St-Pierre v Ram, 2015 ABQB 758

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: St-Pierre v Ram, 2015 ABQB 758 Date: 20151202 Docket: 4803 156755 Registry: Edmonton Between: Melanie St-Pierre Plaintiff(Applicant) - and - Jainesh Ram Defendant(Respondent) _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. St. Pierre’s application to vary the current order relating to the father’s costs of access is denied: she has not established a material change in circumstances.

Although the father’s income has increased materially, his income was not a factor in reducing his child support: the material factor was that Ms. St. Pierre had removed the children from Edmonton to Fort McMurray, thereby potentially depriving the children of a real parental relationship with their father. The father’s access expenses were therefore a necessity in the children’s best interests. As to the travel costs themselves, the applicant has not established any material change connected with them: for example, there is no evidence of any material change in fuel costs, or vehicle depreciation.

As to the number of exchanges at Grasslands, the father asserts that the mother has not been cooperative in establishing make-up visits when he has been unable to exercise his expected week-end access. Even if the difference in the number of exchanges were material, there would need to be a trial to determine why there were materially fewer access exchanges.

[ 2 ] The father must pay his proportionate share of day care expenses. The mother will provide a receipt for her 2015 daycare expenses and the father will pay his proportionate share of those expenses within 15 working days of having received that receipt.

If the mother has paid daycare expenses for one or both of the children for the months of July and August 2015 when both children are in the father’s care, she will, in addition to providing the receipt for those months, provide a letter from the day care explaining why they charge the full monthly amount for July and August when the children are not at the facility. [ 3 ] This order does not supersede or contradict any earlier order of the court.

However, with respect to any s. 7 extracurricular expenses not already determined by court order, for the following two reasons, this court orders that the mother should continue to require the father’s consent. First, the mother does not seem to understand that only extraordinary extracurricular expenses are properly described as s. 7 expenses: the amount of child support paid by a parent who is not the primary care-giver of a child is intended to include money available to pay ordinary extracurricular expenses.

This usual expectation may sometimes be adjusted, but it is not appropriate to do so here where the mother earns more money than the father and the parents together earn approximately $150,000.00.

Second, this is a relatively unusual situation where the father has alternate week-end access; in order not to interfere with the access, but still provide the children with appropriate extracurricular opportunities and stimulation, the parents have to agree on extracurricular activities. [ 4 ] Although I understand the mother’s wish to have yearly income decided as soon as possible after the end of the year, court practice concerning the exchange of information in June was chosen in relation to income tax filing dates with time built in for notices of assessment and re-assessment.

Since the guidelines speak of line 150 income, that is the information which is critical in terms of recalculation, either for the parties themselves or for the recalculation program. I am not aware of any reason why these parties could not now return to the recalculation program; it may be, however, that the recalculation could not take place earlier than 1 year from the date of the last order, i.e. May, 2016. To ensure recalculation on that date, the order would have had to have been filed with the recalculation program 4 months prior to May, 2016. Because it is Ms. St.

Pierre’s application, she will have to arrange for the preparation, signing, filing and service on Mr. Crewe of an order reflecting this endorsement; the recalculation program’s requirement about the contents of an order can be found on their web-site www.recalculation.alberta.ca. In addition to the web-site, the program has staff who answer telephone inquiries; I am advised that the waiting time for personalized telephone service is, generally, short. [ 5 ] The father’s application for primary care of the children is denied: he has not established a material change in circumstances.

The mother remains in Fort McMurray, the children continue to have their social support network, including their schools and school friends, in Fort McMurray. Also, the father’s application to be relieved of s. 3 child support obligations during the months of July and August is denied: s. 3 support is designed to provide what amounts to infrastructure for the children – permanent accommodation, standard wardrobe, ordinary school and extracurricular expenses, etc. These costs may have to be amortized over a 12 month period.

The fact that the mother is not parenting the children on a day to day basis during the months of July and August is not a reason to deviate from standard s. 3 obligations. [ 6 ] If the parties are not agreed on costs, I may be spoken to within 30 days of the release of this decision. Heard on the 17 th and 23 rd days of September, 2015. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1 st day of December, 2015. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Melanie St-Pierre, on her own behalf Lungile Tinarwo, Lungile Tinarwo Law for the Defendant(Respondent)