Young v Stefaniw, 2017 ABQB 201

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Young v Stefaniw, 2017 ABQB 201 Date: 20170324 Docket: 4810 025195 Registry: Red Deer Between: Crystal Dawn Young Plaintiff/applicant - and - Michael Ryan Stefaniw Defendant/respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In October, this court ordered Mr. Stefaniw to pay a total of $2,112.00 a month in combined child and spousal support; Mr. Stefaniw currently earns $2,000.00 a month. Mr.

Stefaniw applies for an adjustment to those child and spousal support orders, retroactive to November 1, 2016. He swears that, on October 27, 2016, he was laid off from his arm’s length union job and has been unable to find a job since then, despite attending at the union hall every day and making a minimum of 75 applications for non-union jobs once his union allowed him to do so.

He did obtain a job as a result of one of those efforts; however, since it was a non-union job, he had to supply his own tools and, in attempting to collect his tools from the matrimonial home, learned that his wife had sold the tools to make ends meet. [ 2 ] Mr. Stefaniw is currently receiving maximum EI payments, i.e. $537.00 per week. He asks for an order reducing his monthly child support payments from $1312.00 to $411.00 which is the amount payable under the Guidelines for his current income, and to suspend his spousal support obligation. [ 3 ] Ms.

Young responds that she does not accept his evidence about employment and job-seeking and intends to question him on

his affidavit; she asks that his application for downward variation be adjourned until after she has finished questioning, obtained a transcript, etc. [ 4 ] On an ‘interim, interim” basis, this court grants Mr. Stefaniw’s application: as of November 1, 2016, and until further order of the court, Mr. Stefaniw’s child support obligation is reduced to $411.00 per month and his monthly spousal support obligation, which is currently $800.00, is suspended. By “interim, interim”, I mean that Mr.

Stefaniw’s application is, as he has suggested, adjourned to be heard in May, 2017, or at any other time after the end of April, 2017 on which the parties can agree and the court can provide. This will allow Ms. Young to have as much questioning on Mr. Stefaniw’s affidavit as she thinks appropriate. I also mean that this order is made without prejudice to either party to bring the issue back to court for reconsideration and that the reconsideration could be effective as of November 1, 2016. [ 5 ] I accept that Mr.

Stefaniw entered into a consent order in October, 2016, and almost before the ink was dry on that order, he lost his job. The affidavit evidence he has presented supports that claim. The claim about losing his job constitutes a material change in the circumstances which existed in mid-October, 2016; therefore, the court has jurisdiction to amend or vary the October orders. [ 6 ] It is true, of course, both that Mr. Stefaniw’s evidence on this issue has not yet been tested and that Ms. Young should not be prevented from testing his post-November 1, 2016 income. It is also true that no one would say that Mr.

Stefaniw, a union welder, will never get a welding job again. Finally, I accept that, generally, line 150 income is a good guide to a person’s income for support purposes. [ 7 ] However, where there is a better guide to a person’s current income than line 150 income for the past year, that guide should be adopted. Interlocutory orders of the type made in October last year and in morning chambers today can always be revisited.

The practical problem is, however, that an order which remains in force despite its failure to incorporate the most current evidence of a dramatic downward shift in income is that such an order may become the basis for an arrears calculation; at a certain point, arrears could justify the suspension of a support payor’s driving licence. Without a licence, a unionized welder like Mr. Stefaniw may not be able to get to a job if one became available at the union hall.

That vicious circle of not supporting one’s dependents because one doesn’t have a licence because one hasn’t been paying an unrealistic support order can be prevented or short-circuited by keeping support orders as realistic as possible. If arrears accrued on Mr. Stefaniw’s support obligations from the time of separation in May, 2016 to November 1, 2016, he will have to deal with those separately; this order does not address any such arrears. If Mr. Stefaniw obtains employment, his support obligations will be re-adjusted upwards to reflect that reality. If Mr.

Stefaniw’s income increases but he does not voluntarily increase his support payments to reflect the increases, Ms. Young can, of course, apply to the court for an order imposing increases. In light of Ms.

Young’s dire need for support, which requires timely adjustments to the combined child and spousal support regime, and in order to assist her to determine if, and when, she should apply for changes to today’s order, instead of imposing the typical once yearly financial reporting obligation on the parties, I hereby order that, on the first day of every 3 month period, starting April 1, 2017, the parties will advise one another if they have obtained employment during the most recent period, and, if they have, will advise the other of the name of the employer and of the gross and net income they receive from that employment. [ 8 ] In light of the interlocutory nature of this order, the issue of costs of today’s application will be dealt with by the judge who will hear the adjourned application.

Heard on the 24 th day of February, 2017. Dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta this 24 th day of March, 2017. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Caitlin P. Ledrew, Schnell Hardy Jones LLP for Mr. Stefaniw Leonard G. Magawa, Robert H. de Vries Professional Corporation

for Ms. Young