Rowan v Price, 2018 ABQB 1060

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rowan v Price, 2018 ABQB 1060 Date: 20181221 Docket: 4801 174130 Registry: Calgary Between: Melissa Anne Rowan Also Known As Melissa Veda Price Plaintiff - and - Guy Price Defendant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J. A. Antonio _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] At the conclusion of our last case management meeting on November 28, 2018 I made the following orders: 1.

There shall be no registrations of writs or other encumbrances on title to 1716-37 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta related to or arising from the Consent Judgment granted on November 21, 2018 in Action Number 1801 13433 unless otherwise ordered by the Case Management Justice.

2. Having conceded that the Post-Nuptial Agreement dated May 7, 2017 is valid, the Defendant shall amend paragraph 3(c) (iii) of his Statement of Defence and paragraph 17 of his counterclaim, both filed August 22, 2017, to remove any claims with respect to its invalidity. 3. The Defendant shall forthwith provide full particulars to the Plaintiff regarding Action Number 0901 09055. 4. The issue of the listing for sale of the property located at 1716-37 th Avenue SW shall be scheduled through the Case Management Officer.

The parties shall make joint submissions to the Case Management Justice as to the anticipated duration of the hearing and their available dates, or separate submissions if a joint submission cannot be reached. 5. The Case Management Justice in this matter shall hear any application to set aside or to vacate the Consent Judgment granted on November 21, 2018 in Action Number 1801 13433, to be scheduled through the Case Management Officer. 6.

Costs of the case management hearings on November 21 and 28, 2018 shall be argued at the next case management hearing. [ 2 ] I also made some directions about materials to be submitted, with which the parties have now complied. In part, the materials relate to two applications by Ms. Rowan. [ 3 ] The first is an application to have certain items of personal property returned to her, in accordance with the Post-Nuptial Agreement. Mr. Price agrees to return some of the items but contests the return of others.

The latter portion of his position is irreconcilable with his concession, made on the record at our November 28 case management hearing, that the Post-Nuptial Agreement is valid. I order that the return of personal property shall be effected as indicated in the Post-Nuptial Agreement. [ 4 ] Ms. Rowan’s second application is to be provided with a key to the house at 1716-37 Avenue SW. Mr. Price argues that she does not need a key, and any access she may need can be addressed through other means. Be that as it may, Ms. Rowan is still a joint owner of the property.

She is entitled to have a key, and I so order. [ 5 ] Since November 28, Ms. Rowan has filed a caveat on the title to 1716-37 Avenue SW. Mr. Price asks me to order the new caveat removed as being contrary to what I intended on November 28. Whatever I may have intended, Ms. Rowan’s action is not contrary to the order I pronounced. I cannot help but note, however, that it is contrary to her position that the title should be cleared in order to have the property listed for sale. I do not order the caveat removed at this time. Mr. Price is free to file any application he sees fit regarding Ms.

Rowan’s caveat, to be heard concurrently with the listing application, and with a filing

schedule to be set by the Case Management Justice. [ 6 ] I further order that all existing court of Queen’s Bench actions in which either party or their corporate entities are involved, as well as any future actions they or their corporate entities may file, shall be brought into Case Management with this action and shall remain there until the Case Management Justice directs otherwise. [ 7 ] I wish to close with two reminders. First, the courts rely on counsel to take positions that are rational and consistent; it is the only way that litigation can move forward.

Second, family litigation should not be a blood sport. I direct counsel to provide their clients with copies of this endorsement. Heard on the 28 th day of November, 2018. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 21 st day of December, 2018. J. A. Antonio J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Elaine L. Lenz, Q.C. for the Defendant Laurie J. Tymchuk for the Plaintiff