RAG V LCG, 2021 ABQB 202

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: RAG V LCG, 2021 ABQB 202 Date: 20210317 Docket: 4803 161620 Registry: Edmonton Between: RAG Plaintiff/Respondent - and - LCG Defendant/Applicant ______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This Endorsement is further to a proposed Application by LCG (Proposed Application), a copy of which is attached hereto as

Schedule “A”, for which leave was originally sought on or about June 22, 2020, but has been delayed by Covid-19. [ 2 ] The parties have been told many times that, if they cannot resolve their issues by agreement, there must be a trial, and, if there must be a trial, they are to

schedule a meeting with Case Management Counsel (now Case Resolution Counsel) to establish a litigation plan. This is the cumulative effect of my Orders of January 17, 2018 and March 1, 2018 (as amended March 20, 2018) and my Endorsements of December, 7, 2018, February 13, 2019 and March 24, 2000. [ 3 ] It is my understanding, to this end, the parties did meet with Case Management Counsel on June 15, 2020. It was decided there would not be a Practice Note 7 Intervention, which had earlier been suggested by RAG and was an issue about which I directed the parties to speak with Case Management Counsel.

The parties asked for an adjournment of this first meeting to discuss a resolution of the substantive issues between them. A second meeting with Case Management Counsel, to either document any settlement or discuss trial, was scheduled for July 6, 2020. This meeting was cancelled by the parties, as they wanted to work further on resolution over the summer. Case Management Counsel has not heard further from the parties since. [ 4 ] LCG’s Proposed Application was submitted between the first meeting (June 15, 2020) held with the parties and the date scheduled (July 6, 2020) for the second meeting.

Had the parties met with Case Management Counsel for the second meeting, the need for LCG to proceed with such an application would have been explored. Upon the parties expressing an intention to work on settlement, the Proposed Application was not addressed pending an indication from the parties that they were unable to come to an agreement. Not having heard from the parties that they were again in need of the assistance of Case Management Counsel, nor having received any inquiry from LCG about the outcome of her leave request, it was assumed that there was no longer a need for the same.

However, at this point, to ensure there are no “loose strings” left as I make directions with respect to the overall status of this file, I will dispose of the Proposed Application, in the event this is required.

[ 5 ] There have been many leave requests made in this action. They have mostly come from RAG. However, the restrictions placed on further applications before trial apply to both parties.

The comments made to RAG in my previous Endorsements (copies of which both parties will have) dealing with his leave requests, regarding the answer to the parties’ issues not being found in endless rounds of interim applications, are equally applicable, regardless of whether the application is RAG’s or LCG’s. [ 6 ] There is an interim order relating to child support, namely, the Variation Order granted March 1, 2018 (as amended March 20, 2018). Paragraph three (3) of that Order directs there will be no further applications (absent applications for enforcement within the Court’s jurisdiction) until trial.

Accordingly, no leave shall be granted to deal with the remedies claimed at #1 and #2 of LCG’s leave request. No comment is, therefore, required regarding whether these remedies are arguably appropriate on the evidence in the Affidavit submitted with the Proposed Application or in law. [ 7 ] There is an interim order relating to parenting, namely, the Order granted on January 17, 2018. Paragraph 13 of that Order directs there will be no further applications by either party relating to parenting until trial. Accordingly, no leave shall be granted to deal with the remedy claimed at #3 of LCG’s leave request.

In any event, the parenting matter LCG asks to address is dealt with in paragraph 15 of the Order. [ 8 ] Occasioned by the Court adopting new processes in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and, in general, to maximize the efficient use of resources, the use of case management in family law matters is being minimized in favour of a docket court system, without the continuation of case management, unless there are exception circumstances.

Here, the exceptional circumstances justify a continuation of case management, if only to limit the drain on the Court’s resources by the parties who, either one or the other or both, will not follow the Court’s direction on almost any matter, but continue to apply none-the-less. I am, therefore, not going to discontinue case management of this file, but to impose further conditions.

The parties’ next step, should some form of court intervention still be required, is to meet again with Case Management Counsel, this time in her new role as Resolution Counsel, but also in the role of a Referee, to identify the most effective way forward to a final resolution of the parties’ issues by trial, and to proceed under consent order to trial, or in the likelihood that consent is not forthcoming to do a Referee’s report to Associate Chief Justice Nielsen or his nominee.

If any further other judicial intervention is required, and thus leave is required, because I moved from Edmonton over 3 years ago, the parties can make any further leave application to Associate Chief Justice Nielsen, or his case management nominee. I will not hear any further application in this matter. [ 9 ] There will be no cost associated with this Endorsement, but costs may be awarded in the future, if the Court’s orders are not followed. [ 10 ] The Court will issue an Order setting out the result of this Endorsement, for which neither party need comply with Rule 9.4(2) (c).

Associate Chief Justice Rooke Note:

Schedule A referenced herein at paragraph 1, not attached but on the Court file with the original of this Endorsement. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 17 th day of March 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.