Tink v Tink, 2021 ABQB 477

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Tink v Tink, 2021 ABQB 477 Date: 20210618 Docket: 4804 011512 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Jennifer Nicole Tink Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Pierce William Tink Defendant/Applicant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Mr. Justice N. Whitling _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On April 28, 2021, I heard an application by the Applicant, Pierce William Tink, for retroactive and go-forward adjustments to his income levels for child support and spousal support purposes.

Based upon the evidence I ordered that the Applicant’s income levels be adjusted as follows: 2018 – 240,000 2019 – 150,000 2020 – 150,000 2021 and going forward – 150,000. [ 2 ] During the hearing, I was also advised by counsel for the Respondent, Jennifer Nicole Tink, that, due to her recent health concerns, she will not be earning an income during 2021, and that consequently, her income level ought to be set at $25,000 going

forward. [ 3 ] Given the mixed success of the parties, I also decided that it would be unnecessary for me to hear from the parties on the subject of costs, and that the parties would bear their own costs. [ 4 ] After the hearing, counsel for the Respondent pointed out by way of correspondence that I did not specify how the resulting adjustment of some $44,852, was to be dealt with. Counsel for the Respondent also requested permission to provide submissions on the question of costs based upon an offer of settlement that had been made prior to the hearing.

I then invited counsel for the parties to address the issues of the retroactive adjustment and costs of the application. [ 5 ] I was subsequently provided with a copy of an offer made by the Respondent to the Applicant which would have set his income level at $140,000 but which would not have called for any retroactive adjustment, unless one were to be awarded at a future trial. Since the Applicant was awarded an immediate retroactive adjustment, it cannot be said that the Respondent obtained a better result than that contained in her offer.

Consequently, the offer does not provide a basis for an award of costs in favour of the Respondent, and the parties shall bear their own costs. [ 6 ] In the context of the aforementioned written submissions, counsel for the Respondent advised that, contrary to the representations made to me at the hearing, her income for 2021 will not in fact be $25,000 since she will receive health insurance benefits throughout the year. I was not provided with any specific figure respecting the quantum of these benefits, but it is apparent that much of her prior income levels will be restored by these benefits.

This being the case, the Respondent’s income level going forward will be set at $60,000 rather than $25,000. [ 7 ] The retroactive adjustment awarded to the Applicant will be credited to the Applicant by reducing his spousal support payments by $400 per month. Heard on the 28 th day of April, 2021. Dated at the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta this 18 th day of June, 2021. N. Whitling J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Glenn Taylor for Jennifer Nicole Tink Jordan Lefaivre for Pierce William Tink