Trafiak v Trafiak, 2021 ABQB 600

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Trafiak v Trafiak, 2021 ABQB 600 Date: 20210729 Docket: 4803 188071 Registry: Edmonton Between: Natasha Rhoza Trafiak Plaintiff - and - Dallas Earl Trafiak Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] The parties three remaining children of the marriage are approximately 13, 16 and 18 years of age. The Father is seeking an order that the children primarily reside with him.

The Mother is not opposed to the parties having interim shared parenting of the children, but is concerned about the Father’s past behaviour, and the Father consuming alcohol prior to and during parenting time with the children.

[ 2 ] On October 9, 2020, counsel for the children, Jack Boudreau was appointed, and Mr. Boudreau has advised the Court, on behalf of the three teenaged children of the marriage, that they wish to reside primarily with the Father. [ 3 ] The Mother is also seeking an order prohibiting the Father from attending the matrimonial home or surrounding property without written permission from her. [ 4 ] The Father is seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, or the alternatively the transferring/selling to him of the matrimonial home at the appraised value.

The Mother is agreeable to selling the property as is, and if the Father makes repairs to the matrimonial home to prepare it for sale, she would vacate the matrimonial home for that purpose as long as the Father gives her at least 24 hours notice. Conclusion [ 5 ] Since both parties do not have any difficulty with allowing their teenage children to decide who they will reside with primarily, the Court grants the Father’s application to have primary care of the children since it is their clear desire to reside primarily with the Father, as Mr. Boudreau counsel for the children has stated.

The Mother will have reasonable and generous parenting time in accordance with the children’s wishes. [ 6 ] Although the Mother has raised serious issues with respect to the Father’s behaviour with the children in the past, these areas of concern do not appear to be major problems given Mr. Boudreau’s third-party analysis and representations as counsel for the children.

The Court will restrict the Father from consuming alcohol in the presence of the children. [ 7 ] Counsel have advised that once the Court has released its parenting decision, many or all of the issues concerning child support will resolve themselves. While those financial issues are being resolved as between counsel, there will be a Stay of Enforcement Order put into place with respect to the collection of any arrears pursuant to the Father’s payments of $2000 in uncharacterized support.

The Father is also relieved of the obligation to continue to pay $2000 in uncharacterized support monthly. [ 8 ] The Father operates through a corporation and is required pursuant to Cunningham v Seveny , 2017 ABCA 4 to provide full financial disclosure, and to justify the income available for child support purposes which the Father is required to do within 60 days of this Memorandum of Decision, failing which both stays will be lifted. [ 9 ] Finally, there will be a mutual restraining orders issued in favour of both parties, the terms of which can be clarified as between counsel given the parenting time exchanges will have to take place from time to time, and given the parties future dealings with respect to the disposition of the matrimonial home.

Any restraining orders will have to take into account those factors so that in dealing with parenting time and the disposition and transfer of the matrimonial home, the restraining orders are not accidentally triggered or violated. Heard on the 9 th day of July, 2021. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 29 th day of July, 2021. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Deborah L. Baredziej Trilogy Family Law for the Plaintiff Billal A. Saleem Forum Law LLP for the Defendant