Babineau v Babineau, 2024 ABCA 51

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Babineau v Babineau, 2024 ABCA 51 Date: 20240214 Docket: 2303-0148AC Registry: Edmonton Between: Michael Charles Babineau Respondent - and - Kelsey Rae Babineau, also known as Kelsey Rae Handziuk Appellant _______________________________________________________ The Court: The Honourable Justice Peter Martin The Honourable Justice Thomas W. Wakeling The Honourable Justice Dawn Pentelechuk _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Judgment Appeal from the Orders by The Honourable Justice E.F. Macklin Dated the 21st day of June, 2023 Filed on the 22nd day of September, 2023 and October 27, 2023

( Docket: 4803 154820) _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Judgment _______________________________________________________ The Court: [ 1 ] The special chambers judge decided two applications on June 21, 2023. [1] Kelsey Rae Handziuk brought one. Ms. Handziuk’s former husband, Michael Charles Babineau, brought the other. [ 2 ] Ms. Handziuk’s application [2] sought orders that if granted would have provided her with information that may have assisted her trace the sale proceeds of Mr.

Babineau’s business – answers to undertakings and production of banking and credit card statements – and improved her ability to contest Mr. Babineau's application. Mr. Babineau had an application for an order reducing [3] his income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines [4] for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and his resulting child support obligations. [ 3 ] Unfortunately, despite hearing from Ms. Handziuk’s counsel at the outset of the hearing that the information her client sought was necessary to her ability to meaningfully participate in Mr. Babineau’s application, [5] the chambers judge did not address Ms.

Babineau’s application before he resolved Mr. Babineau’s application. He only did so – he dismissed it [6] – after he reduced Mr. Babineau's income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines of $250,000 to $185,410 for 2020, $53,500 for 2021, and $150,000 for 2022 and reduced Mr. Babineau’s child support payments. [7] [ 4 ] This methodology was unfortunate. [ 5 ] First, had the chambers judge decided Ms. Handziuk’s application in her favor, she may have been in a better position to trace the sale proceeds of Mr. Babineau’s business and contest the merits of Mr.

Babineau’s claim that his income and child support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines should be reduced. With justification, Ms. Handziuk’s counsel advanced this argument with vigor before us. While we recognize that the chambers judge may have dismissed Ms. Handziuk’s application had he determined it before making any other determinations, the likelihood that he would have granted her application, at least in part, is too high to disregard the possibility the chambers judge may have granted it. Had he granted Ms. Handziuk’s application Ms. Handziuk might have presented a different case in response to Mr.

Babineau’s application. This may have affected the disposition of that application. [ 6 ] Second, the chambers judge did not address the issues Ms. Handziuk’s application presented first. Instead, the chambers judge did so after he had reassessed Mr. Babineau’s income. [8] He concluded that he had enough information before him to determine Mr. Babineau’s income. [9] Unfortunately, he did not know what he did not know. Neither do we. [ 7 ] We allow Ms.

Handziuk’s appeal and set aside the orders pronounced June 21, 2023 and filed September 22 and October 27, 2023. [10] [ 8 ] Counsel informed us that the parties will appear before a special chambers judge on March 1, 2024 to determine other child support issues. The parties should take the steps necessary to ensure that the issues presented by Ms. Handziuk’s application filed May 11, 2023 are heard and determined first. Before the chambers judge and again on appeal, there was a disagreement as to whether certain financial disclosure and answers to undertakings had or had not been provided.

Counsel should ensure disclosure provided by Mr. Babineau that pertain to Ms. Handziuk’s application are clearly set out for the chambers judge. [ 9 ] The parties have expended significant resources on the issue of child support. This matter appears well suited for a binding judicial dispute resolution. We remind counsel that the Court offers this service. [ 10 ] We commend counsel for their helpful submissions. Because they were well prepared they were in a position to clearly explain the history of the file. Appeal heard on February 5, 2024 Memorandum filed at Edmonton, Alberta

this 14th day of February, 2024 Authorized to sign for Martin J.A. Wakeling J.A. Authorized to sign for Pentelechuk J.A. Appearances: N. Sidhu for the Respondent R.D. Bell for the Appellant