Pereira v Richardson, 2021 ABQB 221

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Pereira v Richardson, 2021 ABQB 221 Date: 20210323 Docket: 4803 166783 Registry: Edmonton Between: Maria Luisa Gil Pereira Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Andrew C. Richardson Defendant/Applicant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling M. Sanderman _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Richardson asks for relief from the Court in relation to his child support obligations created by the Divorce Judgment that ended the marriage between the parties.

In essence, he wants his ongoing obligations to end, a determination of the amount of arrears owed by either party, reimbursement of funds he provided for dental care for the child of the marriage and reimbursement of funds garnished by the Maintenance Enforcement Program. [ 2 ] Ms. Pereira does not oppose a judicial determination of arrears owed but she wants funds expended by her for childcare to be factored into the equation.

[ 3 ] The parties were married on June 27, 2009 and divorced on December 8, 2014. There is one child of the marriage, a daughter born in November of 2009. [ 4 ] Pursuant to the Divorce Judgment, the parents were charged with the responsibility of shared parenting. The Divorce Judgment ordered Mr. Richardson to pay $241.00 per month for

section 3 child support based on his annual income of $30,000.00 and Ms. Pereira’s of $1,200.00. [ 5 ] This situation was not expected to remain static and the parties agreed to exchange their tax information on an annual basis so appropriate adjustments could be made in relation to child support. Daycare expenses were to be shared equally.

No special expenses over $100.00 were to be incurred without the prior written approval of both parties except for emergency health related expenses. [ 6 ] These parties agreed that their respective Line 150 income found on their tax returns would be used to adjust ongoing child support for the following year. The anticipated change in annual incomes contemplated by the parties came to be. By 2017, Ms. Pereira’s annual income was $54,540.00 and Mr. Richardson’s $35,100.00.

Unfortunately, the parties had not been exchanging their tax information and the Divorce Judgment was outdated. [ 7 ] Life is fluid and rarely static. Since 2017, significant changes have taken place in the lives of the parties. Both have run businesses in the past but are incapable of doing so at this time. Both have suffered considerable health problems and neither can work. Mr. Richardson is presently receiving AISH payments after having received social assistance for some time. Ms.

Pereira has cancer and cannot work. [ 8 ] Each parties’ annual income is below that level which permits child support orders to be made. Consequently, no order for ongoing child support will be made. Only an order in relation to arrears can be made. [ 9 ] The parties are before the Court because the scheme for the exchange of information was not followed and no adjustments have been made. Ms. Pereira did not send her information as required as she found Mr.

Richardson difficult to deal with as he preferred to make unilateral decisions rather than discussing matters of mutual concern in relation to their daughter. [ 10 ] Ms. Pereira objected to the dental work performed on her daughter as it was going to cost more than she could afford. Its cost was greatly in excess of the $100.00 limit set by the Divorce Judgment. She is not required to reimburse Mr. Richardson for the unilateral expense he incurred.

He cannot fit himself within the exception contemplated by the Divorce Judgment. [ 11 ] In his efforts to obtain this money, he enlisted the services of Maintenance Enforcement to achieve this. A file was opened. A review of the Divorce Judgment led Maintenance Enforcement to conclude that Mr. Richardson was in arrears in relation to his child support obligations as no change had been made in relation to the original judgment. Consequently, they garnished funds from available sources that totalled $821.00. If proper adjustments had been made, this would not have been done. Ms.

Pereira is responsible for repaying this amount to Mr. Richardson. [ 12 ] Mr. Richardson’s calculations in relation to overpayment of child support is accepted as being accurate. He has overpaid $4,469.00. Adding this to the garnished amount, Ms. Pereira owes Mr. Richardson $5,290.00. [ 13 ] One of his unilateral decisions was to stop paying for his share of his daughter’s daycare as contemplated by the Divorce Judgment. For his failure to live up to this obligation, Mr. Richardson will pay Ms. Pereira $2,785.00. When this is set off against the $5,290.00 owed by Ms.

Pereira, she owes him $2,505.00. [ 14 ] This decision only deals with a money dispute between the parties. They have much more important matters to deal with in relation to their daughter. Differences have arisen between Ms. Pereira and her daughter and she has relocated to her father’s house. The efforts and energies of the parents would be better spent on rectifying this recent development. [ 15 ] There will be no enforcement of the arrears owed by Ms. Pereira as long as she pays $50.00 a month to retire them. This repayment scheme will begin July 1, 2021. Heard on the 19th day of March, 2021.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 23 rd day of March, 2021. Sterling M. Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mimi S. Simon, Ozerna Family Law

For the Applicant, Mr. Richardson Theresa L. Wilson, Wilson Law For the Respondent, Ms. Pereira