Condie v Condie, 2017 ABQB 120

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Condie v Condie, 2017 ABQB 120 Date: 20170221 Docket: 4803 157911 Registry: Edmonton Between: Drew Nesbitt Condie Plaintiff - and - Chantal Jadwiga Condie Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrected judgment was issued on February 23, 2017; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Decisions are required as to:

a) whether the existing order by which Mr. Condie has primary care of the parties’ three children should cease to be an “interim” order;

b) what access Ms. Condie should have with the children;

c) what child support Ms. Condie should pay to Mr. Condie. [ 2 ] The parties married in 2004 and separated in January 2011. They have three children presently aged 11, 10 and 8. Although they have been separated now for six years, they have not developed an ability to cooperate with each other with regard to parenting. Indeed, the litigation is accurately described as involving high levels of conflict between the parties. [ 3 ] After separation, Ms. Condie had day-to-day care of the children. [ 4 ] The first court order that dealt with parenting was granted in December, 2012.

Goss J. ordered a bilateral assessment. She also ordered that pending completion of the bilateral assessment, the children would continue to reside with Ms. Condie. Mr. Condie was to have specified weekly access in a public place with a third party adult present. I understand these limits on Mr. Condie’s access

were ordered because of a post-separation incident when Mr. Condie assaulted one of the children when attempting discipline. He was charged and pled guilty. A peace bond was entered. In the December 2012 order, Goss J. also ordered Mr. Condie to pay child support. [ 5 ] I was assigned as case manager in May, 2013. [ 6 ] The bilateral assessment report was completed in August 2014.

After close examination of all the relevant particulars, the author of the bilateral assessment, Barbara Sheptycki, recommended among other things that, “Primary residential care for [the 3 children] should be granted to their father, Drew Condie, on an interim basis. In that role, and for the interim period of one year , Mr. Condie would be responsible for all major decisions regarding the children’s care, including educational, medical, social and religious needs.” She recommended that Ms. Condie have regularly scheduled parenting time on alternate weekends.

She recommended that there be a court appointed Parenting Coordinator to assist the parties. [ 7 ] Although these recommendations were made in August 2014, and although Mr. Condie applied immediately for a court order implementing them, the determination that they should be implemented was not made until June, 2015. Ms. Condie challenged the factual basis of the assessment’s conclusions. Ms. Condie was scheduled to be out of the province for her work for a month in the fall of 2014. I ordered that the children live with Mr. Condie during that month and then returned to Ms. Condie until Mr.

Condie’s application could be dealt with. [ 8 ] In December 2014, I appointed a parenting coordinator. I also ordered frequent specific access for Mr. Condie. In May 2015, I granted a Parenting Coordination Order which was intended to give the appointed parenting coordinator authority to resolve some parenting issues as they might arise. [ 9 ] Mr. Condie’s application to implement the bilateral assessment recommendations was heard in June 2015. I granted Mr. Condie residential care of the three children, “on an interim basis, for a period of one year beginning July 24, 2015”.

There were detailed specific directions regarding parenting time for both parents during the summer of 2015 and for Ms. Condie beginning in the fall. [ 10 ] In late July 2015, while the children were in Ms. Condie’s care, there was a fire in her residence. No one was injured. Some of the circumstances surrounding the fire gave rise to a suspicion that Ms. Condie had set the fire intending to kill herself and the children. The children were removed from her care. Mr. Condie has had care of the children ever since. Ms. Condie has had some telephone access.

Efforts initiated by the parenting coordinator for professional assistance in having Ms. Condie’s relationship with her children restored have not progressed. [ 11 ] The suspicions concerning the setting of the fire have not been resolved. I understand that a police investigation was undertaken. I do not know whether or not it is still open. No prosecution has been initiated to date. The evidence before me supports the conclusion that the suspicions are not baseless. [ 12 ] Mr.

Condie has applied for a review of the June 2015 order and to have the “interim” qualification I placed on his day to day parenting eliminated. [ 13 ] In December 2016, Mr. Condie applied for an Emergency Protection Order. I understand this came about because he inquired of police authorities as to the status of their investigation arising out of the July 2015 fire and the police recommended that an EPO be obtained. A police officer made the application and provided the information which the Justice of the Peace assessed in deciding to grant the EPO. The EPO has not yet been confirmed in the Queen’s Bench.

A Queen’s Bench viva voce confirmation application is scheduled for March 30, 2017. [ 14 ] I have read the transcript of the EPO application before the Justice of the Peace. [ 15 ] The parenting coordinator is no longer in place. She was appointed for a year and that term has ended. In any event, the cost of that service was prohibitive for the parties, especially given what they have spent for the bilateral assessment, and for legal representation. Both have been self-represented for some time. [ 16 ] On the hearing of Mr.

Condie’s application, I asked both parties questions intended to elicit information relevant to an assessment of the best interests of the children. Mr. Condie’s answers were to the effect that the children have been doing well in his care and that the lack of contact with their mother has reduced their stress and been positive. He reported that they are doing well in school and that he intends to access counselling for them to help them deal further with stresses to which they have been exposed. [ 17 ] Ms. Condie’s answers were to the opposite effect – that the children are not prospering in Mr.

Condie’s care and that their lack of contact with her has had very negative consequences. [ 18 ] Mr. Condie has offered to permit Ms. Condie to have supervised access through a community agency which facilitates and supervises access. To date no such access has been arranged. Day-to-Day Parenting [ 19 ] Though the information I solicited at the hearing of this application was not sworn or subject to cross-examination, it is doubtful that there will be any improvement in its quality in the near future.

The parties cannot afford legal representation or the assistance of experts who might provide opinions to the court to assist in the determination of the best interests of the children. [ 20 ] Having been the case management judge in this matter for almost four years, I have had considerable contact with these parties. I received several reports from the parenting coordinator while she was involved. I have the bilateral assessment.

I have the information the parties gave in answer to my questions at the hearing of the application. [ 21 ] I am satisfied that the best interests of the children will be served by their continuing to be in the care of their father, Mr.

Condie. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the “interim” nature of the June 2015 order not be continued.

I have explained to the parties that the significance of continuing the order other than on an “interim” basis, is that it will be necessary for a party seeking a change of the parenting arrangement I now order to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances from those that now exist. [ 22 ] The June 2015 order provided that the parties would “work with the Parenting Coordinator . . . to make all major decisions regarding the children’s care including decisions concerning education, medical attention, social and religious involvements, in accordance with the procedures set out in the Parenting Coordination Order granted May 4, 2015.” Given that parenting coordination is no longer in place that provision is no longer workable.

I therefore order that all major decisions regarding the children’s care including decisions concerning education, medical attention, social and religious involvements will be made by Mr. Condie. Mr. Condie shall notify Ms. Condie in writing of any such decision he makes within 48 hours of having made the decision. Access [ 23 ] I am satisfied that Ms. Condie should have supervised access. This can be arranged through the community service that Mr. Condie identified at the hearing of this application or some other such service. Ms. Condie shall have the right to access for up to three hours every second Saturday.

The cost of the supervision is to be paid by Ms. Condie. [ 24 ] That access entitlement will continue until June 30, 2017 unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed by the parties. Unless the parties agree to an access regime for Ms. Condie for after June 30, 2017, Ms. Condie may apply after June 1, 2017 for a review and possible change of the arrangements governing her access on proper notice. Child Support [ 25 ] At the hearing of this application, I ordered Ms. Condie to pay child support. I found her annual net income to be $62,528.00 on the basis of information provided by Mr. Condie.

On that basis, I ordered that she pay $1197.00 monthly child support beginning February 1, 2017. [ 26 ] I further ordered that she pay child support on the same basis for the period commencing when Mr. Condie took over day-to- day parenting of the children, August 1, 2015 to January 31, 2017. The amount of the arrears of child support for that period is to be calculated by MEP. I ordered a stay of enforcement in respect of those arrears so long as Ms. Condie pays $100 a month in addition to the ongoing child support. [ 27 ] I ordered that the terms of the child support order are subject to adjustment should Ms.

Condie apply for adjustment and provide evidence that her income was or is something other than the figure I have used. [ 28 ] Finally, I ordered that either party may apply for an amendment to the terms of the stay of enforcement of the child support arrears upon providing evidence that Ms. Condie’s means are greater or lesser than the income used for the purposes of my child support order. Divorce [ 29 ] Previously, I ordered that the issues in relation to the divorce and the issues in relation to parenting matters be severed. The evidence required to deal with the divorce has been filed.

Both parties indicated that they wanted the divorce to proceed. I signed a Divorce Judgment on January 27, 2017. Formal Order [ 30 ] The court’s Case Management Counsel who has had charge of this matter will prepare the formal order. There will be no requirement that the form be approved by the parties before I sign it. Heard on the 27 th day of January, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21 st day of February, 2017. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Both parties appeared without counsel _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ Spelling error has been corrected in the first line of this paragraph: [16] On the hearing of Mr. Condie’s application, I asked both parties questions intended to elicit information relevant to an assessment of the best interests of the children.