TGC v LAC, 2013 ABQB 88

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: TGC v LAC, 2013 ABQB 88 Date: 20130214 Docket: 4813 004610 Registry: Ft. McMurray Between: TGC Plaintiff - and - LAC Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on February 25, 2013; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice R. J. Hall

_______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The parties were married on July 3, 2004 and separated on November 29, 2009. TGC is the husband and LAC is the wife. They have two children of the marriage namely C, male, aged 9 years, and K, female, aged 5 years. LAC had two children from a previous marriage, being SJ, now aged 20, and LJ, now aged 17. The matter proceeded to trial before me on November 22 and 23, 2012. [ 2 ] The wife, LAC seeks the following: 1. Exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, with sale of that matrimonial home postponed to April 2014.

This would require TGC to sign a mortgage to extend the mortgage from its termination date of April 2013 to April 2014; 2. A set off of TGC’s matrimonial property against his share of the matrimonial home; 3. A declaration that TGC has dissipated matrimonial property, and a set off of that alleged dissipation against TGC’s share of the matrimonial home; 4. A credit to LAC for payments which she has made on the mortgage in relation to the matrimonial home since separation. 5. One half of the value of TGC’s Solium shares and Suncor stock options; 6.

A determination of TGC’s income for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, and a retroactive adjustment of child support in relation to those years; 7. A declaration that TGC stands in loco parentis to SJ and LJ, up to the date that SJ reached aged 18, and the date upon which LJ was no longer cared for financially by LAC; 8. Spousal support for LAC, claimed at $3,200 per month and sought for a period of 9 years; 9. An order respecting access to TGC that would see him have no overnight visitation time with K, and would maintain the status quo regarding visitation by TGC to K and C. [ 3 ] TGC seeks the following: 1.

The matrimonial home should be sold; 2. The remaining matrimonial assets should be divided equally; 3. His income should be set at $185,000 per annum; 4. There are no child support arrears payable as he did not stand in loco parentis to LAC’s two older children and has overpaid child

support in the interim; 5. Spousal support should be limited to $1,500 per month for a further period of 18 months; 6. He should be provided greater access to the children, including every weekend, overnights with both children, statutory holiday access time, and up to four weeks summer vacation access. [ 4 ] TGC is prepared to agree to a division of his pensions, but requests a division of the increase in value of LAC’s RRSP during the period of the marriage.

TGC denies that he has dissipated matrimonial assets or property, other than a sum of $9,000 related to the parties’ joint line of credit, which has already been dealt with in an interim order of this Court, which provided that, as TGC had dissipated $9,000 matrimonial property, LAC is entitled to $4,500 in addition to whatever interest I find her to have in the remaining matrimonial property. [ 5 ] Both parties were previously married. They were both 44 years of age at the time of trial. TGC has been working at Suncor, outside of Fort McMurray since the beginning of the marriage.

He first worked as a heavy equipment operator and now works as a Safety Chair Person for his Union, which is an elected position. LAC worked at various positions in Yellowknife prior to marrying TGC. Most of these were clerical positions. After moving from Yellowknife to join TGC in Fort McMurray, LAC has not worked, other than in very limited employment as a nail esthetician at her home. [ 6 ] The parties agree that the matrimonial home has a value of $570,000, but is subject to a mortgage of $345,938.52, leaving net equity of $224,061.48. LAC’s RRSP has appreciated $2,340.81 during the course of the marriage.

TGC acknowledges withdrawal of funds as follows: RBC January 6, 2010 $54.68; RBC April 19, 2010 $11,556; RRSP May 27, 2010 $5,000; RRSP October 14, 2010 $6,226.01; and RRSP October 14, 2010 $9,097.69. [ 7 ] Interim maintenance orders have been granted in this matter as follows: a. On March 18, 2010 Justice Macleod granted child support in the amount $2,500 per month and spousal support in the amount of $2,000 per month commencing April 1, 2010; b.

On September 29, 2010 Justice Hunt McDonald granted child support in the amount of $3,672 for the support of four children, and spousal support in the amount of $3,200 per month commencing on October 1, 2010; c. On February 1, 2011, by way of a Consent Order, Justice Nation varied Justice Hunt McDonald’s Order by lowering child support to $2,783 for the support of three children, and spousal support to $2,200 per month. [ 8 ] I will deal with the issues in the order that is set out above. Matrimonial Home [ 9 ] Since separation, LAC has resided in the matrimonial home.

This residency was affirmed by an Interim Without Prejudice Order of Justice Macleod of March 18, 2010, which provided interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to LAC. LAC has resided there with the two children of the marriage. Her two older children resided with her in that home as well. SJ turned 18 on September 18, 2012. LJ left home in December of 2011. [ 10 ] LAC has made all mortgage payments in relation to the matrimonial home since separation.

[ 11 ] LAC indicates that the location of the matrimonial home is close to the children’s schools. She has never had a driver’s licence, and therefore she says it would be difficult for her to transport the children should she have to move. She notes that rental rates for homes or apartments in Fort McMurray are high, and estimates that a three bedroom rental home would cost her $2,750 per month.

She maintains that, if she could reside in the matrimonial home until April 2014, she would be better able to reestablish herself with employment. [ 12 ] TGC says that, as he is on title to the home, and jointly responsible for the mortgage, he cannot obtain credit to allow him to buy his own home. He states that LAC has had the benefit of residing in the matrimonial home for 3 years, while he has suffered the corresponding deprivation of not being able to realize upon his share of that asset.

He acknowledges that LAC has been paying the mortgage and utility expenses of the matrimonial home, but he argues that, in return for doing so she has had no rental expense, while he has been forced to incur such expense for the last 3 years.

He maintains that occupational rent should be notionally charged to LAC equal to 1/2 of her payment of the mortgage debt over the last 3 years, such that no credit should be given to her in the distribution of the matrimonial home for the fact she has made 3 years of mortgage payments. [ 13 ] I agree with TGC’s submissions that he is entitled to a distribution of the asset of the matrimonial home, and I find that LAC’s exclusive possession of the matrimonial home has tied up that matrimonial asset long enough. It is appropriate that the assets now be divided between the parties.

It is fortunate, in this case, that there is in excess of $200,000 estimated equity in the matrimonial home. [ 14 ] Therefore, I order that the matrimonial home be listed for sale commencing March 1, 2013. While it would appear that a reasonable listing would be at the appraised value of $570,000, I will leave it to the parties to agree upon a listing price; but if they cannot agree then each party is to provide written submissions to me as to the value at which the matrimonial home should be listed.

The possession date in the listing should be shown as July 1, 2013, so as to allow C and K to reside in that home through the remainder of the school year. [ 15 ] LAC has borne the mortgage payments throughout the 3 years that she has resided in the matrimonial home. In doing so, she has not only been paying her share of the mortgage debt, but also her husband’s share. The total mortgage payment is $2,500 per month. Those mortgage payments, however, approximate what she would have paid in rent if the property had been immediately sold.

LAC has received child support and spousal support throughout the period, which allowed her to pay the mortgage, utilities and insurance. [ 16 ] Kazmierczak v Kazmierczak , 2001 ABQB 610 [ Kazmierczak ], a judgment by Slatter J (as he then was), provides the law regarding occupation rent now relied on in Alberta. [ 17 ] In Kazmierczak at para 95 , Justice Slatter comes to conclude that the following factors are relevant in deciding whether to award occupation rent: (

a) The spouse who is not in possession generally should not be entitled to occupation rent if the other spouse is occupying the premises with the children of the marriage, and is not making a claim for support or a contribution towards the expenses of the house. (

b) Where the spouse in possession does make a claim for contribution towards the expenses of the house, that claim, the cross- claim for occupation rent, and any claim for spousal or child support should be considered together. The occupation rent would be a potential expense item in one party’s budget, and a revenue item in the other party’s budget. (

c) The spouse in occupation will generally not be entitled in the matrimonial property proceedings for any credit for the mortgage payments and taxes paid by him or her. Those payments should be a part of the support equation. The only possible exception is with respect to the portion of the mortgage payment that actually goes to reduce principal, as notionally one-half of that payment is made on behalf of the non-occupying spouse. See Balzar v Balzar .

However, if the party in occupation has not adequately maintained the property, and has essentially eroded its capital value, a set-off for the excessive wear and tear might be called for. [ 18 ] In Mulick v Mulick , 2012 ABQB 592 at paras 159-160 , Bast J cites Justice Slatter’s propositions with approval, and notes at para 159 that “as a rule, occupation rent is only awarded by way of counterclaim where the occupying spouse makes a claim for contribution towards expenses for the home.”

[ 19 ] LAC seeks contribution for the mortgage payments made by her over the past three years. This is a claim for contribution towards the expenses of the house, and allows the counter-claim for occupation rent to go forward. However, TGC is claiming only enough occupation rent to “neutralize” any effect of covering the claimed expenses - a defensive claim. [ 20 ] As LAC has claimed contribution to the mortgage payments, TGC is requesting occupation rent primarily as a defensive manoeuver.

In the result, and following the advice in the law that occupation rent should be granted sparingly and approached with caution, it is appropriate that LAC bear the whole cost of the mortgage payments, but not be expected to pay occupation rent. I do not allow any credit to LAC in relation to those mortgage payments, nor attribute any occupation rent obligation to her, with the result that the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home shall be divided equally between the parties.

Dissipation of Assets [ 21 ] TGC has demonstrated that the $25,213.88 received from sale of Suncor shares on October 21, 2009, and the cashing in on March 31, 2010 of a Suncor savings plan in the amount of $19,284.11 was used to pay down matrimonial debts and expenses. Accordingly, there is no dissipation of assets in respect to those two amounts. [ 22 ] With respect to the other withdrawals, set out in paragraph 6, all TGC was able to say in evidence was that the withdrawals were made in order for him to meet his personal obligations and his support obligations.

That may be; however, those assets were apparently matrimonial assets of both parties (no evidence was led to show they were exempt). The withdrawals were January 6, 2010 ($54.68); April 19, 2010 ($11,556); May 27, 2010 ($5,000); October 14, 2010 ($6,226.01) and October 12, 2010 ($9,097.69) and total $31,933.70. This adds to $31,934.38. One half of that amount belonged to LAC. Accordingly LAC shall be entitled to a credit of $15,967.19, to be paid to her out of the sale proceeds from the matrimonial home.

Other Matrimonial Assets [ 23 ] Both parties agree, and I order, that LAC is entitled to a portion of TGC’s Suncor Pension from the date of marriage to the date of separation, being July 3, 2004 to November 29, 2009 using the McAllister formula. LAC will also be entitled to a 50% share of TGC’s Canada Pension Plan, from the date of marriage to the date of separation. [ 24 ] TGC presently holds Solium share options. Those options are out of the money. Nevertheless, those options are matrimonial property. TGC stands as trustee for LAC with regard to 1/2 of those unexercised share options.

If and when those share options are “in the money” and exercisable, LAC has the right to direct that TGC exercise her share of the options. Upon exercise, TGC will transfer half of those share options, or half of the profit from exercising them, to LAC. [ 25 ] In addition to those shares, it is alleged by LAC that TGC exercised 800 Suncor share options, and LAC claims further dissipation. Neither party was able to provide any cogent evidence as to the exercise of these share options. The exercise apparently took place before separation of the parties.

Records provided by Suncor and Solium did not disclose any amount being paid out to TGC. Because of the paucity of evidence in relation to those share options, I make no finding of dissipation and I make no award to LAC in respect of them. [ 26 ] LAC’s RRSP was acquired before marriage, but its value increased during the course of the marriage. TGC is entitled to 1/2 of that increase. The parties agree the increase in value amounts to $2,340.81.

A credit is to be given to TGC on sale of the matrimonial home, so that the RRSP need not be cashed in. [ 27 ] TGC is entitled to his personal items from the matrimonial home, which he lists as his air compressor, tools, impact gun, nail gun, tool box, tires for a 2008 Aveo and jack stands. LAC shall have the remainder of the furnishings and household goods in the home, for her benefit and that of C and K.

Determining TGC’s Guideline Income [28] TGC’s line 150 income from his Income Tax Returns for 2008 through 2011 is as follows: 2008 $172,340.86 2009 $207,966.70 2010 $192,311.68 2011 $185,190.00 [29] The 2009 income includes $25,213.88 that was obtained through the exercise of the Suncor Solium stock options, which wereused to pay down matrimonial debt. Accordingly the 2009 income from employment should be reduced to approximately $182,750. [30] With respect to the 2010 income of $192,311.68, $5,000 of that amount was income from cashing in an RRSP and was notemployment income.

Accordingly, income from employment for 2010 should be adjusted to $187,311.68. [31] Final income figures for 2012 were not available at the time of trial. However, it does not appear that TGC has received anyincrease in his remuneration for 2012. He estimates that his income will be similar to 2011, at $185,000. I accept that as being areasonable approximation of his 2012 income. [32] What appears from this is that, in the years 2009 through 2012, TGC’s income from employment has approximated $185,000per annum.

I find that to be his annual income for those years, for the purposes of setting child and spousal support. Child Support In Loco Parentis [33] TGC maintains that he should not be considered to have been in loco parentis to LAC’s two oldest children. He maintains thathe did his best with those children, including disciplining them where appropriate. He notes that they never called him “Dad”. He notesthat, since separation, he has had no involvement with those children, either by his own instigation, or by theirs.

TGC argues that thecourt should be slow to impute in loco parentis status to find that SJ and LJ are children of the marriage, citing K(SL) v H(MM), 2009NSSC 319 283 NSR (2d) 283 and Cook v Cook (2000), (NS SF), 182 NSR (2d) 299 (SC) at para 89. He notes thatthe two older children were still being financially supported by their biological father.

He notes that LJ has now gone back to live withhis biological father in Yellowknife and that SJ is 20 years old and supports herself, and has not been a child of either marriage sinceturning 18 on September 18, 2010. [34] While the present relationship of the father to the stepchildren can be considered by the Court, it is not determinative. Theguiding principles in this area are set out in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Chartier v Chartier, (SCC),[1999] 1 SCR 242 [Chartier].

The Court held that a person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he or she stands inthe place of a parent. The Court must look objectively at the nature of the relationship to determine if a person in fact stood in the placeof a parent to a child or children. This determination involves looking at a number of factors, including intention. Intention may beinferred by the Court. The actual fact of forming a new family is a key factor.

Other factors include whether the child participates in theextended family; whether the person provides financially for the child; whether the person disciplines the child; whether the personholds himself or herself out as parent of the child; and the nature and existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biologicalfather. Every case must be determined on its own facts and evidence.

Chartier makes it clear that the respondent cannot renounce therelationship upon separation, and that the relevant period is the currency of the marriage, not events which have later transpired. [35] In this case, for 5 years TGC acted as parent to SJ and LJ. Their biological father had very little, if anything to do with themwhile they resided with TGC and LAC. During the marriage TGC took on the role of father to the children including providing for them

financially. I am of the opinion that TGC stood in loco parentis to SJ and LJ. Having accepted that obligation, he is not then excused from it upon separation from LAC. [ 36 ] Therefore, in relation to SJ, up until she turned 18 on September 20, 2010 TGC is responsible for paying child support to LAC. [ 37 ] In relation to LJ, TGC is responsible for paying child support to LAC until the end of December 2011 when, according to LAC’s evidence in redirect examination, LJ left LAC’s residence and then went to live with his father.

By making that move, LJ has renounced the relationship and returned to being a child of his biological father. LAC has had no financial obligations in respect of LJ from that time forward. Amount of Child Support [ 38 ] As stated above, TGC’s income for the purpose of setting child support is set at $185,000 per annum from the time of separation to the end of 2012. TGC is responsible for paying child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for four children until such time as SJ was no longer a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp).

He is then required to pay child support for three children until such time as LJ left the care of his mother and reunited with his father. However, with respect to those periods of time, it has been acknowledged that the biological father of SJ and LJ was paying child support to LAC of $720 per month for those children. The amounts of the biological father’s obligations to pay child support for SJ and LJ shall be deducted from TGC’s child support obligations during those periods.

If however, such deduction would result in TGC paying less than the guideline support for two children, the two children amount shall govern. [ 39 ] Thereafter, from the time that LJ was no longer a child of the marriage as set out above, TGC’s obligations to pay child support will be in respect of two children (C and K), calculated in accordance with the Alberta Child Support Guidelines. His ongoing obligations to pay child support for these two children shall also be calculated in accordance with the Child Support guidelines, using $185,000 income as the basis for calculation.

Counsel advises me that that amount is $2,568 per month. [ 40 ] As to s 7 expenses, LAC’s line 150 income for 2009 through 2011 shall be used to calculate the parties’ share of s 7 expenses. On an ongoing basis her line 150 income for 2011 will be used to calculate her share of s 7 expenses, to be adjusted yearly. [ 41 ] Each party shall be required to provide income tax returns and assessments to each other on an ongoing basis until K is no longer a child of the marriage, so that s 3 support and s 7 expenses can be recalculated by the Maintenance Enforcement Program.

Spousal Support [ 42 ] LAC left a home and job in Yellowknife to move to Fort McMurray to marry and live with TGC. As she has stated in her evidence there was really no reason for her to work while in Fort McMurray, as TGC was making plenty of money. The parties agreed that she would stay home, and that she would raise her children and then their own children. There was no expectation by TGC during the currency of the marriage that LAC would return to work. [ 43 ] When the parties separated in November of 2009, C was 6 years old and K was almost 2 1/2 years old.

I find that it was not a reasonable expectation that LAC would return to work for some time, as she was primarily responsible for the care of the children and for raising them. [ 44 ] LAC acknowledges that she did not start looking for employment until April 2012. Thereafter she lists approximately forty applications which she has made for employment. She was only offered employment at one place, as a clerk at Walmart (a position that she had previously filled while residing in Yellowknife). She says she did not take that job because she had asked TGC to pay for child care expenses and he had refused.

I note, however, that there was in place at the time an Order requiring TGC to pay 98% of extraordinary expenses, which would have included child care expenses. In short, LAC’s rational for not accepting that employment position is weak.

[ 45 ] What appears clear is that LAC is reasonably trained and suited for a clerical position. The evidence before me suggests that such a position would merit wages in the range of $14 to $16 per hour, resulting in a overall gross income from full time employment of approximately $30,000 per annum. With the children now being age 5 and 9, I consider it is appropriate for LAC to seek and return to employment, and I believe that she is capable of finding employment that will earn approximately $30,000 per year. [ 46 ] LAC has received interim spousal support for approximately 3 years.

She seeks to have it extended for a further 9 years, until C is 18 years of age. That is a wholly unrealistic and unreasonable request. LAC has an obligation to rehabilitate her employment career. [ 47 ] This marriage lasted for a period of 5 years.

LAC was entitled to some compensatory spousal support, but it would not be of significant duration, given that the marriage has increased her net worth to the extent of one half of the equity in the home, and her share of pension benefits and RRSP’s. [ 48 ] However, there continues to be a needs based component that warrants continuation of spousal support payments to LAC, particularly in that she is raising two young children, and she has not been able to find employment to date. [ 49 ] The marriage had a duration of approximately 5 years.

I find it reasonable that spousal support continue for a period of 5 years and one month from the date of separation i.e. to the end of December 2014. Thereafter, spousal support shall terminate. Quantum of Spousal Support [ 50 ] The interim orders of this Court provided interim without prejudice spousal support of $2,000 per month from April 1, 2010 until September 2010. Thereafter spousal support was increased to $3,200 per month from October 1, 2010 to January 31, 2011.

Thereafter, by Consent Order spousal support was reduced to $2,200 per month from February 1, 2011, continuing to today’s date. [ 51 ] I do not have evidence from LAC of her budget and needs. I do have evidence from TGC which indicates that, until his girlfriend moved in with him in May, 2011 his expenses including child support and spousal support payments, when compared with his income, left him underwater.

Since his girlfriend has moved in with him and has shared some of the rental expense, it would appear that he is able to meet his obligations, but with little remaining. [ 52 ] With the benefit of hindsight as to what has transpired since separation (which benefit was not available to judges providing interim support orders) and with the knowledge that, from the support payments, LAC has made the mortgage payments; and given my ruling above regarding occupation rent; I find that an appropriate amount for spousal support from the date of separation to the date of trial, and indeed to December 31, 2014, is $2,500 per month.

Access to C and K [ 53 ] LAC has primary care of C and K and TGC has access. By consent order granted by Sulyma J on March 20, 2012 TGC was granted access to both children for half of spring break in 2012, ongoing access every other weekend for the entire weekend, including overnight, and 2 weeks access each summer. [ 54 ] In practice, the terms of this consent order have been modified by the parties. K has shown reluctance and unhappiness with regard to spending overnights with her father and therefore overnights for K have been curtailed.

C spent some time on a vacation with TGC but K did not join them. [ 55 ] LAC resists increasing access to TGC, and in particular resists overnight access regarding K. LAC gave evidence that TGC

was a heavy drinker during their marriage and expresses concern about TGC’s suitability. TGC acknowledges previous issues with alcohol for which he took counselling. He acknowledges that he still drinks alcohol, but never when he is exercising his access. There is no convincing evidence before me that TGC has a continuing alcohol problem. [ 56 ] K is 5 years old at the time of trial. Neither party was able to explain her reluctance to stay with her father overnight.

She did so for a time, then decided she didn’t wish to continue. [ 57 ] There is no evidence before me indicating that TGC is acting improperly towards K or has done anything to adversely affect K on overnight visits, TGC now resides with a girlfriend in what appears to be a stable environment. [ 58 ] The best interests of children of younger years is generally to maximize the time they spend with each parent. Though K has demonstrated reluctance to overnight with her father, the Court does not take its direction from the wishes of a five year old.

No expert evidence has been placed before me that would suggest overnight access is not in K’s best interests. Accordingly, I direct that TGC will have rights of access to both children as follows: (

a) Every second weekend from Saturday morning until Sunday evening including overnights. On long weekends other than those set out below, the party with access shall have the extra day. (

b) Every Tuesday and Thursday evening from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (

c) Access on Thanksgiving and Easter shall alternate yearly. (

d) Christmas access shall be split each year with one parent having access until noon December 25 and the other from noon December 25 until 5:00 p.m. December 26, such access alternating yearly. (

e) Up to 4 weeks access during the summer months of July and August. Conclusion [ 59 ] The Maintenance Enforcement Program will now have to recalculate to determine whether TGC has underpaid or overpaid his support payments. In the event that TGC is still in arrears to LAC after the calculations are complete I direct that such arrears be paid by him at the rate of $150.00 per month. When the matrimonial home is sold, whatever amount is owed by TGC to LAC for child support or spousal support arrears shall be paid to LAC out of TGC’s share of the proceeds. [ 60 ] In

summary, my rulings are as follows: 1. The matrimonial home is to be listed for sale by March 1, 2013 with a possession date of July 1, 2013. If the parties cannot agree on a listing price or choice of realtor, they are to make written representations to me and I will decide. The proceeds are to be split equally between the parties, subject to credits below; 2. LAC will not receive any credit for the mortgage payments she has made in connection with the matrimonial home; 3. LAC will receive $4,500 from proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home before distribution of the remainder, pursuant to the Order of Madam Justice Hunt McDonald of September 29, 2010;

4. TGC will receive a credit for 1/2 of the increase in value of LAC’s RRSP, to be paid from LAC’s proceeds of sale of the Matrimonial Home; 5. LAC will receive the further sum of $15,966.85 from TGC’s proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, as compensation for his dissipation of matrimonial assets; 6. TGC’s Suncor Pension shall be distributed between the parties using the McAllister formula; 7. LAC will also be entitled to a 50% share of TGC’s Canada Pension Plan Benefits accrued from the commencement of the marriage until the date of separation. 8.

Share options held by TGC in either Solium or Suncor are matrimonial property. TGC holds 1/2 of those share options in trust for LAC, who is entitled to 1/2 of any profits realized upon exercise of the options; 9. TGC’s guideline income for purposes of child support and spousal support is set at $185,000 for each of 200, 2010, 2011 and 2012; 10. TGC stood in loco parentis to both SJ and LJ and must pay child support in respect of them; in the case of SJ, until she turned 18; in the case of LJ until he left his mother’s care.

However TGC’s obligations are to be reduced by $720 per month, which is the amount of child support payable by the biological father of SJ and LJ, so long as such reduction does not reduce TGC’s obligations below his obligations in respect of C and K; 11. TGC’s s 3 child support obligations from separation until judgment are to be set in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and these Reasons; 12. For purposes of calculating s 7 expenses LAC’s income shall be set at her line 150 income since separation; 13. TGC’s spousal support obligations from separation to the present are set at $2,500 per month.

MEP is to revise calculations accordingly. If TGC is in arrears, those arrears are to be paid at the rate of $150.00 per month. Upon sale of the matrimonial home, any amount owing by TGC to LAC as child or spousal support arrears shall be paid to LAC out of TGC’s share of the proceeds; 14. TGC shall pay ongoing spousal support to LAC of $2,500 per month until December 31, 2014 at which point his obligation to pay spousal support terminates; 15.

Each party shall provide the other party with a complete copy of his or her income tax return and any notice of assessment and reassessment issued by the Canada Custom and Revenue Agency on an annual basis, on or before June 30 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 statements disclosing any and all sources of income including self-employment income; and 16.

Access to C and K shall be as set out above. Divorce

[ 61 ] Each of the parties seeks a decree of Divorce. Upon receiving a satisfactory Affidavit in regard to that application, complying with the Alberta Rules and Procedure, I am prepared to grant a divorce. Costs [ 62 ] I place no blame on either party for taking this matter to trial. There has been mixed success at trial. Unless there was an Offer of Judgment by either party to the other made under the Rules of Court which I should consider, I am not prepared to order costs to either party. Heard on the 22nd and 23rd days of November, 2012. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 11th day of February, 2013.

R.J. Hall J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Rockey Yoo Campbell & Cooper for the Plaintiff Jonathan Song For the Defendant _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Mr. Justice R. J. Hall _______________________________________________________ The heard at the back of the judgment has been changed to read 2012 instead of 2013.