Klein (Re), 2021 ABQB 488

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Klein (Re), 2021 ABQB 488 Date: 20210625 Docket: ES03 138897 Registry: Edmonton Court File Number ES03 138897 Court Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Surrogate Matter) Judicial Centre Edmonton Estate Name Erna Klein Applicants Raymond Klein and Marilynn Klein Respondent Belinda Ann Klein also known as Ann Klein _______________________________________________________ Procedural Directions of the Honourable Mr. Justice R.A.

Graesser _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Following a number of chambers applications earlier this year, the Applicants sought case management. Instead, ACJ Nielsen appointed me to conduct a Rule 4.10 case conference with the parties. The case conference was held on June 17, 2021. [ 2 ] Before the case conference, I had the opportunity to review the file, which is partly contained in a very full bankers box. Materials from 2021 had not yet made their way onto the court file.

The 2021 proceedings as I understand them involved applications before Hayes-Richards J in January, Fraser J in March, and correspondence with ACJ Nielsen seeking case management, which resulted in this conference. [ 3 ] It is obvious from the filings since 2013 that the parties are driven by long-seated animosities that pre-date the death of their

mother. The Court is not the appropriate venue to deal with broken relationships, although all too frequently it provides a forum for these to play out. [ 4 ] It struck me from reviewing this matter that the claims each side has against the other are hopeless and should not be litigated. Essentially, the claims are either barred by the provisions of the Limitations Act , or have already been decided. As I explained to the parties at the case conference, they do not get to re-litigate issues when they feel that the result was unfair or simply wrong.

The remedy in such circumstances is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Despite the many rulings in this matter over the last 9 years, there have been no appeals. [ 5 ] I will briefly describe the chronology of events. Erna Klein died on July 8, 2012. Her death was unexpected at the time. She died intestate. Before her death, her husband (and the parties’ father) passed away. There were difficulties in the administration of his estate, and eventually Raymond completed administration of the estate. Animosities between the parties existed and escalated at that time. [ 6 ] Following Mr.

Klein’s death, Erna Klein remained in the family home. The parties disagreed over how to care for their mother in her home. Erna Klein appears to have accumulated a lot of “stuff” of little or no value, and the term “hoarder” has been used in the proceedings. She apparently looked after paying her own bills, with Raymond’s assistance. [ 7 ] Because Erna Klein was intestate, the three children had an equal right to administration of her estate.

Ann Klein was unwilling to renounce administration in favour of Raymond, partly out of her concerns over the manner in which their father’s estate had been administered, and partly because of the way Raymond had acted after Erna’s death. [ 8 ] Initially, the parties disagreed over what should be done with the personal property in the residence. Ann alleges that Raymond and Marilynn rushed over to the residence on their mother’s death and essentially cleaned it out of anything of value. All that was left was junk that needed to be hauled away.

According to Raymond and Marilynn, they took nothing of value and it was Ann who rushed over to retrieve items of value. Those issues have never been resolved to Ann’s satisfaction. What remains is Ann’s wish that she have her mother’s sewing machine (which is in Raymond’s possession) as well as a sign owned by her mother. The sign has no value but for sentiment. Raymond and Marilynn refuse to let Ann have those items. [ 9 ] More significantly, from a financial perspective, Ann claims that Raymond took $58,000 in cash from the residence immediately after their mother’s death.

According to Ann, their mother kept a lot of cash on hand to pay bills. She says that Raymond admitted to her at their mother’s funeral that he had taken the money. Ann believes that Raymond and Marilynn have since split the money taken from the house, excluding her from any distribution. Raymond and Marilynn deny that there was cash in the residence, and that Raymond took any cash.

This issue has never been resolved to Ann’s satisfaction. [ 10 ] Ann also alleged that Raymond had withdrawn $21,500 from their mother’s President’s Choice bank account before Ann was appointed Administrator, although that issue has received much less attention since 2017. [ 11 ] Eventually, Ann applied for sole administration. The application was heard by Jeffrey J on August 8, 2013. Ann was represented by the de Villars Jones law firm.

The application was opposed by Raymond and Marilynn, who were represented by Jason van Doesburg. [ 12 ] Following her appointment, Ann began to administer the Estate by taking over control of the known assets of the Estate: the residence, bank accounts at President’s Choice, and a bank account at the Bank of Montreal. The President’s Choice accounts were closed and the funds transferred to the Bank of Montreal account. Raymond and Marilynn believe that Ann has never properly accounted for the funds in these accounts.

Ann believes that Raymond removed $21,500 from these accounts between the time of their mother’s death and her appointment as Administrator in August 2013. That issue has never been resolved. Raymond claims that he is owed approximately $500 for junk removal costs he incurred in 2013. That amount has never been paid to him. [ 13 ] After Ann’s appointment, Marilynn and Raymond were unhappy with the manner in which Ann was dealing with the residence. They wanted it listed for sale as soon as possible. Ann was attempting to sell it without incurring a real estate commission. The parties disagreed over its value.

At one stage, Marilynn and Raymond offered to purchase the residence. That offer was rejected by Ann. Ann says a good offer was lost because Marilynn and Raymond would not agree to accept it. [ 14 ] Because of this conflict, Raymond and Marilynn brought an application to remove Ann as Administrator. For this application, Raymond and Marilynn were represented by Patti Ko of Bishop and McKenzie. The application was heard and decided on April 4, 2014. It was opposed by Ann, who continued to be represented by de Villars Jones.

Raymond and Marilynn were unsuccessful, and Nielsen J (as he then was) ordered them to pay the Estate’s costs on a solicitor-client basis, out of their share in the estate. The amount ordered was $3680, plus disbursements plus GST. Ann says this amount has never been recovered from Raymond and Marilynn. [ 15 ] The house eventually sold effective March 15, 2015. An application to approve this sale was necessary, although Raymond and Marilynn’s lawyer apparently withdrew their objection the day before the application was to be heard.

The selling price was $289,900. [ 16 ] Unhappy with the speed at which Ann was administering the estate and looking for an accounting, Raymond and Marilynn applied before Lee J on May 31, 2016, for the release of some of the funds in the Estate, as well as a direction that Ann provide an accounting under the Administration of Estates Act . Lee J ordered that funds be released to each of the parties, and on May 26, 2016, $53,000 was paid to each of the parties.

Lee J also directed that Ann provide an accounting, and set January 18, 2018, as a date for the passing of accounts. [ 17 ] By this stage, Marilynn and Raymond had retained Ed Bridges of Snyder & Company to represent them. Through her solicitors, de Villars Jones, Ann prepared an accounting to June 30, 2015. She was extensively cross-examined on her affidavit in support of the passing of accounts. Ann was cross-examined on the President’s Choice and Bank of Montreal accounts and other concerns expressed by Raymond and Marilynn.

[ 18 ] The passing of accounts application was heard by Topolniski J on January 18, 2017. She accepted the accounts to June 30, 2015, and discharged Ann as administrator to that date. She awarded Ann $8000 as an executor’s fee to date. Topolniski J ordered that all of the parties’ legal bills be paid out of the Estate. [ 19 ] The formal order only tells a small part of the application. Marilynn recently provided a copy of the transcript of the January 18, 2017 application. The parties were all present with their counsel.

Counsel for Marilynn and Raymond represented to the Court that Marilynn and Raymond were withdrawing their objections to Ann’s accounting, and stated that only two issues remained: setting the amount of Ann’s Administrator’s fee, and settling the parties’ legal costs. [ 20 ] Topolniski J lectured the parties on spending so much of the Estate on litigation costs, and exhorted the parties to try to settle the remaining issues. After a break, counsel reported back that the parties had been able to agree on an $8,000 Administrator’s fee for Ann.

All that remained was the issue of costs. [ 21 ] Topolniski J ordered that all of the parties’ legal costs be paid out of the Estate. There were a few difficulties with the formal order, but I am satisfied from reviewing the transcript and the order that the final order accurately reflected what was ordered by Justice Topolniski. [ 22 ] It is significant that Marilynn and Raymond were in Court for the application, and heard what was represented to Topolniski J by their lawyer.

They participated in the settlement discussion over the Administrator fee. [ 23 ] From my review of the accounting provided by Ann, it appears that she kept the Bank of Montreal account under her sole control and did not pay it over to the Estate Solicitors. She was fully entitled to do that, as there were ongoing expenses to pay. There is nothing untoward about an Administrator or Personal Representative keeping bank accounts and other assets under their control. It is an unnecessary expense to have all bills paid by the solicitor for the Estate (if there is a solicitor).

Many estates are administered without the assistance of legal counsel. [ 24 ] The $8,000 administrator fee was paid to Ann by way of Ann retaining the balance in the Bank of Montreal account at the time ($5,299.10) and a trust cheque to Ann from de Villars Jones for $3,361.20. According to Ann, that emptied the Bank of Montreal “estate account”. [ 25 ] De Villars Jones ceased to represent the Estate and Ann in April 2017, and both have been self- represented since then. [ 26 ] Ed Bridges continued to represent Marilynn and Raymond until he ceased to act in December 2018.

It does not appear that there was any falling out between Marilynn and Raymond and Mr. Bridges over what was represented in Court by his associate. [ 27 ] The parties continued to argue over various issues, including everything that had taken place up to June 30, 2015. On Marilynn and Raymond’s application on May 12, 2017, Ouellette J ordered that $7,000 of the remaining funds be paid to each of the parties. [ 28 ] On January 12, 2018, Henderson J ordered Ann to account post June 30, 2015. The parties continued to argue over how to distribute the remaining funds.

Ann was still seeking reimbursement from Raymond for the monies allegedly taken from their mother’s home. Raymond and Marilynn were still seeking information as to a number of issues. [ 29 ] On March 29, 2019, Marilynn and Raymond filed an application alleging that Ann had breached her duties as Administrator. They alleged that Ann had done nothing significant since the January 2017 passing of accounts, and sought: a. Payment to themselves of the remaining monies in trust; b. Reimbursement of about $850 in claimed expenses; and c.

BMO bank statements from June 15, 2015 until its closure. [ 30 ] They sought additional relief alleging that all of the legal expenses incurred by the Estate were unnecessary and resulted from Ann ignoring their rights as beneficiaries. [ 31 ] In April 2019, de Villars Jones brought an interpleader application to pay the funds remaining in their trust account into court. [ 32 ] On May 2, 2019, Loparco J considered the breach of duty application as well as the interpleader application, and ordered Ann to obtain all necessary documents from de Villars Jones.

She also gave the parties until June 30, 2019, to pose a maximum of 5 pages worth of questions to the other. Answers were to be provided by July 30, 2019. The applications were adjourned sine die. [ 33 ] It appears that de Villars Jones provided the necessary accounting records, which accounted for all of the funds paid into the de Villars Jones trust account and all disbursements from trust, including payment of their various accounts over the years. [ 34 ] On May 30, 2019, Loparco J considered the accounting provided by Ann and the de Villars Jones application to pay monies into court.

She directed that the monies remaining in the trust account after paying de Villars Jones’ final account be divided equally among the parties, but for an adjustment in Ann’s favour to reflect the solicitor and client costs awarded against Marilynn and Raymond by Nielsen J in 2014. [ 35 ] That order resulted in the remaining funds in the Estate being distributed, assuming there is nothing left in the Bank of Montreal account. [ 36 ] The breach of duty application returned to Loparco on October 14, 2020.

In the meantime, the parties had exchanged interrogatory requests and had provided the other side with responses. Neither party was satisfied with the other’s responses. A special chambers application was set.

[ 37 ] Since there was missing information, the issues could not be resolved on October 14. Loparco J instead conducted an ad hoc settlement conference with the parties, but nothing was agreed. Ultimately, she granted a very detailed procedural order. Ann was directed to answer further interrogatories and to provide specified information concerning charges on her personal Master Card account. Following this process, the parties were permitted to question the other.

After that, if they were not able to resolve their outstanding issues, the parties could set down a full day special chambers application. [ 38 ] On January 21, 2021, Ann was ordered by Hayes-Richards J on application by Raymond and Marilynn to provide various records including Bank Statements for the Bank of Montreal account and President’s Choice accounts for September and October 2013 and January 2014, and Bank of Montreal statements from June 15, 2015, to the final closing statement in 2017. [ 39 ] When the matter returned to chambers on March 5, 2021, Fraser J expanded the required bank statements to January 2013 to present.

Obviously Hayes-Richards J and Fraser J were satisfied that Ann had not provided the Bank of Montreal records, and in particular the ones from June 2015 to present. [ 40 ] Ann maintains that she has provided everything she has been ordered to provide, subject to it being available from the respective banks. [ 41 ] And there the matters stand.

Observations [ 42 ] From Ann’s perspective, everything is complete except she wants the two items of personal property and her share of the money she says Raymond took. [ 43 ] Raymond and Ann are seeking reimbursement to Raymond for $525 in hauling fees from 2013, $300 in unreimbursed expenses for Marilynn, and a detailed accounting of the bank accounts from the beginning of 2013 (as ordered by Fraser J). They believe that Ann has improperly taken money from those accounts and has not properly accounted for expenses charged to the estate.

They also believe that the roughly $100,000 spent by the Estate on legal fees should be reimbursed by Ann because the estate was depleted by at least that amount by her misconduct and her refusal to cooperate with Raymond and Marilynn. [ 44 ] There are several legal problems that leap out with the parties claims against each other. Firstly, limitation periods under the Limitations Act apply to claims by and against estates. The general rule is that claims must be made by the commencement of some sort of legal process within 2 years from learning of the existence of the claim.

Ann has believed that Raymond took $58,000 of Estate funds and has not returned them to the Estate since July 2012, the day of her mother’s funeral. She has from time to time complained about the $21,500 withdrawn by Raymond from the President’s Choice accounts. It may be that she was not in a position to do anything about these complaints until she became Administrator of the Estate. That occurred in August 2013. Here we are nearly 8 years later and Ann has taken absolutely no steps to attempt to recover these funds from Raymond.

She and the Estate were represented by experienced counsel from August 2013 until April 2017. No claim was made against Raymond. [ 45 ] Equally telling is that no steps were taken to offset the claim against Raymond against monies he was otherwise entitled to. Set off is not necessarily affected by the passage of limitation periods, but the $53,000 payment to Raymond in May 2016 (before the passing of accounts by Topolniski

J) was made without reference to any set off. It would have been relatively straightforward to bring matters to a head then by claiming set-off of the amounts alleged to have been taken by Raymond.

That did not happen. [ 46 ] There was no reference to any set off when the further $7000 was paid to each of the parties under Ouellette J’s order of May 12, 2017 (after the passing of accounts), or again when Loparco J ordered the remaining funds to be paid out in May, 2019. [ 47 ] The reality is that any claim by the Estate against Raymond very likely expired by the passage of time no later than August 2015 (2 years after Ann was in a position to do something about it). The Estate missed its chances to apply a set off in 2016, 2017 and 2019. There is now nothing to set off, and no viable claim against Raymond.

If he took the money, he has gotten away with it because Ann did nothing to try to collect it. Complaining to him and Marilynn about it, complaining to the Estate lawyer about it, and even complaining to the Court about it is not the same as taking action. [ 48 ] The same holds true to the items of personal property Ann would like. She has known these were in Raymond’s or Marilynn’s possession for 9 years. If she wanted to call in all of the Estate assets, the time to do that (for known claims) expired two years after her appointment.

Thereafter, there has been no legal basis for Ann and the Estate to try to recover missing property from Raymond or Marilynn. There has been no concealment or recent discovery relating to these items. They have been a source of dispute between the parties for nearly 9 years, but there is now remedy available in court for Ann. [ 49 ] Finally, Ann believes that she has never been reimbursed for the solicitor-client costs awarded by Nielsen J in 2014. She is mistaken.

When Loparco ordered the final distribution of the trust account in May 2019, she awarded Ann an additional $1,288 to be paid from Marilynn’s and Raymond’s shares. The evidence was clear that the bill from de Villars Jones that gave rise to the solicitor- client cost order had been paid out of estate funds.

Marilynn and Raymond were beneficiaries as to 2/3 of the estate, so when the account was paid from Estate funds, they had already paid 2/3 of what they were required to do. [ 50 ] I have never seen any calculation of disbursements and GST, such that the bill to be paid by Raymond and Marilynn was the amount specified in the Nielsen order: $3680. Two-thirds had been paid already by way of the equal distributions that had been made to that time. That left Raymond and Marilynn to come up with $1226.66. Loparco J’s Order of May 29, 2019, had Ann receive $1288 from Raymond and Marilynn’s share.

That differential had been Ed Bridges’ response to Ann when they were negotiating the final distribution in 2018 and Ann was insisting on receiving the ordered solicitor and client costs. Ann has received what she was entitled to by way of the solicitor-client costs. No one appealed the Loparco J Order. [ 51 ] With respect to the claims by Marilynn and Raymond, a curtain was drawn on the period up to June 30, 2015 by the January 2017 order passing accounts to that date and discharging Ann as Administrator for actions to that date. Marilynn and Raymond’s

complaints were the same at the time of the passing of accounts then as they are now: Ann has improperly taken money from the bank accounts, charged improper expenses and has never properly accounted. The time to argue those matters was on the passing of accounts. [ 52 ] Essentially, Raymond and Ann conceded the application in January 2017. Their lawyer advised the Court that they were no longer contesting Ann’s accounting. Topolniski J observed in the discussion in Chambers that the accounting was imperfect but did not have to go into details because that aspect of the application was no longer being opposed.

Marilynn and Raymond cannot resile from that agreement. [ 53 ] Ann was awarded an Administrator’s fee (again by agreement of Marilynn and Raymond), and her actions to that time were approved. There is nothing new raised by Raymond and Marilynn by their breach of duty application in March 2019. They are simply trying to relitigate the issues that were known to their lawyer and raised in questioning of Ann before the application. Their arguments against those expenses were abandoned by their lawyer in Court in their presence. It is too late for them to do anything about the pre- June 30, 2015, period.

It is no answer to say they were dissatisfied with the job their lawyer did on January 18, 2017. Nor is an answer to say that they could not afford to appeal. [ 54 ] As for their complaint that Ann ran up the legal costs: that battle was lost in January 2017 when Topolniski J ordered that everyone’s legal costs be paid out of the Estate. That was a ruling that was to some degree in Marilynn and Raymond’s favour, as Topolniski J obviously took a more favourable view of their opposition to the passing of accounts than Nielsen J had taken to their attempt to remove Ann as Administrator in 2014.

Loparco J saw de Villars Jones paid out of the trust funds in May 2019 when she ordered the balance of the estate distributed, including the last bill of de Villars Jones. [ 55 ] If Marilynn and Raymond were owed anything by the Estate (the hauling charge and Marilynn’s expense claim) those claims have long since expired without them taking any action to enforce them or to preserve them. [ 56 ] The sad reality is that an estate worth close to $300,000 as at Erna Klein’s death has been paid out. The beneficiaries received a little over $60,000 each. Ann received $8,000 as an Administrator’s fee.

Some expenditures were necessary to clean up the residence after Erna Klein’s death and to preserve it until it could be sold. The rest was eaten up by legal fees. [ 57 ] The only thing left to do is to complete the accounting for the period July 1, 2015, to the later of the May 29, 2019 order that disbursed all that was left in the hands of de Villars Jones and the closing of the Bank of Montreal account. [ 58 ] De Villars Jones have already accounted for what they received, which was mainly the sale proceeds of the residence.

Marilynn and Raymond continue to complain about the President’s Choice Bank accounts and the Bank of Montreal account. [ 59 ] When Jeffrey J granted Administration of the Estate to Ann in August 2012, he directed that Marilynn and Raymond account for their activities regarding the Estate to the end of August 2013. I do not know if that happened or not. Ann was not in a position to start dealing with the assets in the Estate until Jeffrey J’s Order, which for some reason was not filed until October 13, 2013. [ 60 ] With respect to the President’s Choice bank accounts, it is clear that there were two accounts.

Ann complained of numerous withdrawals by Raymond between May and July 2013, while her application was pending. The end balance on account 53506895 at the end of May 2013, was $30,476.40. The end balance on July 31, 2013, on that account was $8,832.18. I have seen no information about the other President’s Choice account (53536978) other than that the balance in that account of $12,005.53 and the balance in account 53506895 totaling $20,840.03 were transferred to the Bank of Montreal “estate” account on November 22, 2013.

I have seen nothing on the court file to suggest that Ann had any access to the President’s Choice accounts until after October 13, 2013, or that she used any of those funds [ 61 ] The Bank of Montreal account had a balance in it of $16,884.67 as at August 17, 2012. As at the statement of November 19, 2013, (15 months later) the starting balance was $16,884.67. It would appear that the Bank of Montreal account was frozen by the bank from shortly after Erna Klein’s death until after Ann had the filed court order appointing her Administrator.

On October 23, 2013, Ann then reimbursed herself for the headstone and some legal fees she had already paid, and then paid de Villars Jones for the legal work done to have her appointed Administrator. That left $2,144.43 in that account as at November 19. [ 62 ] For the purposes of the passing of accounts, the BMO account had been reduced to $1,759.52 by June 12, 2015.

Correspondence on the court file (included in a large binder of records filed by one of the parties) shows that when the accounts were passed in January 2017, Victoria Jones from de Villars Jones had Ann reimburse herself $5,299.10 from the BMO account rather than haver her pay the BMO account over to de Villars Jones and have them pay the full $8000 from their trust account.

I assume that the payment of $5299.10 out of the BMO account to Ann depleted that account, but that remains to be seen as final BMO statements have not been provided by Ann as yet. [ 63 ] What is not clear is how and why the BMO account grew from $2,144.43 in June 2015 to $5,299.10 in April 2017. Despite numerous orders to do so, Ann has not yet provided BMO statements from June 30, 2015, to the closing of that account. [ 64 ] At the conference on June 17, 2021 Ann advised that she had previously provided a letter from BMO regarding the statements to Marilynn and Raymond.

That has not yet been provided to the Court. Reference was made to a seven-year availability period for bank statements. June 2015 is still within that seven-year period. [ 65 ] Perhaps Ann has provided all of these statements. She had not done so by March 5, 2021, at least according to Fraser J’s Order of that date. If she has already done so, then I would ask that she provide me with a copy of these statements and the letter from BMO so I can address whether she has complied with that aspect of Fraser J’s Order.

If she has not done so, she must do so immediately. [ 66 ] I can see no reason why she should not be able to obtain these statements from BMO, at her expense, within 30 days from the date of this memo. [ 67 ] I am uncertain as to my power on a Rule 4.10 application with respect to the merits of claims. This conference was intended to

address procedural matters and not the merits other than how they may affect ongoing procedure. [ 68 ] Court time is a scare resource and should be managed prudently. Once Ann completes the accounting for the post June 2015 period, if the parties are still intent on litigating against each other, the merits may have to be addressed in some formal process.

I reserve jurisdiction to deal with that prospect once Ann has complied with the orders herein. [ 69 ] Subject to Ann producing those statements in their entirety, as well as the whole of the Canada Revenue Agency records (according to Marilynn and Raymond she only produced the front pages), I really see no other viable issues remaining between these parties that can be appropriately addressed in court proceedings. [ 70 ] There appears to be no basis for Ann to continue to pursue Raymond and Marilynn for the personal property items she wants, nor for the $58,000 in cash she says Raymond took from the residence, and perhaps $21,500 withdrawn by Raymond from the President’s Choice accounts before she was appointed as Administrator.

Ann has already been fully reimbursed for the solicitor-client costs awarded against Raymond and Marilynn. The Limitations Act appears to bar all other claims. [ 71 ] There also appears to be no legal basis for Marilynn and Raymond to continue to pursue Ann with respect to anything that occurred before June 30, 2015. Their complaints were addressed by the passing of accounts they required in January 2018, and when the appeal period from Topolniski J’s January 18, 2017, order expired, it is likely that all of their claims up to that date expired with the appeal period.

Their legal bills were reimbursed to them or paid directly to their lawyer. They received everything from the Estate that they were entitled to that date, subject to a final accounting for the period since then. They are now very likely out of time to pursue any argument that the Estate has been depleted unnecessarily by Ann’s actions. [ 72 ] All that remains is to review the BMO account statements from June 30, 2015, until the account was closed. [ 73 ] At this stage, I make the following procedural orders: 1.

Ann shall obtain from BMO, at her expense, statements for Account 2579-3993-487 covering the period including June 30, 2015 to the date the account was closed; 2. Ann shall forthwith make arrangements with BMO to have them provide these statements including prepaying for the cost of doing so; 3. These statements shall be provided to Raymond and Marilynn and to the Court by July 31, 2021, subject only to BMO’s inability or unwillingness to do so, which circumstances shall be reported to Raymond and Marilynn and to the Court in writing on or before July 31, 2021; 4.

All other proceedings in this action are stayed until further order of Graesser J; which stay will be addressed following receipt and review of the BMO statements. Case Conference held June 17, 2021. Dated at Edmonton, Alberta this 25th day of June, 2021. Justice R.A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances : Raymond Klein and Marilynn Klein Applicants Belinda Ann Klein Respondent