Morrow v Thorner, 2016 ABQB 720

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Morrow v Thorner, 2016 ABQB 720 Date: 20161220 Docket: FL01 19781 Registry: Calgary Between: Lindsey Michelle Morrow Applicant (Respondent) - and - Kurtis Donald Thorner Respondent (Applicant) _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice C.L. Kenny _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] An Order was granted by me on October 7, 2016 with respect to a domestic special application dealing with parenting and child support.

In that order, it was left open to re-attend before me in the event that the parties could not agree on an appropriate child care provider and preschool as well as any issues regarding communication, travel, sharing vacation time or other issues in implementing the order. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on some issues and are back before the court to sort those out for them. [ 2 ] The parties currently equally share parenting of the child, age three, one week on, one week off. The mother moved in with her partner after the separation on a acreage south of Okotoks.

The father has remained, to date, in the matrimonial home located in the south of Calgary. The parties were to agree on an appropriate day home and pre-school somewhere between them in order to accommodate the daughter as well as their own schedules and ability to care for and transport their daughter. They cannot agree. They now have the child attending two different day homes which completely negates the intention of the order. The intention is to have one consistent day care which will allow for a seamless transition to a nearby preschool.

There are also allegations by the father that the mother has removed the child from the day care during the father’s time with the child without his knowledge or consent. [ 3 ] The mother is a substitute teacher. At the hearing before me in October, she indicated that she had worked very few days in

the 2016 year. I imputed an income of minimum wage to her as expected that she would be able to work more than she had been. The father was unemployed at the time of the application having been laid off recently but has now secured full time employment in downtown Calgary. [ 4 ] The mother wishes the child to attend a day home in north Okotoks. The day home started in the summer of 2016. The provider’s two children will be in the home - one age 15 months and one age three. In addition, there is one other 15 month old child. The day home is a little closer to the mother’s home and in the Okotoks area.

If the child is not picked up by 5 p.m., there are late fees to be paid. [ 5 ] There is no consistency to the mother’s employment. As indicated earlier, she worked very few days last year. She has always been a substitute teacher for the Calgary School Board. At the domestic special application, she indicated that she has now also registered with another school division which is south of Calgary nearer her current home. She has indicated that she is now working more days.

On a day to day basis, she either does not work, or may work in Calgary or the Foothills school district. [ 6 ] The father has chosen a day care in Cranston which is in the very south part of Calgary. The father says that the children at that day care are the same age as their daughter which is a better fit. This day care is also very close to a number of schools so that transfer into the school system will be easy and convenient. The day home provider will provide transportation to preschool and provides meals and snacks. [ 7 ] The convenience to all parties including the daughter, says the father, is important.

He points out that he stills lives in the matrimonial home. The mother chose to move south of Okotoks to reside with her new partner, far from the area in which the parties resided. The mother does not work all of the time and can choose where and when to work. She has much greater flexibility. She can drop off and pick up the child from the day home in Cranston on her way into and home from work in Calgary. If she works in the Foothills district, it will be a bit more complicated for her however she works school hours and is therefore able to leave to pick the child up much earlier than the father.

If she is not working, then she has complete flexibility to drive the child to the day home or not take her to the day home at all during her time with the child. [ 8 ] The father on the other hand, works regular hours. He would have to drive to Okotoks in the morning to drop the daughter off and then drive back into the city and downtown for work along with all of the rest of the traffic into downtown Calgary. He would have to wake the child very early and drive her early to accomplish this.

He would also not be able to pick her up by 5 p.m. unless he left work at 3:30 p.m. which he is not able to do with regular work hours. The father requires day care every day that the child is in his care whereas the mother does not. [ 9 ] The difference in the day cares in terms of driving distance is approximately 10 to 12 extra minutes for the mother if the day home is in Cranston. It will take her 31 minutes on average rather than 18 minutes for the day home she has chosen.

For the father, it would take him approximately 18 minutes to the mother’s chosen day home and 11 minutes for the one chosen by him. [ 10 ] It would have been preferable for the parties to agree on a day home that best met their daughter’s long term needs but they have left that matter in my hands. It is not simply a matter of distance alone. It is a matter of what works best for this family all the way around. The parents’ schedules, chosen locations of residence, opportunities for the child, and travel are all considerations.

I am satisfied that the better day home of the two chosen by the parties, when considering all of those factors, is that in Cranston chosen by the father. The father has a full time job downtown in Calgary. The mother has a much more flexible

schedule and more flexible hours. There are more school opportunities in the Cranston area. The driving time and hours will be reduced for the child overall. The parties lived in that area before separating. [ 11 ] The parties have also not agreed on a vacation schedule. The father put forward a proposal. The mother responded. I will deal only with those parts of the proposal where the parties do not agree. The rest, I understand, is agreed.

a) The Christmas

schedule will be as proposed by the father.

b) The March break/ Easter holiday shall be as set out by the father with the change to reflect that it will commence in March of 2019 when the child is in grade 1. Each party will advise the other with respect to any travel plans during this period by February 1 of that year.

c) The parties shall alternate the Thanksgiving long weekend.

d) For summer holidays, the

schedule will be as set out by the mother with the following changes: The child shall not be out of the care of either parent for a continuous period exceeding two weeks until the child reaches the age of 7 years.

e) Mother’s Day and Father’s Day shall be as proposed by the mother.

f) Halloween shall be alternated as set out in the mother’s proposal with the father having odd number years.

g) With the father’s agreement and consent, the mother may provide third party care for the child when the father or his partner or family is not available to do so. Heard on the 6 th day of December, 2016. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20 th day of December, 2016.

C.L. Kenny J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Laurie Tymchuk for the Applicant (Respondent) Eryn B. Logie for the Respondent (Applicant)