Van Ryk v Van Ryk, 2017 ABQB 49

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Van Ryk v Van Ryk, 2017 ABQB 49 Date: 20170127 Docket: 4803 154103 Registry: Edmonton Between: Bonita Jean Van Ryk Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim - and - Stephen Alexander Van Ryk Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice K.P. Feehan _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] Bonita and Stephen Van Ryk seek orders with respect to the custody of and decision-making for their son, Braedon, including decisions with respect to counselling and schooling for him, parenting of and access to Braedon, child support, and spousal support, pursuant to the Divorce Act , RSA 2000, RSC 1985 c 3(2 nd Supp), as amended ( Divorce Act ), and division of their matrimonial property and debts pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act , RSA 2000, c M-8, as amended ( MPA ). They also both seek an order prohibiting negative and disparaging comments in front of Braedon.

Bonita Van Ryk additionally seeks a matrimonial home possession order, and an adjustment for occupation rent, which Stephen Van Ryk opposes. II. Overview [ 2 ] Bonita Van Ryk is currently 52 years old. Stephen Van Ryk is 43 years old. They are both lifelong Alberta residents. They

began cohabiting in 2004, were married on January 15, 2005 and ceased cohabiting on July 9, 2010. This was a first marriage for each of them. [ 3 ] There is one child of the marriage, Braedon, currently age 11. [ 4 ] Bonita Van Ryk seeks sole custody of and decision-making ability for Braedon, with reasonable and generous access for Stephen. Stephen Van Ryk seeks joint custody and decision-making ability, and shared parenting; Braedon living with each of his parents on alternate weeks and equally over holiday periods.

They agree that child support should be paid pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 as amended, and that the distribution of matrimonial property and debts should be determined pursuant to the MPA . [ 5 ] A short chronology follows: Summer of 1998: Bonita and Stephen meet while both living in their mother’s homes next door to each other. November 1998: Bonita and Stephen begin dating. 2002: Bonita and Stephen begin cohabiting, living in a duplex rented by Stephen. March 2004: Bonita moves back to her mother’s residence after a dispute with Stephen.

April 2004: Bonita becomes pregnant with Braedon. May 2004: Bonita and Stephen move back together and become engaged. July 2004: Bonita and Stephen begin looking for a home. August 2004: Bonita and Stephen find a home at 17119-94 Street, Edmonton and it is purchased in the name of Stephen, who is sole owner and sole mortgagor. This arrangement was by consent, as at the time Bonita was an undischarged bankrupt, it was agreed that Stephen would take care of all financial matters, and Bonita said that Stephen had promised he would eventually put her on title. Stephen denies that.

January 15, 2005: Bonita and Stephen are married, at which time Bonita was 40 years of age and Stephen 32 years of age. January 21, 2005: Braedon is born. July 9, 2010: Date of separation; Stephen continues to live in the matrimonial home while Bonita and Braedon return to live with Bonita’s mother. Fall of 2011: Bonita and Stephen move back together for approximately six weeks in an attempt to reconcile. Fall of 2011 to April 2012: While living separate and apart, Bonita and Stephen spend overnight visits together. July 2014: Stephen begins to see a girlfriend.

November 2015: Stephen’s girlfriend begins to live with Stephen in the matrimonial home, while Bonita and Braedon continue to live with Bonita’s mother, currently age 83. III. Custody of and Decision-Making for Braedon [ 6 ] By an Interim Order of Stevens, J. dated August 19, 2010, Bonita Van Ryk was granted primary custody and decision- making for Braedon.

By Consent Order of Marceau, J. dated March 27, 2015, the parties were granted joint custody of and decision- making for Braedon with the primary residence to be with Bonita. [ 7 ] By Consent Order of Crighton, J. dated June 10, 2016, independent counsel was appointed for Braedon. The parties agreed that this counsel would give voice to Braedon and prepare a report, which would become evidence but would not be a formal “Voice of the Child” report pursuant to Family Law Practice Note 7, s 37. A. ii.

Braedon was represented at trial by counsel and her two reports were marked as Exhibits 28 and 33, respectively. [ 8 ] Bonita and Stephen agreed that she would stay home to look after Braedon for awhile or until he started kindergarten in 2010. [ 9 ] There was much evidence called by both parties as to their behaviour during the course of the marriage and since separation, apparently to strengthen each of their claims for custody of, decision-making for, parenting of, and access to Braedon. [ 10 ] Both Stephen and Bonita Van Ryk allege that the other have made derogatory statements in the presence of Braedon about them, and Bonita said that Braedon was scared of his father. [ 11 ] Bonita Van Ryk said that Stephen had anger management issues; he would punch the walls, throw kitchen chairs and the coffee table, at times pushed her down, was demeaning, degrading, and verbally abusive to her.

She recalled a time in the summer of 2006 when she said she was physically assaulted by Stephen, although she did not call the police. Stephen said that Bonita drank a lot; she drank daily and had at least six beers per day. [ 12 ] Bonita Van Ryk admitted that she had seen a psychologist in 2007 and had been given a prescription for anxiety. [ 13 ] Bonita Van Ryk says that beginning in January 2010 various items of her property began to disappear or be damaged,

including her computer, photocopier, camera, sunglasses, landscaping books, educational certificates, registration and insurance papers, shoes and shoe laces, although she admitted she had no evidence that the perpetrator was Stephen. [ 14 ] On March 30, 2010, Stephen Van Ryk called the Mental Health Crisis Unit, indicating that Bonita used alcohol daily, was suffering from aggressive behaviour and mood swings, and that she might be bi-polar.

The Crisis Unit attended at the home and after discussion with the couple, Bonita says that they simply advised her to put together a safety bag in case she needed to leave the home quickly. Under cross-examination, she admitted that in September 2010 she received a mental health assessment. [ 15 ] There was much discussion about the events of July 9, 2010. Bonita Van Ryk says she was intoxicated, and admitted to yelling at Stephen. Stephen says she accused him of having an affair.

She says he knocked her down and she suffered a tiny leg fracture and ruptured ACL, for which she required physiotherapy, but not surgery, and for which she wears a knee brace. Stephen says that Bonita hit him on the shoulders multiple times and he then pushed her, after which he went downstairs in the house to avoid a further confrontation. Stephen says that Bonita followed him downstairs, hit him again, grabbed his penis, and he shoved her down again. Bonita says that Stephen called the police and said she had assaulted him, but there were no charges laid.

She attended at a medi-center and later at the University of Alberta Hospital for an MRI. She says she returned the same day to the house to retrieve her possessions, but thereafter has lived with her mother, except for short periods of time at attempted reconciliation and overnight stays. [ 16 ] Bonita Van Ryk says that beginning in 2013 she began to have significant difficulty with Stephen’s brother.

In November 2013 she obtained a restraining order against him, in December 2013 an emergency protection order, and on December 20, 2013 he was charged with mischief for causing $10,000 damages to her mother’s home. [ 17 ] Stephen Van Ryk did not support the actions of his brother, and told him to stay away from Bonita. On January 10, 2014 Stephen sent an email to Bonita telling her that she should do what she needed to address the situation. [ 18 ] Another incident of concern to the parties occurred on Christmas Eve, 2013.

Bonita Van Ryk said that Braedon should have been returned to her at 3:00 p.m., Stephen said that the return time was 8:00 p.m. About 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., Bonita telephoned the police who then telephoned and firstly spoke to Braedon and then Stephen, interrupting the opening of Christmas gifts. Stephen said that incident was upsetting for Braedon. [ 19 ] In November 2015 there was an incident where Braedon got into trouble at school for stomping a snowman that had been built by others in his class. He apparently had asked the assistant principal not to tell his father what had happened.

Bonita Van Ryk took this to be evidence that Braedon was afraid of his father. The assistant principal reported to counsel for Braedon that she thought he was merely upset with himself, embarrassed and feeling badly. [ 20 ] On November 9, 2015, Lee, J. granted a mutual restraining order between Bonita Van Ryk and Stephen’s girlfriend. [ 21 ] On November 22, 2016, counsel for Braedon produced a first draft of her report, which was apparently read to Bonita by her lawyer.

Counsel’s later version of her letter dated January 2, 2017, Exhibit 28, indicated that on that night Braedon reported his mother was very upset with him, kept him up at night yelling at him, and insisted that he had been lying to his counsel about his desire to spend half of his time with his mother and half with his father. Stephen added that Braedon reported to him that his mother had also taken away his TV and computer rights. [ 22 ] Another incident reported to Braedon’s counsel in November 2016 involved what appeared to be a panic attack.

Braedon advised that his mother began to yell at him and he ran out of the house. He said that his mother came after him, grabbed him and threw him against the stairs of the house. [ 23 ] Under cross-examination, Bonita Van Ryk agreed that she often videotaped Braedon while he was being dropped off at or leaving his father’s house, that she tape recorded her conversations with Stephen and videotaped a conversation with his girlfriend. In Braedon’s counsel’s letter of January 5, 2017, she indicated that on December 31, 2016 Bonita Van Ryk asked Braedon to make a videotape.

He agreed to do so because his mother was very upset and he wanted to appease her. He said she dictated to him that he should say on the video he had lied to his legal counsel about wanting to spend equal time with his parents, but Braedon reiterated to his counsel on January 5, 2017 that he had not lied and he indeed did want to spend equal time with his parents. [ 24 ] Bonita also admitted she had made contact with Stephen’s sister, an earlier girlfriend, a cousin, and his mother, making numerous allegations about the behaviour of Stephen.

She accused Stephen of having an affair with his sister-in-law and of fathering his 15 year old niece’s baby. [ 25 ] Stephen advised he is very involved with Braedon during his access time. He knows Braedon’s friends, is on SchoolZone, the Edmonton Public School’s progress file, speaks regularly to Braedon’s teacher, reads with him, talks with him, watches TV and videos, takes him swimming, walks the dogs with him, and in February 2015 took him to Disney World. [ 26 ] There was a suggestion by Stephen Van Ryk that Bonita had purposely attempted to alienate Braedon from him.

Counsel for Braedon indicated that after having met with Braedon on five occasions, she did not believe there was parental alienation. I agree with that assessment, and relying upon the description of parental alienation in V.(M.B.) v K.(R.B.) , 2014 ABCA 334 , [2014] A.J. No. 1131 at paras 8 and 9 , I do not find that Bonita Van Ryk has purposefully attempted to alienate Braedon from his father. [ 27 ] Bonita Van Ryk would like to preserve the status quo with respect to custody of and decision-making for Braedon. Stephen Van Ryk seeks joint custody and decision-making for Braedon.

I note that is the status quo on these issues according to the Consent Order of March 27, 2015. [ 28 ] The Divorce Act provides in s 16(1) that a court may make an order respecting the custody of any or all children of the marriage, including the granting of custody on a joint basis (s 16(4)), for a definite or indefinite period, and under terms, conditions or restrictions that the court thinks fit and just (s 16(6)).

In making an order for custody and decision-making ability, the court is to give effect to the principle that the child should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child (s

16(10)). [ 29 ] Considering all of the evidence set out above, I conclude that it is in the best interest of Braedon to continue the determination in the Consent Order of March 27, 2015, that each of his parents, Bonita and Stephen Van Ryk, have joint custody of and decision- making for him. (

a) Schooling for Braedon [ 30 ] A point of dispute with respect to Braedon has to do with his attendance at junior high school. He is currently in Grade 6 at York school, which is only two to three blocks from Bonita’s house and a 10 to 15 minute drive from Stephen’s. Bonita would like Braedon to attend Steele Heights Junior High School for which York is the feeder school. It is only approximately 10 blocks from her house and a 15 minute drive from Stephen’s.

She says Braedon’s friends, and in particular his best friend, would be attending that school. [ 31 ] On the other hand, Stephen Van Ryk would like Braedon to attend Strathcona Christian Academy in Sherwood Park. He conducted extensive research of schools, Exh 16, determined that Strathcona Christian Academy was one of the top six junior high schools in the province, and he indicated that two of Braedon’s cousins attended that school.

He said the school is extremely hard to get into and conceded that Braedon would have to be driven out to Sherwood Park and back on a daily basis if he attended this school. [ 32 ] Braedon’s student progress report cards, Exh 15, show that his grades are exemplary, there are no complaints about him and he is a mature student for his age. [ 33 ] Legal counsel for Braedon did not make a recommendation as to whether Braedon should attend Steele Heights Junior High School or Strathcona Christian Academy.

She said he had expressed an interest in attending Strathcona Christian Academy and that he would likely excel anywhere, make friends anywhere and still maintain positive friendships with his current friends if they did not attend the same school. However, she indicated that Braedon would also be agreeable to attending Steele Heights Junior High School. She said although his cousins attended Strathcona Christian Academy, he was not close to them.

She noted that Stephen Van Ryk had “put the idea to him” of attending Strathcona Christian Academy, said he was influenced by his father’s opinion and more inclined to agree with his father, hoping that the result would be that he got to spend more time with him. [ 34 ] Considering all of the above, and in particular the significant changes in Braedon’s life that I discuss below, I find it is in the best interests of Braedon that he continue to go to the neighbourhood school, Steele Heights Junior High School, where most of his friends from York School will attend.

It is much closer to each of his parent’s houses and it appears he will excel at either school. (

b) Counselling for Braedon [ 35 ] There was discussion at trial as to whether Braedon requires some form of counselling at the present time. Bonita believes that he does. Stephen said that this was “probably a good idea” and agreed that he would pay for counselling. [ 36 ] Braedon does not want to see a counsellor but will if required, providing that counselling sessions would not be for “very long”. [ 37 ] I find that it would be in Braedon’s best interest to have some counselling as he goes through the transition period with respect to parenting and access, which I discuss below.

I find it would be helpful for Braedon to attend four to eight sessions, or as recommended, of counselling with a Master’s level family or child counsellor or psychologist. I recognize that there will be difficulty in agreement on the counsellor to be seen, and I therefore direct his legal counsel, Ms. Lawrence, to select a counsellor. The purpose of the counselling sessions will be to address personal and adjustment issues which may be experienced by Braedon during and immediately following the parenting and access transition. Counselling sessions are to be paid for by Stephen Van Ryk. IV.

Parenting of and Access for Braedon [ 38 ] By the Interim Order of August 19, 2010, Stephen Van Ryk was granted reasonable and generous access to be arranged by the parties, and by the Consent Order of March 27, 2015 that access was detailed to grant Stephen alternating weekends, Wednesdays from school completion to 8:00 p.m., 10 days in each of the months of July and August, one-half of each Christmas vacation and spring break, with reasonable telephone access, and flexibility for attendance at either of the parties’ family functions and events.

Provision was also made for international travel. [ 39 ] Both parties agreed they have generally been following those access orders to date, although there have been disputes over pick-up and drop-off timelines, Christmas and summer vacations. [ 40 ] Bonita Van Ryk has asked, with respect to parenting and access, to preserve the status quo.

Stephen Van Ryk has asked for shared parenting and access, one week on/one week off, with the exchange occurring through drop off at school on Wednesday mornings by one parent, and pick up from school on Wednesday afternoons by the other, thereby avoiding direct contact between the parents. [ 41 ] Counsel for Braedon indicated he wanted to spend his time at both homes evenly but agreed it would be appropriate if there was a transition plan to last for a few months, moving from the status quo to shared parenting and equal access. [ 42 ] The Divorce Act provides that a court may make an order respecting access (s 16(1)), including joint access, otherwise known as joint parenting (s 16(4)) for a definite or indefinite period, on terms, conditions or restrictions that the court thinks fit and just (s 16(6)), and shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child (s 16(10)).

[ 43 ] Based upon all of the evidence set out above with respect to custody and decision-making, and for all of the reasons expressed in that area, I determine that it would be in the best interest of Braedon that Stephen and Bonita Van Ryk have shared parenting for and access to him. I also agree that there should be a transition period from the date of these Reasons until equal weekly access. [ 44 ] As a result, between February 1 and April 5, 2017, there shall be a transition period whereby Stephen Van Ryk will have access from every second Wednesday after the close of the school day until the following Monday morning at the beginning of the school day. I have set out a

schedule in conclusions to these Reasons. [ 45 ] Commencing on April 5, 2017, Stephen Van Ryk will have Braedon on a shared parenting basis from Wednesday at the close of the school day until the next Wednesday at the close of the school day, Bonita Van Ryk will have custody from the end of the school day on that Wednesday until the following Wednesday at the end of the school day, with ongoing alternating weekly parenting and access until Braedon reaches the age of 18. [ 46 ] With respect to the summer months of July and August, Stephen Van Ryk shall have Braedon from July 1 to July 15, Bonita from July 16 to July 31, Stephen from August 1 to August 15, and Bonita from August 16 to August 31, reversing those dates every other year.

I have set out a

schedule in the conclusions to these Reasons. [ 47 ] With respect to Christmas holidays, the Consent Order dated March 27, 2015 shall continue. [ 48 ] Additionally, Stephen Van Ryk shall purchase a smart phone for Braedon so that Braedon can have telephone, text and applications contact with each of his parents at his discretion. V. Child Support for Braedon [ 49 ] By the Interim Order of August 19, 2010, Stephen’s Guideline income was set at $62,500 and Bonita’s at $0, as a result of which child support was to be paid of $543 per month commencing September 1, 2010.

Both parties agreed that all payments have been made on a timely basis, and there is no default. [ 50 ] Educationally, Bonita has a high school general diploma, graduating in approximately 1982, and landscaping courses from Metro Community College. These courses were between three and nine hours each.

She has no other post-secondary education. [ 51 ] A short chronology of Bonita’s employment follows: 1980 - 1982: Bonita worked part-time during the high school year and full-time over the summers at the Leather Ranch. 1985 - 1990: Bonita was an employee at a tanning salon. 1990 – 1997 or 98: Bonita purchased the tanning salon but found it was not profitable and eventually the landlord seized all of her equipment for delinquent lease payments. 2000: Bonita filed for bankruptcy, for which she was later discharged.

May 2003 – September 2004: Bonita obtained work at the Wellington Garden Center during the gardening seasons in 2003 and 2004. September 1, 2004 Bonita left her position at the Wellington Garden Center due to her pregnancy and because of the approaching end of that season. 2004 – 2010 Bonita worked on the yard of the home, landscaping and performing yard and garden maintenance.

July 2010 – present: During cross-examination, Bonita agreed that she had not obtained employment over this period of time, and she had not sought the assistance of an employment counsellor, although she had volunteered twice for school field trips and was the secretary of the parent school council. 2012: Bonita took a real estate class and began looking for work again at Wellington Garden Center, but at about this time it went into receivership. 2013: Bonita investigated taking a legal assistant program at MacEwan University but did not apply, as she determined she did not have the pre-requisites necessary for that course. 2013 – 2014: Over these summers, Bonita did some unpaid landscaping for her mother’s cousin.

She also did some renovations at her mother’s house. Currently: Bonita is not working outside the house. [ 52 ] Bonita Van Ryk agrees that she is capable of working today, she has never been advised by a doctor that she cannot work, is currently taking no medications, and although she suffered an ACL tear for which she wears a knee brace, and has some osteoporosis, she remains physically active and these health difficulties have not prevented her from her landscaping or renovation activities.

She is currently searching on-line for classes and seeking employment at a garden center. [ 53 ] Bonita Van Ryk says she requires upgrading in English and Math, and would like to take a two year course either in landscaping at NAIT or Reeves College, or to become a legal assistant through MacEwan University. She said each of those courses would cost about $8,000 total. [ 54 ] A short chronology of Stephen’s education and employment follows:

1991: Stephen graduated from high school. 1991 – 1993: Stephen attended college, taking business courses. 1993 – 1995: Stephen worked in a fibreglass plant. Late 1990s: Stephen worked in the petroleum industry training services area.

Early 2000s: Stephen spent one year trucking for his brother. 2004: Stephen bought a truck through his company, 904677 Alberta Ltd., from his brother and began trucking through that company. 2005: At the time of the marriage, Stephen’s company, 904677 Alberta Ltd. was delivering for Day & Ross Transportation. 2005 – 2012: 904677 Alberta Ltd. added two trucks to the fleet. 2012: 904677 Alberta Ltd. lost a contract with VicWest Steel but picked up flat deck work from Canadian National.

April 2014 – December 2015: Stephen attended NAIT, completing his Power Engineering 4 th Class qualification (Exh 14, Tabs 6 and 7). Spring 2015: Stephen began his Power Engineering 3 rd Class qualifications but to date has not obtained a practicum. 2015: 904677 Alberta Ltd. lost the Canadian National work.

Currently: 904677 Alberta Ltd. is operating with one truck. [ 55 ] It is difficult to determine an appropriate Guideline income for Stephen Van Ryk, as he had no salaried income, but only discretionary corporate dividends from his privately held corporation, 904677 Alberta Ltd., and perhaps occasionally Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd., of which he is a 50% shareholder.

His current dividends are $60,000 per annum. [ 56 ] However, his reported income and assessments have fluctuated over the years: Year Reported Income Assessments 2004: $52,500 2005: $38,125 2006: $41,200 2007: $25,000 $25,000 2008: $43,750 $43,750 2009: $62,500 $62,500 2010: $82,500 $82,500 2011: $67,750 $67,750 2012: $56,250 $56,250 2013: $44,062.50 $73,125 2014: $35,400 $35,400 2015: $34,338 (See Exh 9, 10 and 14, Tabs 3 and 4) [ 57 ] I note the significant difference between the reported dividends and assessment in 2013. [ 58 ] Stephen Van Ryk’s accountant, Dan Mason, gave evidence with respect to the corporate holdings of Stephen.

He indicated that between 2004 and 2010, 904677 Alberta Ltd. showed a revenue increase of $253,987, between 2010 and 2014 a revenue decrease of $190,002, and therefore between 2004 and 2014 a slight revenue increase of $63,985 (Exh 14, Tab 64).

He also reviewed the shareholder loan account which reflected the annual recorded dividends and shareholder loans: Year Recorded Dividend Shareholders Loan Account 2009: $50,000 $33,518.52 2010: $66,000 $140.57 2011: $54,200 $41,977.41 2012: -$11,000 $57,336.48 2013: -$23,250 $126,633.67 2014: -$30,000 $182,329.37 2015: $0 $208,030.38 2016 (to Sept 30): $159,330 (evidence of Dan Mason) (See Exh 14, Tab 67, Exh 31) [ 59 ] As indicated above, Stephen said his current dividend for 2016 was $60,000. [ 60 ] Lance Clark: CPA, CA, CFF, a partner of BDO Canada LLP, was admitted by the parties to be an expert in the valuation of corporations.

His report was marked Exhibit 32.

Utilizing an asset based valuation approach, which excludes goodwill, he determined that 904677 Alberta Ltd. should be valued at $180,500 as at July 9, 2010, the date of separation, and $213,700 as at December 31, 2015, inclusive of shares and shareholder loans, and that Stephen Van Ryk’s interest in Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. should be valued at $8,250 as at both July 9, 2010, the date of separation, and December 31, 2015, again taking into consideration both shares and shareholder loans, such that Stephen Van Ryk’s interest in the two companies currently totals $221,950. [ 61 ] He agreed it would be reasonable to reduce that figure by a 20% estimated tax rate to provide a figure net of tax of $177,560. [ 62 ] During cross-examination, Stephen admitted that on April 1, 2010, notably one day after he had called the Mental Health Crisis Centre with respect to Bonita’s behaviour, he withdrew $100,000 from the company’s bank account (Exh 29) and gave it to his

mother. He admitted that his mother still has those funds, or the majority of those funds, she has not paid interest on them, and is “keeping it until this matter is done”, in a safety deposit box. That transaction is shown on the 2011 financial statements for 904677 Alberta Ltd. as “Associated Company Investment”.

Stephen Van Ryk indicated that the additional $5,000 indicated on that financial statement was an advance to his brother, and that he made a further advance to his brother from 904677 Alberta Ltd. of an additional $5,000 in 2012 (Exh 7). [ 63 ] During closing argument, counsel for Stephen Van Ryk indicated that setting Guideline income for Stephen at $60,000 “would not be unreasonable” given the difficulties in assessing his income, as set out above.

I agree with that assessment, set Stephen’s Guideline income at $60,000 per annum, and in doing so, I also rely upon s 18 of the Guidelines (see Sweezey v Sweezey , 2016 ABQB 131 , at paras 27-30 ). [ 64 ] With respect to Bonita Van Ryk, I accept her evidence that she is capable of working today, remains physically active and is currently searching on-line for classes and seeking employment. I also accept her evidence that she requires upgrading in English and Math and once that is completed she would like to take a two year course at NAIT, Reeves College or MacEwan University.

Allowing for a preliminary six months for upgrading, I set her Guideline income for 30 months at $0. [ 65 ] During argument, counsel for Stephen Van Ryk asked that I impute Guideline income to Bonita at minimum wage, which she calculated to be $25,000 per annum. I agree that after the 30 month education period allotted to Bonita, it is reasonable and fair to impute that annual income to her with respect to child support payments continuing thereafter.

As a result, beginning July 31, 2019, I set Bonita’s Guideline income at $25,000 per annum. [ 66 ] The Divorce Act provides that a court may make an order requiring a spouse to pay for the support of children of the marriage (s 15.1(1)), that it shall do so in accordance with the applicable Guidelines (s 15.1(3)) for a definite or indefinite period or until a specific event occurs, and upon terms, conditions or restrictions that the court thinks fit and just (s 15.1(4)).

Additionally, the court may award an amount that is different than the amount that would be demonstrated in accordance with the applicable Guidelines if it is satisfied that the provisions in an order, judgment or written agreement, or the division or transfer of property, directly or indirectly benefit a child, or that special provisions have otherwise been made for the benefit of a child and that the application of the Guidelines would result in an amount of child support that is inequitable given those special provisions (s 15.1(5)). [ 67 ] The objectives of the Federal Child Support Guidelines are to establish a fair standard of support for children, reduce conflict and tension between spouses, improve the efficiency of the legal process and ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children (s 1).

The presumptive rule is that the amount to be provided in a child support order for children under the age of majority is the amount set out in the applicable table according to the number of children under majority, the income of the spouse providing the child support, differentiated by province (s 3(1)) and such special or extraordinary expenses as are in the child’s best interests and reasonable, to cover child care expenses as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability, education or training, medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child, health-related expenses such as orthodontic treatment, counselling, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses, extraordinary expenses for primary secondary or post-secondary education, and extracurricular activities (s 7).

Such extraordinary expenses are limited by the amount of the expense, the nature and number of programs and activities involved, special needs and talents of the child or children, the overall cost of the programs and activities, and other similar factors (s 7(1.1)).

Where there is shared parenting for a child for not less than 40% of the time over the course of a year, a child support order must take into account the amounts set out in the applicable Guideline tables for each of the spouses, the increased costs of shared parenting arrangements and the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought (s 9). [ 68 ]

Section 11 of the Guidelines provides that a child support order may include periodic or lump sum payments, and a spouse’s annual income is to be determined by sources of income set out under the heading “Total Income” in the T1 General Form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency (s 16) or, if the court is of the opinion that would not be the fairest determination of income, it may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years to determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in the light of any pattern of income, fluctuation of income or receipt of non-recurring amounts during those years (s 17(1)).

Additionally, the court may take into account all or part of the pre-tax income of a corporation when the spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation (s 18), and impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances where a spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed other than as required by the needs of the child of the marriage, or the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate, amongst other considerations (s 19). [ 69 ] Stephen Van Ryk’s position was that he has overpaid child support of $12,040 (Exh 22), as a result of those years in which his reported income was less than the Guideline income of $62,500 set in the Interim Order of August 19, 2010.

However, I have determined that the Guideline income for Stephen Van Ryk on a prospective basis should be set at $60,000, and given the difficulties with determining his Guideline income, set out above, I am not prepared to interfere with the decision of Stevens J. in the Interim Order of August 19, 2010, by retroactively adjusting child support payments at this time. [ 70 ] I have taken into consideration s 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the criteria therein in a shared parenting situation; the amount set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses, the increased costs of shared parenting arrangements, and the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, and of any child for whom support is sought, and I do not vary child support from that set out in s 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. [ 71 ] Child support, based upon these determinations of Guideline income, shall be paid pursuant to s 3 of the Guidelines until Braedon’s 18 th birthday, or if he has continuous full time enrollment in post-secondary education, until completion of a first post- secondary qualification. [ 72 ] Each of Bonita and Stephen Van Ryk have indicated that while Braedon was in their care, they paid for necessary special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to s 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines .

Specifically, Stephen Van Ryk indicated that he paid half of the cost for Braedon to attend Cubs and Scouts, he paid for swimming lessons, skates, a bike, a computer, an Xbox, and some clothes. At Exh 14, Tab 10, he set out the amount of payments for extraordinary expenses between August 2009 and date of trial,

totalling $8,372.16. However, of that amount, $7,027.87 was for health and dental coverage provided though the Chamber of Commerce.The receipts attached to that exhibit show that the premiums for this coverage were paid by Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. [73] Bonita Van Ryk submitted an expense list for special or extraordinary expenses, without back-up receipts, as Exh 3, totalling$8,211.35.

Although there was much challenge to the items on both the s 7 expense reports of Stephen and Bonita Van Ryk, I net outthose expenses, such that neither Stephen nor Bonita will be required to compensate the other for s 7 expenses to date. On a go-forwardbasis, each of them will be responsible for s 7 expenses on an equal basis and while Braedon is staying with them, such that futureexpenses are also deemed to be netted out. VI.

Spousal Support for Bonita [74] By the Interim Order of August 19, 2010, spousal support was set at $1,367 per month commencing September 1, 2010.Stephen Van Ryk indicated he had thought at the time the Interim Order was only in effect for three years. The Interim Order, however,does not say that.

Both parties agreed that all payments have been made on a timely basis, and there is no default. [75] At trial, Stephen Van Ryk’s position was that he had overpaid spousal support, should receive a retroactive credit of $51,946(Exh 22), should not have to pay further spousal support, or should have that spousal support extend only for a limited time tocompensate for all spousal support payments after the three year period for which he thought the Interim Order of August 19, 2010 wasto have effect.

For all of the reasons set out above, a retroactive adjustment of the amounts ordered by Stevens, J. at this time would notbe appropriate. [76] The Divorce Act provides that a court may make a spousal support order requiring a spouse to secure or pay a lump sum,periodic sum or both, as the court thinks reasonable, for support of the other spouse (s 15.2(1)), that such payments can be made for adefinite or indefinite period or until a specified event occurs, and upon such terms, conditions or restrictions as the court thinks fit andjust (s 15.2(3)).

However, in making such an order the court is to take into consideration, the means, needs and other circumstances ofeach spouse, including the length of time the spouses cohabited, the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation, and anyorder, agreement or arrangements relating to support of either spouse (s 15.2(4)). [77] The Divorce Act provides that an order for support of a spouse should recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages tothe spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown, apportionment between the spouses of any financial consequences arising fromthe care of any child, the relief of economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage and, as far aspracticable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time (s 15.2(6)). [78] The Court in Bennett v Bennett, 2005 ABQB 984 said that spousal support is designed to include components which arecompensatory, non-compensatory and contractual (para 12).

The first two principles under s 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act are intended to becompensatory (paras 16-17), the third supports a non-compensatory principle focussed on post-marital need (paras 19-20) and the finalobjective, the promotion of economic self-sufficiency, may or may not be tied either to compensatory or non-compensatory principles.Finally, the Court, in reference to s 15.2(4) discussed the contractual basis for spousal support and the balancing of the condition, means,needs and other circumstances of each spouse (paras 25-29).

In short term marriages, such as the one in this case, spousal support istypically compensatory in nature (see Helmus v Helmus, 2011 ABQB 779; Walles v Weir, 2000 ABQB 670 at paras 24-25). [79] I also take into account the warning of the Supreme Court of Canada in Moge v Moge, (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, 99 DLR (4th) 456; (AB KB), 1 WWR 481, that the objective of self-sufficiency is only one of theenumerated objectives, does not enjoy a priority over the other objectives, and that the economic effects of divorce play a role in thefeminization of poverty in Canada. [80] Relying upon all of the facts and reasons set out above with respect to child support, I set Stephen’s Guideline income at$60,000 on a prospective basis, and Bonita’s Guideline income for 30 months at $0 from February 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019, with spousalsupport to be paid according to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. [81] Additionally, Stephen Van Ryk shall pay to Bonita the sum of $10,000 for the purpose of providing her immediate funds toallow her to upgrade her English and Math courses, and to take a diploma or certificate course through MacEwan University, NAIT orReeves College as she determines most appropriate.

At the conclusion of 30 months, it is expected that Bonita Van Ryk will havecompleted her upgrading, as she requested, and as a result spousal payments shall end on July 31, 2019. VII. Matrimonial Home [82] The Interim Order of August 19, 2010 granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to Stephen Van Ryk.

Bonitanow seeks a possession order for the home. [83] The matrimonial home, located at 17119-94 Street, Edmonton, was purchased in August 2004 for $216,900 (Exh 14, Tab 17)while the parties were engaged, living together and Bonita was pregnant with Braedon, but prior to the date of the marriage, and there isno pleading for unjust enrichment for her contribution to the home pre-marriage. [84] The deposit and down payment of $55,000 for the home was paid by Stephen’s company 904677 Alberta Ltd. (Exh 14, Tab18).

Bonita agreed that she has not made mortgage or utility payments with respect to the home. [85] Bonita’s evidence is that the couple did not have a honeymoon nor did they take vacations, agreeing that the money that theyotherwise would have jointly spent would be kept for the maintenance and expenses for the home.

[86] Additionally, Bonita said that in exchange for the financial investment by Stephen in the home, she would be the primaryperson involved in raising Braedon and would contribute to the home by creating showcase landscaping, which eventually won aCommunity in Bloom Award from the City (see photographs, Exh 2). [87] Appraisal of the home at the date of marriage was $224,000 (Exh 14, Tab 20), the amount of the mortgage at that time was$161,464.80 (Exh 14, Tab 27), leaving equity according to Stephen of $62,688 (I recognize the mathematical difference).

The November10, 2014 appraisal of the home set valuation at $400,000 (Exh 14, Tab 21). The November 15, 2016 valuation of the home amounted to$404,000 (Exh 8). The current mortgage on the property is approximately $40,141 (Exh 14, Tab 29), leaving current equity, againaccording to Stephen, of approximately $363,000. The current real estate listing agreement is for $399,900 (Exh 23). [88] There was much discussion as to current market value. Bonita Van Ryk relies upon the valuation of $404,000.

Stephen VanRyk said that given the current state of the economy in Edmonton and Alberta, a more realistic value would be $375,000. [89] The parties have agreed that the appropriate remedy is to put the house up for sale to ensure current market value. There wasdispute about the appropriate listing price and appropriate realtor. During the course of argument, counsel agreed it would be appropriatethat the matrimonial home be listed for sale at an initial list price of $406,000, to remain at that price for 30 days.

It was also agreed thatif the home was not sold within 30 days at that price, the listing price would be reduced to $400,000 for the next 60 days. It was againagreed that if the house was not sold within those 60 days, the price would be adjusted according to market on the advice of the listingrealtor. [90] Stephen Van Ryk currently has a listing agreement with a realtor at Royal LePage Noralta.

It would be appropriate that thecurrent realtor remain in place for the purpose of the continued listing and eventual sale of the home on the listed price basis above. [91] I determine that the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home be divided equally pursuant to the provision of s 7(4) ofthe MPA. Counsel agreed in their matrimonial property statements that an exempt amount for increase in value and equity between thedate of purchase and the date of marriage would be adjusted in the distribution of matrimonial property. VIII.

Occupation Rent [92] Bonita Van Ryk has advanced a claim for occupation rent on the basis that since July 9, 2010, Stephen has lived in thematrimonial home and since November, 2015 his girlfriend has also lived in that home, without rent, but does pay for groceries andsome utilities. Bonita lives in her mother’s house.

However, there were some periods of time when Bonita did live at the matrimonialhome; in the fall of 2011 she moved back to the matrimonial home for approximately six weeks in an attempt to reconcile and betweenthe fall of 2011 and April of 2012, she spent overnight visits with Stephen. [93] Additionally, since separation, Stephen has paid all of the taxes on the property (Exh 14, Tab 31), all of the house insurance(Exh 14, Tabs 32-34) and repairs to the home totalling approximately $18,917 (Exh 14, Tabs 35-40).

Additionally, he has installed ahome security system. [94] Occupation rent was not claimed in this matter until amendment of the Statement of Claim on June 1, 2016. In argument,counsel for Bonita Van Ryk indicated that an appropriate occupation rent would be $500 per month, an amount that he said would be thedifference between the rental value of the premises and the amount paid for spousal support. [95] Clackson, J. in Busenius v Busenius [2006] A.J.

No. 238, 2006 ABQB 162 said that occupation rent in the context of amatrimonial property action is compensation for loss of access or use, because as a result of the breakdown of the marriage one party gota benefit at the expense of the other.

He pointed out that living rent free is not a distributable asset and having to pay rent (which did notoccur in this case) where one’s spouse has not, is not a matrimonial debt, and occupation does not create property which can bedistributed (para 44). [96] In Kazmierczak v Kazmierczak, 2001 ABQB 610, [2001] AJ No 955, aff’d 2003 ABCA 227, [2003] AJ No 909, Slatter, J.held that occupation rent is a discretionary remedy intended to address a common law attribute of the joint ownership of property, andcautioned that much care must be taken in carrying forward the concept into the family law context.

He set out the factors to beconsidered: 95 ... (

a) The spouse who is not in possession generally should not be entitled to occupation rent if the other spouse is occupying thepremises with the children of the marriage, and is not making a claim for support or a contribution towards the expenses of the house. (

b) Where the spouse in possession does make a claim for contribution towards the expenses of the house, that claim, the cross-claim foroccupation rent, and any claim for spousal or child support should be considered together. The occupation rent would be a potentialexpense item in one party's budget, and a revenue item in the other party's budget. (

c) In many cases it would be simpler just to eliminate the claim for occupation rent from the equation, and deal with child support andspousal support at large. However, given that the Federal Child Support Guidelines now mandate certain levels of support for children,it may be unfair not to include a notional occupation rent in the guideline income and budgets of the parties, at least when consideringspousal support. (

d) The spouse in occupation will generally not be entitled in the matrimonial property proceedings for any credit for the mortgagepayments and taxes paid by him or her. Those payments should be a part of the support equation. The only possible exception is withrespect to the portion of the mortgage payment that actually goes to reduce principal, as notionally one-half of that payment is made onbehalf of the non-occupying spouse. See Balzar v. Balzar [(1990), (MB KB), 67 Man. R. (2d) 196]. However, if theparty in occupation has not adequately maintained the property, and has essentially eroded its capital value, a set-off for the excessivewear and tear might be called for.

(

e) There will be cases, such as Scott v. Scott [(1996), (AB KB), 183 AR 103], where the family unit can no longerafford to maintain the previous matrimonial home. If one spouse insists in staying in occupation of the house, and is prepared to makethe necessary financial sacrifices, then fairness may require that occupation rent be included in the overall equation. (

f) Rarely, if ever, should one spouse be able to bank a claim for occupation rent, and present that claim in capitalized form years later aspart of a matrimonial property action. [97] This analysis of the law has been widely adopted with respect to claims for occupation rent in matrimonial property actions.See: Braglin v Braglin, [2002] A.J. No. 1198, 2002 ABQB 816; Carmichael v Carmichael, [2015] N.S.J. No. 465, 2005 NSSC 318;Busenius v Busenius [2006] A.J.

No. 238, 2006 ABQB 162; and Stojak v Stojak 2016 ABQB 737. [98] Bonita’s claim for occupation rent is advanced against a spouse occupying the matrimonial home with the child of themarriage, and at the present time constitutes a claim in capitalized form years later as part of a matrimonial property action, and given theunique fact situation, set out above, considering all the evidence and applicable factors, I dismiss Bonita’s claim for occupation rent. IX.

Distribution of Matrimonial Property and Debts [99] The Interim Order of August 19, 2010 ordered an advance on the distribution of matrimonial property to be paid by Stephen toBonita Van Ryk in the sum of $30,000, and Stephen paid $7,606, although he was only ordered to pay $5,000, to retire the loan againstBonita’s 2006 Toyota Rav4. Those payments were made, as directed, and must be taken into consideration in the distribution ofmatrimonial property. [100] During the period of time that Stephen and Bonita were living together pre-marriage, Stephen gave Bonita a credit card on hisaccount.

Within two months, she had run up expenses on that credit card to the maximum allowed, and Stephen took the card away fromher again. [101] Beginning in January 2005, Stephen allotted an allowance to Bonita to cover incidentals and household items of $500 a month,increased to $750 a month in early 2006 and $1,000 a month from mid-2006 until September 2010.

Bonita says that she used some ofthose funds to buy groceries, supplies for the home, and personal items for herself and Braedon. [102] Counsel for the parties produced matrimonial property statements throughout the course of trial, updated in closing argument.Attached to these Reasons as Appendix “A” is Bonita Van Ryk’s final property statement, and as Appendix “B” is Stephen Van Ryk’sfinal property statement “Current with House Sold”, as opposed to his alternative “Date of Separation” property statement.

I makereference in these Reasons only to Stephen Van Ryk’s “Current with House Sold” statement, Appendix “B”, on the basis of the date ofvaluation for the purpose of division being, generally speaking, the date of trial (see Smith v Smith, 2016 ABCA 376, [2016] A.J. No. 1238 at para 21, Hodgson v Hodgson, 2005 ABCA 13, 248 DLR (4th) 95, at para 10, and Mazurenko v Mazurenko, 1981 ABCA 104,30 AR 34).

I take these cases as addressing not only division of assets but also division of debts, all part of the valuation of matrimonialproperty, as at date of trial. [103] I note that the equalization payment set out in the matrimonial property statement of Bonita Van Ryk calls for a transfer to herof $72,122, while the equalization payment in the matrimonial property statement of Stephen calls for a transfer to Bonita of $12,412,such that the parties are $59,710 apart. [104] Stephen submitted a budget found at Exh 14, Tab 5 showing expenditures of about $6,793.33 per month and said that he “takesit out of the company” as necessary so that he has not accumulated significant debt, except with respect to a 2010 Salem travel trailer:$25,000 (Exh 14, Tab 15, Exh 22 and Exh 26).

Stephen says he should not be responsible to pay for the debts incurred by Bonita postseparation. [105] Bonita Van Ryk indicated that as at the date of separation she had no debt. She said that currently she has debts of about$80,000, including $6,942.18 on her CIBC VISA, $7,566.72 on her Royal Bank VISA and $8,864.65 on a line of credit. She borrowed$50,000 from her mother to pay for legal fees and disbursements, including the retainer of her expert, Lance Clark.

There was noevidence as to when that amount was borrowed or paid, whether it need be repaid and whether that was an interim amount for legal feesand disbursements, or would cover the entire amount inclusive of trial. [106] Stephen Van Ryk’s property statement liabilities (Exh 14, Tab 15) also include an expense for “legal” including “court costs”showing that these costs were incurred firstly in August 2010 and “present”, and indicating a balance owing of $25,000 “for court”. It isnot appropriate that costs of litigation be included in the liabilities of the parties.

That is a matter for taxable costs, and should beaddressed separately than in the distribution of matrimonial property and debts. I do not add these amounts into the equalization paymentto be calculated. [107] The MPA provides that distribution of property may be made between spouses of all of the property owned by both spouses andthe Court of Appeal has indicated in Smith at paras 18-19 that the purpose of the MPA is the fair and equitable distribution of the assetsof the parties on dissolution of marriage. [108]

Section 7 of the MPA provides that the court may distribute between the parties all of their property, except for property exemptunder s 7(2). Section 7(4) establishes a presumption that the court will distribute the non-exempt property equally between the parties,unless an unequal distribution is justified based on the factors set out in s 8.

As the Court said in Stojak, this is a recognition of thefundamental importance of marriage in society and the need to balance and weigh the financial and non-financial contributions thatspouses make to a marriage. [109] There was much evidence over what property remained in the matrimonial home, and the value of that property. Stephenestimated the value at $1,000 and Bonita at $20,000. In Bonita’s matrimonial property statement, Appendix “A”, home contents in the

possession of Bonita are shown to be $2,000 and in the possession of Stephen as $10,000. Given the heavily conflicting evidence, I agree with that division. [ 110 ] There was also much discussion about whether Stephen Van Ryk had $5,000 cash in a safe in the matrimonial home. Stephen says there is no such cash. Bonita says she believes it to be there.

I agree with Stephen that the existence of that cash has not been proven. [ 111 ] With respect to the value of the US deeds in Stephen’s name, Stephen says that the total value of the lands when purchased were $4,218 USD but given the land value today, the total purchase fees, property taxes and other fees paid to date, the value is negligible.

I accept that evidence and do not take the US deeds into account. [ 112 ] As to the exemption claimed for the equity increase in the matrimonial home between date of purchase and date of marriage, Stephen Van Ryk claims that amount to be $62,688 and Bonita claims that amount to be $61,325. Having no explanation given for that difference in valuation, I set that valuation at $62,000. [ 113 ] With respect to the proceeds of the motor vehicle accident brought into the marriage by Bonita, her evidence was that the net amount she received from that accident was $20,000.

When reviewing Exh 12, the items that she indicated were purchased from that award for the maintenance and supplies of the matrimonial home and landscaping, totalled $14,453.61. The matrimonial property statement provided by her, Exhibit “A”, claimed an amount of $13,677 as an exemption. I adopt the amount set out in Bonita Van Ryk’s matrimonial property statement. [ 114 ] There was much evidence on various small items and small differences in the two matrimonial property statements.

For the purpose of simplification, and based upon the evidence above and the facts as determined, I set forward my findings and conclusions as to division of the matrimonial property and debts in the following table: ASSETS Stephen Bonita Comments Home – 17119 94 Street to be sold to be sold TD Waterhouse 19,221.00 by agreement Withdrawal from TFSA 1,400.00 by agreement TD Waterhouse – direct trading, Cdn 469.06 TD Waterhouse – direct trading, US 5.58 2010 Salem trailer 15,000.00 acquired post- separation 2006 Toyota RAV4 8,500.00 by agreement Value of household goods 10,000.00 2,000.00 Share value of 904677 Alberta Ltd. 5,700.00 by agreement 50% share value of Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. 3,700.00 by agreement Shareholder’s loan in 904677 Alberta Ltd. 208,000.00 Shareholder’s loan in Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. 4,550.00 by agreement Advance on matrimonial property distribution 30,000.00 August 2010 Order Advance on RAV4 loan 7,606.00 August 2010 Order TOTAL ASSETS 223,655.64 40,500.00 LIABILITIES Stephen Bonita Comments Advance on RAV4 loan 7,606.00 by agreement Taxes on share value of 904677 Alberta Ltd. 1,140.00 by agreement Taxes on share value of Flyin’ Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. 740.00 by agreement Amount owing on travel trailer 25,000.00 acquired post- separation RBC VISA 7,566.72 acquired post- separation CIBC line of credit 8,864.65 acquired post- separation CIBC VISA 6,942.18 acquired post- separation TOTAL LIABILITIES 34,486.00 23,373.55 TOTAL ASSETS LESS LIABILITIES: 189,169.64 17,126.45 EXEMPTIONS Stephen Bonita Comments Matrimonial Home Equity 62,000.00 equity from date of purchase to date of marriage Share value of 904677 Alberta Ltd. 36,541.00 by agreement Shareholder’s loan in 904677 Alberta Ltd. 60,533.00 Motor Vehicle Accident proceeds 13,677.00

TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 159,074.00 13,677.00 TOTAL ASSETS LESS LIABILITIES & EXEMPTIONS 30,095.64 3,449.45 EQUALIZATION PAYMENT: -$13,323.10 13,323.10 EACH PARTY TO RECEIVE: $16,772.54 $16,772.55 [ 115 ] In addition, Bonita asked for return of some personal property, including videos and photographs of Braedon and of the landscaping work at the matrimonial home which are apparently on a camera card. Stephen has agreed to provide copies of those videos and photographs to her.

In addition, Bonita has asked for crystal glasses which she had received from her grandmother’s estate and Stephen shall return those to her if they still exist. X. Conclusion [ 116 ] In the above Reasons I made the following conclusions, which are set out here in

summary form for the assistance of counsel and the parties: 1. There has been no parental alienation proven in this matter. 2. Bonita Van Ryk and Stephen Van Ryk shall have joint custody of and decision-making for Braedon as at the date of these Reasons, and shared parenting for and access to Braedon commencing on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. 3. Commencing on April 5, 2017, Stephen Van Ryk will have Braedon from Wednesday at close of the school day until the next Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at close of school.

Bonita Van Ryk shall have Braedon from close of school on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 until close of school on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, and that alternating weekly parenting and access shall continue until Braedon reaches the age of 18 years, after which Braedon will determine with which parent he resides for what periods of time, if at all. 4. In the interim period between February 1 and April 5, 2017, there shall be a transition period for the parenting of and access to Braedon.

Bonita Van Ryk will continue to have primary parenting of Braedon, pursuant to the Interim Order of Stevens, J. dated August 19, 2010, over the transition period, and Stephen Van Ryk shall have access to Braedon from Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at the close of the school day until Monday, February 6, 2017 at the beginning of the school day, from Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at the close of the school day until Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at the beginning of the school day (Monday, February 20, 2017 being a school holiday), from Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at the close of the school day to Monday, March 6, 2017 at the beginning of the school day, from Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at the close of the school day to Monday, March 20, 2017 at the beginning of the school day and from Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at the close of the school day to Monday, April 3, 2017 at the beginning of the school day. 5.

With respect to the summer months of July and August, in all odd numbered years, Stephen Van Ryk shall have Braedon from July 1 to July 15, Bonita Van Ryk shall have Braedon from July 16 to July 31, Stephen Van Ryk shall have Braedon from August 1 to August 15, and Bonita Van Ryk shall have Braedon from August 16 to August 31. In even numbered years that rotation shall be reversed such that Bonita shall have Braedon from July 1 to July 15, Stephen shall have Braedon from July 16 to July 31, Bonita shall have Braedon from August 1 to August 15 and Stephen shall have Braedon from August 16 to August 31. 6.

With respect to Christmas holidays, the sharing of time with Braedon will be continued as set out in the Consent Order dated March 27, 2015.

For the sake of completeness that Order provided that Stephen shall have parenting time for Braedon’s Christmas vacation such that in odd numbered years his parenting time shall be from out of school on Braedon’s last day before the holiday to noon on the day constituting the midpoint of the holiday and in even numbered years from noon on the day constituting the midpoint of the holiday to 6 pm on the day immediately before Braedon’s return to school, and Bonita’s parenting time shall be the inverse, and in even numbered years Bonita’s parenting time shall be from out of school on Braedon’s last day before the holiday to noon on the day constituting the midpoint of the holiday and in odd numbered years from noon on the day constituting the midpoint of the holiday to 6 pm on the day immediately before Braedon’s return to school and Stephen’s parenting time shall be the inverse. 7.

Stephen Van Ryk shall purchase a smart phone for Braedon so that Braedon can have telephone, text and applications contact with each of his parents at his discretion. 8. Braedon shall attend four to eight counselling sessions, or as recommended, with a Master’s level family or child counsellor or psychologist to be selected by his legal counsel, Ms. Lawrence, for the purpose of addressing personal and adjustment issues which may be experienced by Braedon during and immediately following the transition period set out in subparagraph 4 above. These sessions are to be paid for by Stephen Van Ryk. 9.

Beginning at the grade 7 school year commencing September 2017, Braedon shall attend Steele Heights Junior High School for his junior high school years. When Braedon transitions from junior high school to high school, it shall be his sole choice as to which high school he will attend. 10. There shall not be a retroactive adjustment of any of the child support paid to date pursuant to the Interim Order of August 19, 2010. 11.

With respect to future child support, Stephen Van Ryk’s guideline income shall be set at $60,000 per annum and Bonita Van Ryk’s guideline income shall be set at $0 per annum for the first 30 months beginning February 1, 2017, and $25,000 thereafter from August 1, 2019. Having considered both ss 3 and 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , child support shall be paid pursuant to s 3 of the Guidelines until Braedon’s 18 th birthday, or if he has continuous full time enrollment in post-secondary education, until completion of a first post-secondary qualification.

12. Neither Bonita Van Ryk nor Stephen Van Ryk shall pay s 7 special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines , either retroactively or prospectively, as they are deemed by this Order to be netted out. 13. There shall not be a retroactive adjustment of the spousal support paid from Stephen Van Ryk to Bonita Van Ryk pursuant to the Interim Order of August 19, 2010. 14.

For the purpose of future spousal support, the Guideline income for Stephen Van Ryk shall be set at $60,000 per annum and for Bonita Van Ryk shall be as set at $0 per annum for 30 months beginning February 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019, as set out in subparagraph 11 above. Additionally, Stephen Van Ryk shall pay to Bonita Van Ryk a lump sum of $10,000 for the purpose of providing her immediate funds to allow her to upgrade her English and Mathematics courses and to take a diploma or certificate course through MacEwan University, NAIT or Reeves College as she determines most appropriate.

Stephen Van Ryk shall continue to pay spousal support to Bonita Van Ryk for 30 months commencing February 1, 2017 pursuant to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to end on July 31, 2019. 15. The matrimonial home at 17119-94 Street shall immediately be listed for sale with the realtor selected by Stephen Van Ryk currently having that listing, at a list price of $406,000 and shall remain listed at that price for 30 days. If the home has not sold within 30 days of listing at that price, the listing price shall be reduced to $400,000 for the next 60 days.

Again, if the house has not sold within those 60 days, the price shall be adjusted according to market on the advice of the listing realtor. Upon sale of the house, the net proceeds, after payment of the mortgage and all expenses, shall be divided equally between Stephen Van Ryk and Bonita Van Ryk. 16. Bonita Van Ryk’s claim for occupation rent is denied. 17. With respect to the division of matrimonial property, the equalization payment to be paid from Stephen to Bonita Van Ryk shall be $13,323.10. 18.

Stephen Van Ryk shall provide to Bonita the following personal property: a camera card with videos and photographs of Braedon and the landscaping of the matrimonial home, and crystal glasses received from Bonita’s grandmother’s estate if they still exist. 19. Each of Bonita Van Ryk and Stephen Van Ryk shall be prohibited from making negative, derogatory or insulting comments about each other or about anyone living in the same house as the other party, in the presence of or within hearing distance of Braedon. XI.

Costs [ 117 ] If the parties are unable to agree to costs, they are invited to speak to the matter within 30 days of the date of this decision. Heard on the 3 rd through 6 th days of January, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 24 th day of January, 2017. K.P. Feehan J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: John A. McCrae McAllister LLP for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim Laura Bruyer Gordon Zwaenepoel for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Appendix “A”: Bonita Van Ryk – Property Statement ASSETS Bonita Stephen Comments Matrimonial Home (404K) sell - proceeds divided Home Contents 2,000.00 10,000.00 Cash in safe 5,000.00 2006 Toyota Rav 4 8,500.00 agreed Ram Truck in corporation 1987 Ford Mustang no evidence of value TD Waterhouse TFSA 167815 J 19,221.80 agreed Withdrawn from 167815 J (in 2011) 1,400.00 agreed TD Waterhouse Direct Trading - Cdn 469.06 9/30/2016 - agreed TD Waterhouse Direct Trading - U.S. 5.58 9/30/2016 - agreed 904677 Alberta Ltd shares 5,700.00 tab 11 - BDO Flyin Dutchmen Deckwork Ltd shares 3,700.00 tab 11 - BDO 904677 shareholder's loan 208,000.00 tab 11 - BDO Flyin Dutchmen shareholder's loan 4,550.00 tab 11 - BDO Property Advance 30,000.00 Advance paid by corporation 6,000.00 tax discount by 20% TOTAL ASSETS 34,500.00 258,046.44 LIABILITIES Mortgage 2006 Toyota Rav Payout 7,606.00 paid by corporation Toyota paid by corporation 1,532.00 tax discount of 20% Tax on shares (20%) 1,880.00 RBC Visa (post-separation) 7,566.72 tab 5b 4/25/2016 CIBC Line of Credit (post- separation) 8,864.65 tab 5a 5/22/2016 CIBC Visa (post-separation) 6,942.18 tab 5c 4/27/2016 Mother's loan (post-separation) 50,000.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 73,373.55 7,954.00 NET ASSETS before exemptions 38,873.55 250,092.44 EXEMPTIONS Matrimonial home equity 61,325.00 904677 Alberta Ltd shares 36,541.00 904677 Alberta Ltd SH Loan 60,533.00 Motor vehicle accident proceeds 13,677.00 tab 13 TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 13,677.00 158,399.00 NET ASSETS after exemptions 52,550.55 91,693.44 39,142.89 Equalization Paymen t to Bonita 72,122.00 72,122.00 plus house proceeds 19,571.45 19,571.45 39,142.89 Appendix “B”: Stephen Van Ryk – Matrimonial Property Statement (Current with House Sold) ASSETS Wife Husband Comments Real Estate House - 17119 -94th Street $ - House sold - AGREED US deeds AGREED Savings and Investments TD Waterhouse - $19,221 AGREED Withdrawal from TFSA $1,400 AGREED Vehicles/ Recreation Vehicles 2010 Salem Trailer $15,000 Tab 15 (acquired post separation) 1987 Ford Mustang AGREED 2006 Toyota Rav 4 $8,500 AGREED Business Interests 904677 AB Ltd. - share value $5,700 As per Clark's report - AGREED

Flyin Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. - share value $3,700 50% interest as per Clark's report - AGREED 1266574 AB Ltd.

Not operating - AGREED Shareholders Loan 904677 AB Ltd. $208,000 As per Clark's report - SUBJECT TO ARGUMENT Flyin Dutchmen Deckworks Ltd. $4,550 As per Clark's report - AGREED Advance on Property As per Order dated August 19, 2010 $30,000 AGREED Total assets $38,500 $257,571 DEBTS Mortgage on Former Matrimonial Home $ - Paid out from sale 2010 Salem Travel Trailer $25,000 Tab 15 2006 Rav 4 payout $7,606 AGREED Taxes on shares $1,880 AGREED Post-separation debt EACH PARTY BEAR OWN Total debts $ - $34,486 NET ASSETS $38,500 $223,085 EXEMPTIONS Wife exemptions NOT PROVEN Value of house less mortgage - date of marriage $62,688 WIFE SAYS $61,325.00 904677 AB Ltd. - shareholder loan $60,533 AGREED 904677 AB Ltd. shares $36,541 AGREED Total exemptions $159,762 NET MATRIMONIAL ASSETS $38,500 $63,323 TOTAL PROPERTY $101,823 EACH PARTY ENTITLED TO HALF $50,912 EQUALIZATION PAYMENT $ - $12,412 FINAL POSITION $50,912 $50,912 ASSETS Wife Husband Comments