RAG v LCG, 2018 ABQB 1009

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: RAG v LCG, 2018 ABQB 1009 Date: 20181213 Docket: 4803 161620 Registry: Edmonton Between: RAG Plaintiff - and - LCG Defendant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Further to a proposed Family Application by RAG (Proposed Application), a copy of which is attached hereto as

Schedule “A”, for which leave was sought on or about June 12, 2018, leave is denied in relation to all items therein listed on the following grounds (using the numbers of the Proposed Application): 1. No specific relief is sought for which leave can be granted. 2. This is a collateral attack on my Order of January 17, 2018, which was not appealed. 3.

My Order of January 17, 2018, at paragraph 13, provides “[t]here shall be no further applications by either party related to parenting, which issues shall be dealt with at a trial”, and my Order of March 1, 2018 (as amended on March 20, 2018), at paragraph three (3), provides: “[a]bsent applications for enforcement that are within the Court’s jurisdiction, there will be no further applications until trial, and there will be no other application before trial on any matter without leave of Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke or my designate”.

There is no evidence in RAG’s proposed Affidavit of specific incidents of non-compliance to bring this head of relief within the “enforcement” exception, nor is there any evidence of urgency or imminent harm to the children regarding any decision made/not made by LCG to warrant leave being granted in the face of the restriction on applications regarding parenting. 4. See my response under #3 above. 5.

While RAG’s use of the word “comply” might connote “enforcement”, the generalized nature of the complaints in RAG’s proposed Affidavit, lacking in particulars in relation to specific incidents wherein LCG failed to comply with a term of an earlier Order of this Court, will not suffice to allow the Court to determine this issue.

6. It is unclear to me what relief RAG is seeking; if he is looking to address parenting, then my response under #3 above applies, and if he is looking to address the enforcement of his right-of-first-refusal, then my response under #5 above applies. 7. I may be prepared to entertain leave to bring an application regarding the Practice Note 7 Intervention suggested by RAG, but only if this matter is scheduled for trial and there is an appropriate litigation plan in place; accordingly, the parties may

schedule a meeting with Case Management Counsel solely for the purpose of discussing arrangements for trial and the possibility of proceeding with an Intervention by consent, and thereafter I may be willing to entertain a further leave application in this regard (properly documented), if the matter is not resolved. 8. See my response under #3. 9. See my response under #1. [ 2 ] Furthermore, there are significant deficiencies in the form of RAG’s Affidavit.

In some cases, the exhibits do not appear to correspond with the context in which they are referenced, and Exhibits “H” through “K” are not referenced in the body of the Affidavit. Had I found merit to proceeding with any of the relief RAG was seeking, I would have made leave provisional on RAG providing a further and better Affidavit. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 13 th day of December 2018. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.