Lavallee v Quintal, 2017 ABQB 547

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Lavallee v Quintal, 2017 ABQB 547 Date: 20170911 Docket: 4803 160129 Registry: Edmonton Between: Tracy Lynne Lavallee Applicant - and - Rodney David Quintal Respondent Corrected judgment: A corrected judgment was issued on February 20, 2018; the corrections have been made to the text and the correction is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B.

Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On the last hearing, August 25, 2017, I explained to the parties that, in the absence of some required evidence from each of them, I was unable to make a final decision in the matter, and, because of my approaching retirement, it is likely that another judge would have to eventually make that decision.

I would therefore consider whether I should make a holding order and record the concerns which remain outstanding as of the day of this hearing. [ 2 ] The first issue is the status of the parties’ older child who is an adult, who is not attending school and is not employed. It is not clear why Alberta’s Maintenance Enforcement Program continued to charge Mr. Quintal child support for that child after the child’s 18 th birthday; that remains to be clarified. [ 3 ] Ms. Lavallee takes the position that the older child is unable to withdraw from his parents’ care. She has now produced

some medical evidence in support of her position. She has apparently experienced some difficulty in obtaining medical information about her son’s employability, despite the issuance of a court order requiring physicians who have treated her son to provide to the court information from their charts relating to that adult’s employability. Unfortunately, if Ms. Lavallee continues to be unable to obtain the information, her claim for child support cannot be fully addressed.

The information which she has provided to date is, essentially, information from Alberta, dealing with assessments of that child when he was going into Grade 1 and when he was 10 years old. It appears from the information that, despite their joint efforts, the parents were not able, at each of those times, to obtain for their son the services which had been recommended for him. It is therefore, not clear whether that child was, from the date of his 18 th birthday, unemployable. The information received to date is that the child received a high school diploma.

His academic record indicates that he received credits for alternate programs, for modified programs, and for regular high school programs. Of the regular high school programs, he received regular credits for psychology, social studies and language arts. On the basis of that information, it would not appear that he is unemployable.

Of the current medical information which has been produced, it appears that the older child suffers from an anxiety disorder; there is no information about whether that disorder can be treated pharmacologically or in any other effective way and whether that disorder makes him unemployable.

The mother indicates that the older child receives a monthly stipend from the government program in Saskatchewan which is apparently that province’s counterpart to Alberta’s AISH program; there is presumably some medical assessment made of every applicant for those benefits, but the court has not received any of that information.

The stipend apparently pays for the room and board of an adult who lives with relatives. [ 4 ] According to case law, once room and board are taken care of, the parent who claims child support for a disabled adult child should indicate what expenditures the adult child requires every month in addition to room and board. The mother indicates that the parties’ son requires the additional monthly expenditures: $125.00 per month for cigarettes, $85.00 per month for his phone, $10.00 a month for electronic games, $12.00 a month for music, and $50.00 per month for pop, chips and snacks.

The court concludes that the older child’s “extra” expenses are $250.00 per month. [ 5 ] It must be noted, in the context of employability, that the child lives approximately 45 minutes from Prince Alberta, i.e. in an area where there is no realistic employment for a non-competitive employee. [ 6 ] Ms. Lavallee is not employed.

However, in all the circumstances, she will be responsible for one half of her son’s extra expenses. [ 7 ] On an interim basis, from September 1, 2017 until the mother obtains additional medical information which allows the employability status of the older child to be determined, or until February 1, 2018, whichever is the sooner, Mr. Quintal will pay Ms. Lavallee, $125.00 per month as his half share of their older son’s additional expenses beyond room and board. Either one of the parties can bring this matter back to court whenever all the necessary information is available. [ 8 ] Naturally, Mr.

Quintal will continue to pay his monthly support obligation for his younger child. [ 9 ] The second outstanding issue relates to the medical and dental expenses of the children, Mr. Quintal will, by September 30, 2017, obtain information from his employer about his current health care benefits and will provide that information to Ms. Lavallee. [ 10 ] The information which Ms. Lavallee has provided about the parties’ daughter’s dental costs includes what appears to be an estimate from a Saskatchewan dentist about anticipated costs.

Costs for filling cavities and doing root canals can presumably be attributed to necessary expenses; however, there is no confirmation in the dental estimate that the braces are necessary rather than elective. Since the dental information appears to be an estimate, Ms. Lavallee should obtain information from the dentist about the possibility of scheduling the dental work in order to allow the parents to take full advantage of the health coverage which each enjoys, even if it means scheduling dental work into the next calendar or benefits year. [ 11 ] No costs are awarded relative to the August 25, 2017 hearing.

Heard on the 25 th day of August, 2017 . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 11 th day of September, 2017. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Tracy Lynne Lavallee for the Self-Represented Litigant

Rodney David Quintal for the Self-Represented Litigant Corrected Judgment of the Endorsement of The Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit The Respondent’s name in the body of this Endorsement judgment has been corrected to Mr. Quintal rather than Mr. Cinnamon.