Matula (Marshall) v Marshall, 2017 ABQB 222

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Matula (Marshall) v Marshall, 2017 ABQB 222 Date: 20170328 Docket: 4810 022057 Registry: Red Deer Between: Marina Matula (Marshall) Plaintiff - and - Adam Christopher Marshall Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on March 29, 2017; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Endorsement Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B.

Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] I have listened to the FTR recording of the court proceedings on December 7, 2016, with particular attention to the recording at approximately 11:37 a.m. when the chambers judge was orally outlining her order.

I am satisfied that the form of order which was filed on December 22, 2016, and which purported to reproduce the decision made on December 7, 2016, is an accurate summation of the chambers judge’s order. [ 2 ] In particular, in relation to pargraph 3 of the order in question, I am satisfied that, although the chambers judge referred to paragraph 11 on page 5 of Ms. Matula’s affidavit, the judge was only referring to the first part of that paragraph. The paragraph reads as follows: 11. That [Ms. Matula] shall advise [Mr.

Marshall] of dates for [their daughter’s] important activities (i.e. family events, school events, extracurricular activities, dance competitions, etc.) and [Mr. Marshall’s] access for those months will be agreed upon by the Applicant and Respondent as to what works best for [their daughter’s]

schedule during those months. [ 3 ] This is a file in which there have been many court proceedings, both in this court and in the Provincial Court. In the context of that pre-existing conflict, at the December hearing, the mother had asked for a parenting regime in which the father would have access only on the second weekend of the month despite what the mother described as the father’s work

schedule not being reliable and which

sometimes “takes him out of town so he is not always readily available” In the result, the chambers judge gave to the father one access weekend per month on 7 days’ notice to the mother. In light of the file as a whole, the chambers judge clearly intended that 7 days’ notice of the father’s intention to exercise access was sufficient. The chambers judge clearly did not intend that the father’s minimal access should be further complicated by requiring these two parties - who have difficulty in working together to ensure their child’s best interests - to agree to an access schedule. Moreover, it’s clear that the chambers judge did not establish the parties’ daughter’s

schedule as the primary factor in determining the father’s access. [ 4 ] In

summary, the order as filed on December 22. 2016 accurately reflects the judge’s oral order made on December 7, 2016. [ 5 ] The issue raised by Ms. Matula relative to the December 7, 2016 order leads me to conclude that it might be useful to clarify the order I made on February 24, 2017.

On that date, despite the mother’s position that the father should not have any extended summer access unless he had exercised at least 75% of the monthly access opportunities available to him in the previous six months, I ordered that, on a go forward basis, the father should have 7 consecutive days of access during the month of July on the condition that he advise the mother by April 30 of the 7 days on which he intended to exercise that access and that, in the month of August, he have his regular monthly weekend access. There is no requirement that he qualify for summer access by completing pre-summer access.

The parties’ child is now attending grade school; she knows who her father is. There is no longer, as there presumably was when she was much younger, the necessity of introducing and re-introducing her to her father. Heard on the 24 th day of February, 2017. Dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta this 27 th day of March, 2017. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Victoria E. Foster, Foster Legal Services Duty Counsel Rick E. Howarth, Schnell Hardy Jones LLP for the Defendant, Mr. Marshall _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Endorsement Decision of The Honourable Mr.

Justice _______________________________________________________ The Appearances have been amended to show Ms. Foster as Duty Counsel only and not representing Ms. Matula.