Dubauskas v Sigurdson, 2016 ABQB 84

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dubauskas v Sigurdson, 2016 ABQB 84 Date: 20160217 Docket: 4803 148268 Registry: Edmonton Between: David Kestutis Dubauskas Applicant - and - Patricia Mae Sigurdson Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Dubauskas applies for three types of relief: cancellation of spousal support, re-assessment of the s. 7 expense for his daughter’s dental care and cancellation of child support for his adult son. [ 2 ] At the hearing, Mr.

Dubauskas conceded that there was no material change of circumstance from the last order which addressed spousal support; his claim for that relief is therefore denied. [ 3 ] Mr. Dubauskas and Dr. Sigurdson disagree about their adult daughter’s dental treatment: the father says that no expert evidence establishes the necessity for an implant and that, because he pays 75% of dental expenses and his dental coverage only covers standard crowns, not implants, if the daughter’s dental problem is to be covered now while she is at university, it should be done by way of a bridge.

There was no evidence at the hearing about how much, if any, of the $1,675.00 which the mother paid for the crown portion

of the implant was paid for direct by her as opposed to having been paid by her dental coverage. At the hearing, counsel for Dr. Sigurdson agreed to clarify the dental payments with a view to providing Mr. Dubauskas with a receipt for the crown portion of the work which he could then claim from his insurer. He would then use the amount he received from his insurer, perhaps $1,500.00, to help him repay Dr. Sigurdson for any amount which she personally paid for dental work. If Dr.

Sigurdson has already claimed for the crown portion of the work from her dental coverage, and been paid, the expense for the dental work will have to be re-addressed. At the least, this claim demonstrates that cooperation between parents each of whom has dental coverage in advance of undertaking dental expenses would spare them both not only aggravation but, potentially, unnecessary expense; they will presumably take this experience into account in relation to dental issues relative to their younger adult child. [ 4 ] Mr.

Dubauskas asks the court to cancel child support payments for his adult son who turned 18 in February 2015 and who graduated from grade 12 in June 2015 with an Alberta High School Diploma with marks insufficient to give him access to a post- secondary institution. In September, 2015, Mr. Dubauskas’ son was accepted as a returning Grade 12 student. The issue is whether, during this additional year in high school, the adult child remains a child of the marriage for purposes of child support, i.e. is this year reasonable preparation for economic self-sufficiency for the adult child. Mr.

Dubauskas has an extremely limited active relationship with his son; he had understood that his son planned on taking up-grading secondary school mathematics courses with a view to accessing a post-secondary institution in a computer-related program and it doesn’t seem to the father that this additional high school year will lead to admission to a post-graduate institution.

Had the father realized that 15 of his son’s credits for the high school diploma came from working on the line at a fast food restaurant, the father might have been able to discuss realistically with his son the options both in terms of higher learning and in terms of work training. The father learned at the hearing that his son has now re-set his sights on admission to a university-level general studies program and has, indeed, started a high school biology course as of February 1, 2016.

One of the courses in which the parties’ son was enrolled as of September 1, 2015, is a Math 20-1 course in which he has so far received a bare pass. On the other hand, in the first semester of the 2015-16 school year, the son has received marks in the 80s in a variety of modules including a cluster relating to electronic issues such as network security, peripherals, media and the like and a cluster relating to health care such as cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system, injury management.

There is no information before the court on whether the modules taken by the son so far in the 2015/16 school year will allow him to access post-secondary education. However, it does seem that these additional high school level courses are - at the least - likely to give him access to more remunerative, and potentially even more fulfilling, employment than working on the line in a fast-food operation. I have therefore concluded that the son remains unable to withdraw from his parents’ care during this school year; Mr. Dubauskas will continue to pay s. 3 support for the son until June 1, 2016.

It is clear, however, that by the end of the 2015/16 school year, the adult son and his parents will have to engage in realistic discussions concerning their son’s ability to withdraw from their financial care. [ 5 ] Mr. Dubauskas has raised his own health and his own recent financial difficulties as mitigating factors relative to his child support obligations. Neither of those is, however, a mitigating factor: Mr.

Dubauskas currently has a well-paying job; it is his gross income from that employment which sets his child-support obligations. [ 6 ] Costs of this application may be addressed once the dental issue has been finalized. Heard on the 9 th day of February, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 17 th day of February, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: David K. Dubauskas on his own behalf Michele J. Reeves,

for the Respondent, Dr. Sigurdson