Keaton v Keaton, 2017 ABQB 429

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Keaton v Keaton, 2017 ABQB 429 Date: 20170710 Docket: 4803 180087 Registry: Edmonton Between: Jeanette Marie Keaton Plaintiff/applicant - and - Jeffrey Chance Keaton Defendant/respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Keaton applies in Edmonton, in regular chambers, for an order giving her primary care and sole custody of the two children of the marriage with no access to the children for Mr.

Keaton until he has completed a 90 day residential program to treat alcoholism and an anger management course, for an order deeming Mr. Keaton to have income of approximately $82,500.00 and herself income of $17,000.00 for support purposes, for child support of the two children and of one other child who is not the child of the respondent and whose father pays child support, for spousal support, as well as for related relief, including the right to dispose of a personal RRSP and a Nissan vehicle. [ 2 ] There are many problems with the application: - Ms.

Keaton’s filing of her statement of claim for divorce on May 31, 2017 and bringing of the current motions in Edmonton breach the provisions of Rule 3.3. There are many family law lawyers in Red Deer; if Ms. Keaton wishes to retain a family law lawyer in Edmonton, her choice of counsel will, of course, be respected, but that counsel must make themselves available in Red Deer. Apparently,

the court administration in Red Deer does not have the capacity to hear counsel by telephone and requires personal appearance; that is a factor which Ms. Keaton will have to take into account in choosing her counsel. Both parties, and their children, all reside in Red Deer, there have been several earlier proceedings held in Red Deer, as well as a previous filing of a statement of claim for divorce; all of the court records pertaining to these proceedings are maintained in Red Deer, and the various agencies which have dealt with the parties and their children are all located in Red Deer. If Ms.

Keaton intends to continue her choice of Edmonton as the venue for the proceedings, she will have to bring an application under Rule 3.3(3) to do so, and give notice to Mr. Keaton of that application; - Ms. Keaton brings this application in regular chambers, i.e. where submissions of both parties are limited to a total of 20 minutes. Nonetheless, Ms. Keaton indicates that the parties’ complicated history is necessary to understand the current application; the application took 1 hour and 20 minutes. Ms.

Keaton says that her application is an emergency; parties who have emergency applications which cannot fairly be accommodated in regular chambers, must apply to the Associate Chief in Edmonton for an accelerated hearing in special chambers, which can usually be arranged; - Ms. Keaton is applying in regular chambers for sole custody and for no access by Mr. Keaton to his children, including one child who is a little over 1 and ½ years old. It is rarely appropriate to bring an application that will prevent a parent of a very young child from having any access to that child in regular chambers. Ms.

Keaton last took a Parenting after Separation course in 2006 relative to her previous parental relationship; - Ms. Keaton asks the court to deem $82,500.00 in income to Mr. Keaton for purposes of calculation of support obligations, Ms. Keaton herself provides evidence that Mr. Keaton’s 2016 employment income for that year was a little over $78,000.00 and that the remainder of his line 150 income from that year is derived from the cashing in of an RRSP, which may not be a regular source of income; - Although Ms.

Keaton is applying for spousal support, and is a teacher, she has not provided her financial disclosure. She states that she expects to earn $17,000.00 a year from teaching, whereas in 2015 she earned $51,000.00 and in 2016, she earned $29,000.00 although she was only able to work for 9 months. Mr. Keaton suggests that Ms. Keaton has a separate bank account in addition to access to the parties’ joint bank account and it is clear from her application that she has, at least, one RRSP in her own name; - Ms.

Keaton is asking for child support for one child in relation to whom she receives child support from that child’s father. She states that Mr. Keaton has been in loco parentis to that child since the parties began to cohabitate; - Ms. Keaton applies to sell a 2006 Nissan which is not currently being used by either party, Mr. Keaton using a bicycle to get around. However, in the budget which she has submitted in support of her application for spousal support, Ms. Keaton claims a monthly expense of $1,300.00 for transportation. [ 3 ] Ms. Keaton’s position relative to parenting is based on her assertion that Mr.

Keaton regularly abuses alcohol in front of the children and that he is a mean, argumentative, and cruel drunk. A hearing may substantiate her position. However, at this hearing, the only agreed fact is that Mr. Keaton has no criminal record for drunk driving, although he was charged with a drinking and driving offence in September, 2016 for which he was not convicted. It is therefore premature, on this evidence at this hearing, to give Ms. Keaton sole custody of the children and to forbid any access to his children by Mr. Keaton until he has completed a 90 day residential treatment program. Ms.

Keaton should immediately contact the court administrator in Red Deer for a special chambers hearing on parenting. In the meantime, Mr. Keaton will have access to his children on alternate weekends from 12 noon to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, commencing Saturday July 15. It will be a condition of that access that Mr. Keaton be sober when he picks up the children, and when he returns them, and that he not drink alcohol while he is parenting them. Mr. Keaton will also be subject to being videotaped by Ms. Keaton at the pickup and drop off. [ 4 ] Ms.

Keaton should take the Parenting after Separation course again. It’s possible that, in the intervening 11 years since she last took the course, the course has changed. In any event, Ms. Keaton presumably has changed over the last decade, and the parenting problems she has with Mr. Keaton are presumably at least somewhat different from the problems she had in her previous parenting relationship. It is at least clear from Ms. Keaton’s own evidence that there were many problems in her current relationship relative to Mr. Keaton’s parenting of Ms. Keaton’s child. Taking the course again would allow Ms.

Keaton to obtain assistance in dealing with her current parenting challenges. Mr. Keaton should obviously take the parenting after separation course immediately; if he has not done so at the next available session in Red Deer, the parenting time set out above will be suspended until he has completed the course. Ms. Keaton’s allegations of the scene which precipitated the separation on May 21 rings true: that Mr. Keaton was drunk and behaved lewdly and coarsely relative to Ms. Keaton while the children were in another room. Mr.

Keaton seems not to understand the potentially grave and life-long damage he could be inflicting on his children. [ 5 ] Ms. Keaton’s position that Mr. Keaton is voluntarily under-employed with a view to avoiding his support obligations may eventually be upheld by a court. That court will have to assess all of the evidence before it on that issue, including any evidence submitted by Mr.

Keaton, who has a teen-aged daughter from a previous relationship and who states that he quit his oilfield driving job which required him to frequently be away from home to return to the job which he states he had when he first met Ms. Keaton, which job pays only $42,000.00 gross yearly. A trial may be required to determine this issue unless the parties can agree to the material facts relating to the issue, in which case the matter can presumably be decided at a special chambers hearing. In the meantime, on an interim interim basis, Mr.

Keaton’s support obligations will be based on his current income. [ 6 ] A court hearing will be necessary to determine if Mr. Keaton should pay child support for Ms. Keaton’s child from a previous relationship. That child continues to bear her father’s name and Ms. Keaton receives child support for that child from that child’s father. On an interim interim basis, Mr. Keaton will pay child support for his two children. On the basis of the evidence before this court on this application to the effect that the parties separated on May 21, 2017, Mr.

Keaton will pay child support totalling $ 590.00 monthly, commencing June 1, 2017 and continuing until further order of the court. The nunc pro tunc portion of the order, the payments for June 1 and July 1, totalling $1,180.00 are due July 15, 2017. The court is advised that Mr. Keaton is currently living with his parents and therefore presumes that Mr. Keaton has relatively small monthly expenses; he can therefore afford to pay the retroactive portion of the award now. Starting August 1, 2017, the child support payments will be due on the first day of the month.

[ 7 ] As indicated above, Ms. Keaton’s application for spousal support in regular chambers raises many problems. That request seems at odds with her request that Mr. Keaton follow a residential alcohol treatment program which would prevent employment. In any event, her request to have Mr. Keaton’s income imputed at $82,000.00 and her income imputed at $17,000.00 raises many issues. It is not clear why she would not be expected to earn approximately $51,000.00 from teaching, which was her income in 2015.

On the other hand, it’s not clear why she would be paying $900.00 a month in child care if she is not employed outside the home. It is not clear what maternity benefits her teaching job provides. It is not clear that Mr. Keaton’s regular income from employment prior to returning to employment in his parents’ computer business was $82,000.00 rather than $78,500.00. It is not clear that Mr. Keaton is now deliberately under-employed with a view to evading child and spousal support. Ms.

Keaton argues that, based on deemed incomes of $82,000.00 and $17,000.00 respectively, where entitlement has been established, the spousal support guidelines suggest a spousal support payment varying from a low of $78.00 to $598.00. Entitlement has not been established on this application. It is not possible to determine on this application if Ms. Keaton has been financially disadvantaged by her relationship with Mr. Keaton: the court has not even been advised if she was a teacher prior to the relationship and has not been provided with her financial disclosure. Mr. Keaton has agreed that Ms.

Keaton is entitled to sell her RRSP on the understanding that she will eventually account for any proceeds when the parties settle their property dispute. Ms. Keaton has also been given the keys to the Nissan motor vehicle which she is similarly entitled to sell and use the proceeds. Mr. Keaton is of the view that it is not possible to maintain the parties’ matrimonial home; there is no information about the amount of equity in the matrimonial home and from whom that equity was financed.

There is simply not sufficient information on this application to make a fair assessment of the spousal support claim. [ 8 ] In light of the fact that this application was brought in the wrong venue, and that there has been mixed success on the application, each party will bear their own costs of this hearing. Heard on the 19 th day of June, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10 th day of July, 2017. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Deborah L. Baradziej, Trilogy Family Law for the Applicant, Ms. Keaton Jeffrey Chance Keaton, on his own behalf