with non-financial issues such as health and travel, although most address financial issues as well. Background [ 4 ] This matter has a lengthy history before the courts. The parties were married in February, 1999. They have one child, Mikayla, born in July, 2001. They separated in 2003. [ 5 ] Following an interim application before Watson J. (as he then was) in July, 2003, Mr. Jamieson's Guideline income was set at $80,000 and he was ordered to pay child support accordingly. That amount was attributed to him as there were no documents relating to his actual income. Ms.

Denman was given primary residence of Mikayla, and Mr. Denman was given "very" generous access. [ 6 ] The parties litigated property and custody issues until September, 2006 when they entered into minutes of settlement. Custody and guardianship were agreed to be mediated, and failing agreement, a trial date would be set. Interim parenting time was set by Mr. Jamieson having Mikayla from Wednesday after school until Friday morning when he would drop her off at school during "week 1". For "week 2", Mr. Jamieson would have Mikayla from Thursday after school until Sunday at 6:00 pm. [ 7 ] Mr.

Jamieson's Guideline income was agreed to remain at $80,000 and Ms. Denman's was set at $35,000. While corollary relief was severed, the consent divorce judgment dated March 22, 2007 confirmed the parties' guideline incomes which had been agreed in the minutes of settlement. [ 8 ] The parties continued to litigate over custody and access, and on August 19, 2009, Greckol J. granted an order confirming that the parties were to have "joint custody and shared parenting" of Mikayla. The basic access arrangements described above were continued, although Mr.

Jamieson was given additional summer access and Christmas access. By then, Mr. Jamieson had applied to vary child support based on an allegedly lower income. [ 9 ] Mr. Jamieson's income and sources of income were highly contentious, and Ms. Denman had great difficulty obtaining financial disclosure from Mr. Jamieson. Mr. Jamieson maintained and continues to maintain that he is not a Canadian resident for income tax purposes, and as a citizen and resident of the Turks and Caicos, he is not required to prepare or file income tax returns as the Turks and Caicos have no personal income tax.

He has not filed tax returns in Canada for some time, despite spending much of his time here for the last 45 years. [ 10 ] Disclosure difficulties led to Greckol J. directing in her August 19, 2009 order that Mr. Jamieson's child support variation application could not proceed until he had provided full disclosure. [ 11 ] Mr. Jamieson revived his child support variation application at the application before me on January 18, 2012, although he had not provided any further financial disclosure by then.

His position throughout the proceedings before me is that he has no documents to disclose, as he has no income, no sources of revenue, and no assets presently capable of producing revenue. He maintains that he has no bank accounts as he deals in cash, and he keeps no records. [ 12 ] Ms. Denman's disclosure is that she has had the following earnings: 2009 $62,224 2010 $65,159 2011 $59,210

[ 13 ] She has health issues (largely related to the matrimonial proceedings and discord) and ended her employment in November, 2011. She had income of an estimated $13,045 in 2012, made up of modest rental income, employment insurance and a small bit of employment income. She does not think her financial position will change in 2013. [ 14 ] Mr. Jamieson claims that he continues to have no income, and has had no income since the minutes of settlement were entered into in 2006. The last regular income he had was apparently approximately $40,000 per year he earned from 1967 to 1972 as a teacher in Edmonton.

While he kept his child support payments current until some time in late 2011, that was because he had refinanced a property owned by one of his companies, and was using the equity in that property to live on. In late 2011, the property was foreclosed, and he has had no further access to funds with which to make child support payments. Mr. Jamieson is also in poor health, attributable in part to the stress surrounding the discord with Ms.

Denman. [ 15 ] Despite his claimed financial straits, he has returned to the Turks and Caicos on a regular basis and has taken Mikayla there on several occasions for extended vacations. Ms. Denman claims that Mr. Jamieson lives in a mansion and drives expensive cars and points to elaborate websites portraying Mr. Jamieson as a musician, filmmaker and entrepreneur. Mr.

Jamieson essentially describes the websites (created by or for him) as puffery, and denies that he has any assets other than what has been disclosed in these proceedings. [ 16 ] He claims that as a musician and filmmaker, he has a large library of materials which he hopes will be valuable at some stage and which will provide him with substantial funds. So far, he has been unable to liquidate these assets. [ 17 ] Mr. Jamieson has been in litigation with Canada Revenue Agency, and the Tax Court has recently dismissed Mr. Jamieson's appeal. It is unclear what the consequences of Mr.

Jamieson's tax litigation will be. [ 18 ] As of November 1, 2012, Mr. Jamieson is $11,434.45 in arrears of child support. Issues [ 19 ] Mr. Jamieson argues that as he and Ms. Denman have always shared custody and parenting time of Mikayla, Ms. Denman owes him child support based on her Guideline incomes. He seeks setoff of the amounts owed by Ms. Denman to him against his arrears, and suggests that on an ongoing basis, the parties' incomes be considered equal such that they bear their own expenses relating to Mikayla.

He suggests that his guideline income be set at the salary of a first-year teacher, as he is qualified as a teacher and taught in the Edmonton school system many years ago when he first came to Canada. He submits that Ms. Denman is underemployed, and has demonstrated that she has the capacity to earn an income at least equal to, if not greater, than his. He asks that her income be set in the $100,000 per year range. [ 20 ] Mr. Jamieson also argues that because of the high level of conflict between him and Ms. Denman, a lawyer should be appointed for Mikayla. [ 21 ] Ms. Denman argues that Mr.

Jamieson has never had as much as 40 percent of the parenting time with Mikayla, and describing their arrangement as "shared parenting" does not make is such for the purposes of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . She thus argues that her income is relevant only for the purposes of determining s. 7 payments. [ 22 ] She maintains that Mr. Jamieson is still in default of Greckol J.'s disclosure order of August, 2009 and as such, he is not entitled to bring this application to vary his child support obligations. [ 23 ] She seeks to have his Guideline income continued at $80,000. [ 24 ] Ms.

Denman opposes the appointment of a lawyer for Mikayla, arguing that it is unnecessary at this time.

[ 25 ] The issues to be determined, then, are: 1. Has Mr. Jamieson complied with the disclosure obligations required by Greckol J.'s August, 2009 order? 2. If so, what is Mr. Jamieson's Guideline income for the relevant periods? 3. Are the parties sharing parenting time as contemplated by s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines to warrant offsetting s. 3 payments? 4. If the parties are not sharing parenting time for the purposes of the offset, should Mr. Jamieson be relieved of full s. 3 child support obligations because of the amount of parenting time he has with Mikayla? 5. Does Ms. Denman owe Mr.

Jamieson arrears for any period since 2009? 6. What if any are Mr. Jamieson's arrears in s. 7 payments? 7. What should ongoing s. 3 payments be (i.e. for 2013)? 8. Should a lawyer be appointed for Mikayla? Case Law [ 26 ] The parties referred me to a number of cases: D.B.S. v S.R.G. , 2006 SCC 37 ; Contino v Leonelli-Contino , 2005 SCC 63 ; St. Onge v Bozarth , 2008 ABQB 130 ; and E.R.H. v B.W.H. , 2009 BCCA 573 . [ 27 ] This case turns on the Child Support Guidelines and the facts of this case, and a discussion of the cases cited is not helpful to this decision, nor necessary. Analysis 1. Has Mr.

Jamieson complied with the disclosure obligations required by Greckol J.'s August, 2009 order? [ 28 ] The parties have appeared before me on a number of occasions since January, 2012 relating to financial issues, a stay of enforcement of arrears, and parenting issues. Dr. Stephen Carter has provided assistance relating to difficulties encountered by Mikayla. [ 29 ] In an attempt to manage the present applications, I directed that Mr. Jamieson provide appropriate disclosure. He responded

with an affidavit sworn March 21, 2012 deposing to significant debts, few assets and no income. [ 30 ] Ms. Denman took issue with the absence of documentation, claiming that Mr. Jamieson was hiding income and assets and that he was an extremely wealthy musician, filmmaker and businessman. I directed Ms. Denman to file an affidavit in regard to her position concerning Mr. Jamieson's assets and income. She did so by way of an affidavit dated June 18, 2012. [ 31 ] Mr. Jamieson responded with an affidavit sworn June 22, 2012.

In his affidavit, he disputes the value of any of the business activities described in the various websites referred to by Ms. Denman. He swears that he does not have "billions or hundreds of millions of cash, not even a single million, salted away in secret bank accounts" (as alleged by Ms. Denman). He swears that he has no real property in Canada or the Turks and Caicos or elsewhere. His primary source of revenue for the last ten years has been what he describes as "deficit financing" involving the repeated remortgaging of property owned by a company controlled by him.

That company has been "defunct" for over three years, and the property is gone. [ 32 ] He complains that Ms. Denman has gone out of her way to create problems for him with Canada Revenue Agency, and that she has understated her income as the rent on her home is greater than disclosed (or artificially reduced by exaggerated expenses). He argues that she is underemployed. [ 33 ] Ms. Denman argues that Mr.

Jamieson's affidavit evidence is not credible, and he has still not provided the level of disclosure required by Greckol J. [ 34 ] Neither party questioned the other on their affidavits. [ 35 ] It is difficult to fully accept Mr. Jamieson's evidence as to his claimed poverty in the face of his lengthy battle with Canada Revenue Agency. The inference to be drawn from that fight is that he has assets to protect from the tax authorities. Nevertheless, his sworn evidence is to the contrary. There is no evidence before me as to any actual assets or income.

I take little from the website evidence other than it is indeed puffing. [ 36 ] Mr. Jamieson may have been successful at one time as a musician, filmmaker and businessman, but there is no evidence that he has enjoyed any financial success for many years. Watson J. attributed an income of $80,000 per year to him in 2003 based on information he had concerning Mr. Jamieson's lifestyle as well as information from Ms. Denman as to Mr. Jamieson's income and assets. For the purposes of the settlement in 2006, Mr. Jamieson agreed to a Guideline income of $80,000. [ 37 ] Mr.

Jamieson clearly bears the onus of proving that his circumstances have changed. The evidence he has put forward is to that effect, if it is credible. Greckol J. was not satisfied that he had complied with her disclosure directions. However, if what Mr.

Jamieson claims is true: that he has never filed tax returns, his company has been defunct since 2009, he has no real property and he has no bank accounts, then he has no records to produce, and his testimony by way of affidavit is all the disclosure that can be made. [ 38 ] He has, in his affidavit of March 21, 2012, provided the information required to determine (or attribute) income to him. He cannot be in breach of an order to produce records when those records never existed. [ 39 ] In my view, Mr.

Jamieson has by virtue of his affidavit of June 22, 2012, satisfied in substance the disclosure requirements ordered by Greckol J. While he has produced no records, he swears that there are no records. Ms. Denman has in her affidavit materials attempted to portray Mr. Jamieson as a successful, wealthy businessman and property owner with secret bank accounts, offshore assets and hidden wealth. There is nothing in her materials or her affidavit evidence to provide objective support for what can only be characterized as speculation. There may be smoke, but there is no fire. [ 40 ] What Ms.

Denman complains about is in essence the credibility of Mr. Jamieson's statements about his poverty. However, there is a difference between the disclosure itself and the credibility of the disclosure.

[ 41 ] I cannot test the credibility of Mr. Jamieson's disclosure on affidavit evidence alone. That is why I required Ms. Denman to put forward any evidence she had to support her contention that Mr. Jamieson was hiding assets and not being forthcoming as to his means. Her affidavit creates some suspicions, but goes no further than that. [ 42 ] I may have doubts about Mr.

Jamieson's candour and may have suspicions as to how, in the face of his financial evidence, he is able to support himself and Mikayla when she is in his care, and to travel from time to time to the Turks and Caicos, but he has made sufficient disclosure to allow the review to proceed. 2. What is Mr. Jamieson's Guideline income for the relevant periods? [ 43 ] There appears to be no way of verifying whether Mr. Jamieson has ever earned $80,000 per year, either before or at the time of the settlement agreement in 2006 or since then. Mr.

Jamieson is a man with education and apparently some skills as a musician and filmmaker. He was able, until late 2011, to make agreed child support payments and support himself. Even though he is now nearly 67 years old and in poor health, he asks the court to impute income to him at the level of a first-year teacher. He suggests that would be approximately $32,000, based on his internet research and knowledge of teachers' salaries. [ 44 ] I hesitate to use unsworn evidence, or to do my own research into the matter. However, the collective agreement for Edmonton Public School Board teachers is on the internet.

It is a public document and is readily available. As a statistic, it is uncontroversial. [ 45 ] It shows the salary for a teacher with four years of university education and no experience starting at $48,789. One year's experience brings the salary to $51,571. I see little benefit in requiring Mr. Jamieson or Ms. Denman to put their internet research into affidavit form for the purposes of this application and will take judicial notice of these numbers. [ 46 ] Mr.

Jamieson is past normal retirement age although advises that because of his residency and citizenship status, he is not collecting either Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security benefits. [ 47 ] He may be capable of teaching in a private school, and states in his affidavit evidence that he has taught many students privately.

He may otherwise be capable of earning a living, and as he has invited imputed income at a teacher's level, I accept that as a reasonable measure of his earning capacity if not his earnings. [ 48 ] Thus, for the purposes of child support, his Guideline income is set at $50,000. [ 49 ] I make no adjustment prior to January, 2012 as Mr. Jamieson was not in compliance with Greckol J.'s disclosure order. His application to vary before me was made in the beginning of 2012, and the disclosure process resulting from his application was substantially satisfied by him, at least to my satisfaction (but not Ms. Denman's).

Adjustments resulting from this order should be made effective January 1, 2012 and not earlier. 3. Are the parties sharing parenting time as contemplated by the Child Support Guidelines to warrant offsetting s. 3 payments? [ 50 ] Mr. Jamieson claims that despite what is in the settlement agreement and the numerous court orders, he has spent more time with Mikayla than specified. He swears in his June 22, 2012 and December 10, 2012 affidavits that his time with Mikayla has always been at least 50 percent, and at no time has it ever gone below 40 percent. [ 51 ] Ms.

Denman, not surprisingly, swears to different facts. She swears in her November 28, 2012 affidavit that at no time has Mr. Jamieson's time with Mikayla been 40 percent or greater, even during the times when Mr. Jamieson looked after Mikayla due to Ms.

Denman's health issues. She points to absences from Canada by Mr. Jamieson where he did not exercise his regular access with Mikayla. [ 52 ] In my view, the only accurate measure of Mr. Jamieson's time with Mikayla is the settlement agreement and resulting court orders. Having regard to the extremely poor relationship between the parents, the large number of applications which have been required to deal with child-related issues such as travel, health, schooling and discipline, I am doubtful that there has been much flexibility in the court-ordered schedule. [ 53 ] My calculation of Mr.

Jamieson's time with Mikayla is slightly over 30 percent; Ms. Yungwirth on behalf of Mr. Jamieson calculates it at a maximum of 35 percent when adjustments are made for times when Mr. Jamieson looked after Mikayla during Ms. Denman's illnesses. [ 54 ] Regardless of what it has been called in the settlement agreement and various court orders, Mr. Jamieson has not, in my view, had at least 40 percent of the parenting time with Mikayla. [ 55 ]

Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , SOR 97-175 provides: 9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account (

a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses; (

b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and (

c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought. [ 56 ] On the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Jamieson does not fit within the Guideline provisions for shared parenting. Thus Ms. Denman is under no obligation to provide child support to him for the time he spends looking after Mikayla. 4. As the parties are not sharing parenting time for the purposes of the offset, should Mr.

Jamieson be relieved of full s. 3 child support obligations because of the amount of parenting time he has with Mikayla? [ 57 ] I have a residual discretion under s. 10 to consider whether or not Mr. Jamieson's access costs fit within the "unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access" to Mikayla as provided in s. 10(2)(

b) of the Child Support Guidelines . [ 58 ] It is clear that Mr. Jamieson is much more than an "access" parent, spending time with his daughter only on weekends and holidays. He has midweek access and is involved with her schooling. Since his parenting time is in the 30-39 percent range, he is providing Mikayla with a parallel home structure, and spends a significant portion of whatever cash flow he has on his daughter.

In his circumstances, especially where income is being attributed to him at present and his previous support has apparently been paid by depleting his assets and not from a fresh income stream, it is fair to characterize his expenses relating to parenting time with Mikayla as "unusually high". [ 59 ] Ms. Yungwirth, on Ms. Denman's behalf, acknowledged in argument that Mr. Jamieson may have a valid hardship claim as his parenting time approaches the level where an offset would be appropriate. In my view, Mr.

Jamieson's s. 3 obligations should be reduced by one-third, taking into account his circumstances and the significant amount of parenting time he has with Mikayla.

[ 60 ] Thus, his arrears should be determined firstly by calculating his s. 3 obligations starting January 1, 2012 based on a Guideline income of $50,000, and secondly by reducing the resulting payment by one-third. I make no adjustment for any period before January 1, 2012, because of the previous orders in place and his non-compliance with Greckol J.'s disclosure orders. Any arrears to December 31, 2011 are unaffected by this order, other than with respect to any credits to which Mr. Jamieson is entitled. [ 61 ] Arrears shall be paid by Mr. Jamieson within 12 months. 5. Does Ms. Denman owe Mr.

Jamieson arrears for any period since 2009? [ 62 ] Since Mr. Jamieson has never had shared parenting of Mikayla for the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines , Ms. Denman has no payment obligations to Mr. Jamieson for any period. 6. What if any are Mr. Jamieson's arrears in s. 7 payments? [ 63 ]

Section 7 payments should be based on the relative proportions of the parties' incomes. Mr. Jamieson takes issue with Ms. Denman's reported income, claiming that she has been able to rent out her home since she began cohabiting with her new partner. I am not satisfied that the rental expenses claimed by Ms. Denman so as to offset the rental income are inappropriate, and I am not satisfied that additional income for 2009 to 2011 should be attributed to her. [ 64 ] Ms.

Denman provided substantial disclosure with her March 26, 2012 affidavit, which supports her affidavit evidence as to her income. [ 65 ] Thus for 2009 to 2011, the parties' Guideline incomes are set at: Mr. Jamieson Ms. Denman 2009 $80,000 $62,224 2010 $80,000 $65,159 2011 $80,000 $59,210 [ 66 ] Mr. Jamieson's 2012 Guideline income is set at $50,000 and that shall be his ongoing guideline income until further order. [ 67 ] Ms. Denman provided medical evidence that she is unable to work.

My understanding of the reasons for her disability at this stage is that they are primarily stress-related, and the stress is caused by the dysfunctional relationship she has with Mr. Jamieson. His current medical condition is fuelled by the same dysfunction. [ 68 ] Ms. Denman obviously has the capacity to earn a reasonable income, and one which is greater than a beginning teacher. For 2012 and ongoing, I impute an income of $50,000 per year to her, such that she and Mr. Jamieson will share s. 7 expenses equally until further court order. [ 69 ] Ms. Denman acknowledges that Mr.

Jamieson has overpaid s. 7 expenses relating to childcare. He had been paying $217 per month since 2003, but Ms. Denman ceased to have child care expenses starting in February, 2012. Mr. Jamieson is thus entitled to a credit against arrears of $2,170. [ 70 ] Ms. Denman states that she has contributed $7,000 to an RESP for Mikayla's future post-secondary expenses. That is

[ 70 ] Ms. Denman states that she has contributed $7,000 to an RESP for Mikayla's future post-secondary expenses. That is commendable, but in my view, absent agreement of the parties, contributions to RESPs and the like are not a s. 7 expense. Amounts within an RESP or similar education savings plan are available to offset a parent's child support obligations at the time the education expenses are incurred, in whatever manner the parties agree at the time, or as may be ordered if a court application is necessary. Mr. Jamieson is not required to contribute to the RESP or reimburse Ms.

Denman for any portion of her contributions as they relate to future obligations and not current obligations. I hasten to add that the parties are free to agree to establish and maintain RESPs and treat them as s. 7 expenses should they choose and be able to afford the expense. [ 71 ] No arrears in s. 7 expenses have been put forward by Ms. Denman, so I make no order in that regard. [ 72 ] On an ongoing basis, there does not appear to be a need to have a regular payment towards s. 7 expenses, so Mr. Jamieson is relieved effective February 1, 2012 from having to pay $217 per month to Ms. Denman.

The parties shall share equally Tae Kwon Do costs, medically prescribed health care costs, routine dental expenses, and school fees. For other s. 7 expenses, including orthodontic expenses, any expenses should be agreed to in advance (except in cases of emergency), each party acting reasonably, if reimbursement is intended to be sought from the other parent. [ 73 ] I agree with Ms. Yungwirth's submission that s. 7 expenses should be handled through Maintenance Enforcement, with the parties providing receipts to the Director and copies to the other parent by email.

Reimbursement should occur within 14 days from receipt of the email. 7. What should ongoing s. 3 payments be (i.e. for 2013)? [ 74 ] Until further order, Mr. Jamieson shall pay Ms.

Denman two-thirds of the table amount based on an imputed income of $50,000 per annum. [ 75 ] I remind the parties that they have ongoing disclosure obligations pursuant to paragraph 8 of my order of January 20, 2012, which I repeat for convenience: Each party shall provide the other party with a complete copy of his or her income tax return and any notices of assessment and reassessment issued to him or her by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on an annual basis, on or before June 30 th of each year, as long as there is a child of the marriage as defined by the Divorce Act (Canada) .

In the event that a party has not filed an income tax return for the previous year, he or she shall provide the other party with copies of his or her T4, T4A and all other relevant tax slips and statement disclosing any and all sources of income, including self-employment income. 8. Should a lawyer be appointed for Mikayla? [ 76 ] At this stage, parenting time is carefully detailed in elaborate court orders. Mikayla is 11 ½ years old. The parents have very different descriptions of Mikayla and her behaviours and needs.

There is no doubt in my mind that each in his or her own way is a caring and committed parent. [ 77 ] The parties have dreadful attitudes towards each other and no working relationship. It is unfortunate that decision-making is more often made for the parties by the courts instead of by the parties for their daughter. [ 78 ] The parties have taken court-mandated parenting training, to little avail. At some stage, Mikayla may need her own advocate, but I do not see that this is the appropriate time.

There is no evidence before me that Mikayla's needs cannot at this stage be managed by her parents with assistance from parenting experts if necessary, instead of through lawyers. [ 79 ] I decline to appoint counsel for Mikayla at this time.

Conclusion [ 80 ] Mr. Jamieson's application for child support from Ms. Denman is dismissed. He has not satisfied the requirement of 40 percent parenting time pursuant to s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines . His application for a variation of his child support obligations is granted. His Guideline income is set at $50,000 per year effective January 1, 2012. It will remain at that level until further court order. His Guideline income remains at $80,000 per year for 2006 to 2011. [ 81 ] Ms.

Denman's Guideline income is set as follows: 2009 $66,224 2010 $65,159 2011 $59,210 [ 82 ] For 2012, I attribute $50,000 to her, and her Guideline income will remain at that amount until further court order. [ 83 ] Mr. Jamieson's arrears in child support will be reduced by $2,170 being an overpayment of s. 7 expenses during 2011. [ 84 ] From January 1, 2012 until further order, Mr. Jamieson shall pay s. 3 child support to Ms. Denman at table amount for his attributed income of $50,000, reduced by one-third pursuant to s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines . [ 85 ]

Section 7 expenses will be shared 50-50, and shall be enforced through Maintenance Enforcement after the paying party has had fourteen days to reimburse the other party. [ 86 ] Mr. Jamieson's application to have a lawyer appointed for Mikayla is dismissed. [ 87 ] There has been mixed success on this application so the parties will bear their own costs. [ 88 ] The parties need a break from their fighting, and they need to give their daughter a break from the undoubtedly stressful environments created by her parents' discord.

No application relating to child support (other than relating to enforcement) may be brought before January, 2014. [ 89 ] No application relating to custody of or access to Mikayla may be brought before January, 2014, without leave of either myself as case management judge or the Associate Chief Justice. Any emergency applications concerning schooling or health issues may only be made with such leave, and must be supported by independent evidence from the appropriate professional.

No actions may be commenced by either party against the other, or on behalf of Mikayla, without leave of either myself or the Associate Chief Justice. [ 90 ] These parties have sought access to the courts far too often, and further access needs to be carefully controlled and limited. [ 91 ] These latter orders are made on my own initiative for the benefit of Mikayla and to prevent abuses of the court process.

Heard on the 11 th day of December, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta, this 4 th day of February, 2013. Robert A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Debbie A. Yungwirth, Q.C. Appeared for Clare Jane Denman Ian Jamieson Appeared on his own behalf