VGM v MNPW, 2021 ABQB 131

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: VGM v MNPW, 2021 ABQB 131 Date: 20210219 Docket: 4803 170774 Registry: Edmonton Between: VGM Petitioner - and - MNPW Respondent _______________________________________________________ Supplemental Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On December 3, 2020, I issued a Memorandum of Decision in this matter now reported as 2021 ABQB 83 .

I originally became involved in this matter in August 2020 when I directed a Practice Note 7 (PN7) Evaluative Intervention report be prepared for the one child of the marriage. The PN7 report was issued in September 2020, and I met with the parents in November 2020 to discuss the report with them. [ 2 ] The report recommended, amongst other things, that there be a therapeutic intervention process that involved the parents, and their new partners, in order to effectively manage the family situation.

Both parents agreed that such a therapeutic intervention process would be beneficial, and both parents agreed to proceed although there was certainly concerns as to the costs involved in such a process.

After receiving more submissions from the parties as to who shall pay for the costs for the therapeutic intervention, at least initially, and who the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy should be conducted by, I issued an Order dated December 3, 2020. [ 3 ] The December 3, 2020 Order was issued after the parties’ submissions as to who should conduct the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy as recommended in the PN7 report, and who should pay for this report, at least initially. Both

parties have spent the last few months since the December 3, 2020 Order attempting to begin the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy process, but there are now some fundamental disagreements between the parties as to what that process involves.

Both parties continue to be concerned about the cost of the process. [ 4 ] With respect to the costs of the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy, this has already been decided, and any attempt for the parties to reargue or relitigate my direction contained in my previous Memorandum is simply not acceptable. [ 5 ] I have however considered the various other submissions being made by the parties with respect to the problems as they see it with respect to the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy recommended in the PN7 report, and I believe that these problems and submissions reflect at least in part an underlying disfunction as between these parties in relationship to how they interact with each other.

Fundamentally, the child is doing very well, and will be 11 years of age in a few weeks, so it will not be long before the child will become a young adult and make his own decisions as to the time he spends with each parent, and the activities he participates in with them. [ 6 ] In the meantime, it has become apparent that these parties will not be able to agree on a therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy process, so rather than wasting more time and resources attempting to resolve the concerns that each party has, I have decided to vacate the requirement of the parties to enter into a therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy. [ 7 ] Although my initial December 3, 2020 Order suspended any Court applications regarding parenting matters while the therapeutic intervention therapy was in process, there are still too many distractions and disruptions to the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy to even begin, let alone serve any benefit to the parties and to the child. [ 8 ] Given that the child is doing well, and has been doing well throughout this lengthy high-conflict litigation that has been on- going for a number of years, and given that the child will be 11 years of age shortly, there is no useful purpose that can be obtained at this time given the various issues that the parties have with respect to the therapeutic intervention/family restructuring therapy, and the cost there of. [ 9 ] As for the other continuing issues that the parties have with respect to financial disclosure, this must be dealt with in Family Docket Court as soon as possible.

Accordingly, pursuant to my previous Order, I am directing that the father file and serve on the mother a Notice to Appear in Family Docket Court as soon as possible, which the parties can request all their outstanding matters to be dealt with. [ 10 ] As my involvement with these parties has concluded, there will be no further emails to my office and no further applications made to me. The Family Docket Court judge will make all further decisions. [ 11 ] Based on this Supplemental Memorandum, and marked as

Schedule A, is a new Order dated February 19, 2021, Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 19 th day of February, 2021. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Submissions by: VGM Self Represented MNPW Self Represented

Schedule A can be found on the Court file