Rille v Slate, 2023 ABKB 269

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rille v Slate, 2023 ABKB 269 Date: 20230501 Docket: FL04 03412 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Justin Rille Applicant - and - Holly Slate Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Justice M. J. Lema _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is a decision on various shared-parenting aspects following my oral decision on April 5, 2023 directing shared parenting. It also addresses whether income should be imputed to Ms. Slate (now Keirstead).

II. Analysis A. Shared parenting details [ 2 ] Here are my decisions on the following aspects: 1. shared-parenting rhythm and ramp-up period (part of proposed draft order (per Mr. Van Tassell) para 2) : I accept Ms. Keirstead’s proposal for the shared-parenting rhythm and the ramp-up periods, as outlined in her April 14 th email. I accept the advice, detailed in Bansal v Kelly , 2022 ONSC 7049 (McGee J.) at paras 34-36 , that “young children under the age of 36 months should not be away from either parent for more than two or three nights.

As the child move into the next development stage, that time away from a parent can be expanded.” That rhythm will apply until August 1, 2024.

If the parties are unable to agree, by July 1, 2024, on the parenting rhythm starting August 1, 2024, I will set the rhythm after receiving short (maximum three-page) affidavits from each parent, due by July 10, 2024 outlining what each sees as the key evidence bearing on the parenting rhythm; 2. holidays (part of proposed order para 2) : given the child’s age and the above-noted advice on recommended (short) periods away from each parent, it is too early to build in week-long periods for him with either parent, whether over Christmas, Easter or in summer 2023.

The 3:3 pattern will continue through those periods in the first year i.e. through August 1, 2024. If the parties are unable to agree on holidays for the 2024-25 year, I will set the holiday

schedule (if any) after receiving each party’s proposal (via maximum 1- page letter, due by July 10, 2024). Two exceptions are for Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day. If those days fall, for the applicable parent (mother or father), outside of that parent’s regular (3:3) time, that parent shall be entitled to parenting time from 5 pm the day before the applicable day until 5 pm that day; 3. parenting-time changes by agreement (part of proposed order para 2) : the parties are free to adjust the parenting by agreement in writing; 4. exchange time (part of proposed order para 3) : Mr.

Rille has agreed to both 9 am and 9.30. Ms. Keirstead can choose; 5. exchange location (part of proposed order para 3) : the exchanges will occur at the parties’ residences, as contemplated in para 3 of the draft order. I do not see how moving to Tim Horton’s will eliminate or minimize any transition difficulties for the child. Presumably he will feel more comfortable, in the lead-up to exchanges, in Ms. Keirstead’s home than driving (even a short drive) to the proposed location.

Plus, the older children do not need to be close at hand during pick-ups; they can find other places to be in the minute or two required for the pick-up. In any case, I am not satisfied that Mr. Rille poses any material risk to those children (or anyone involved here). Any fears or discomfort are for them, Ms. Keirstead and possibly third-party professionals to work on; the answer is not to make transitions more cumbersome for the child by switching to another location. Adding to the approved para 3, I also direct that Mr. Rille and Ms.

Keirstead conduct the exchanges in a civil fashion: unless they can engage in a friendly or at least neutral fashion, they shall not communicate at all. And no more filming of exchanges : the child does not need that extra dose of drama and tension in his life; 6. agreement re child support (s. 3) and s. 7 expense arrears (para 4) : I do not recall if the parties reached this agreement. If they did, this provision can be included.

Otherwise, it shall be excluded; 7. child support – basic (s. 3) and s. 7 (paras 5 and 6) : details to flow from decision on mother’s income (see below); 8. extracurriculars (proposed paras 7 and 8) : I agree with Ms. Keirstead here, at least for the first three years. During that period, neither parent shall register the child in any activity with actual or possible “spillover effect” i.e. requiring the participation of the other parent i.e. during the other parent’s parenting time. Each parent shall be free to pursue reasonable age-appropriate activities with the child having no spillover effect.

Thereafter (i.e. post-August 1, 2026), if the parties are unable to agree on a new extracurricular regime, the regime outlined at paras 7 and 8 of the propose draft order will apply; 9. anger management (proposed para 9) : the proposed paragraph is approved, recognizing (of course) Ms. Keirstead’s right to apply for other order(

s) on this front as perceived to be necessary and Mr. Rille’s right to oppose such applications or propose alternative relief; 10. counselling for the child (para 10) : this aspect will be covered in the general decision-making provision (discussed below); 11. Voice of the Child report (para 11) : such a report, if perceived as necessary, shall be obtained only on the agreement of the parties or a Court order directing one; 12. police enforcement (para 12) : no police-enforcement clause.

Any party breaching this order and thus diminishing the other party’s parenting time risks contempt proceedings, “multiplier” make-up time (e.g. one day missed to be made up with two days in lieu), and (as necessary) a permanent reduction in her or his parenting time; 13. passport (para 13) : I decline to include this term, which was not addressed at the trial and on which I do not have submissions from Ms. Keirstead.

If the parties agree, it can be included; 14. copies of documents (para 14); healthcare plan details (para 15); no negative speaking (para 16); no negative posting (para 17); no particular videos or pictures (para 18); and medical/health appointments (para 19): all approved “as is”, subject to (on #14 (copies of documents)) it being fulfilled on Ms. Keirstead providing the originals to Mr.

Van Tassell, him making or arranged for certified copies, and him returning the originals to her and (on #17 (no negative posting)) changing “will result” to “may result”; 15. medical professionals and following recommendations : expand this provision to include any counselling for the child (i.e. picking up from para 10). Define “medical professionals” as “accredited physicians and psychologists.” Define “health recommendations” to include recommendations as to immunizations and vaccines. If the parties receive conflicting recommendations from medical

professionals, either party is free to apply to the Court for a decision on which recommendation to follow; 16. mediation aspect (para 21) : same ruling as on para 13 (passport); and 17. use of co-parenting app (para 22) and standard closing clauses (paras 23-27): approved “as is.” B. Income imputation [ 3 ] Concerning Ms.

Keirstead’s income and whether income should be imputed to her (whether at a full-time or other more- than-current level) if she continues to work at her current part-time pace, I accept her submissions in the paragraphs beginning “As for child support ...” and “Also, if I’m made to work more ...” of her April 14 th email. [ 4 ] As well, I note that Mr. Rille too orients his work life around his child-care responsibilities (as he noted in his evidence of his clients being understanding of his responsibilities as a father ). By this I mean that Ms.

Keirstead could also seek to impute a higher level of income to Mr. Rille i.e. calculated on the basis of him putting the child into third-party care during his workdays and (by extension) having more time to devote to his clients and his business overall. [ 5 ] On these bases, I find Ms.

Keirstead’s decision to work part-time and at her current level (as reflected in her 2022 earnings) is a reasonable approach to balancing her parental and work-life responsibilities in the circumstances of this case. [ 6 ] Accordingly, I decline to impute income to her, with her income for child-support purposes (to be engaged when the parties have moved through the ramp-up period approved above and have begun the full 3:3 rotation (with three overnights)) to be set at her 2022 income level, with year-by-year adjustments for both parties’ income, as applicable, to be accomplished through the income-tax- reporting and recalculations mechanisms approved above. [ 7 ] The launch of the child’s formal schooling, whether playschool, kindergarten or grade school, may mean greater availability for work for both parties.

The parties are free to agree on different income levels (i.e. if either is perceived as working below capacity at that point) or, failing agreement, to apply to the Court for imputation on the basis of that greater (unexercised) availability. [ 8 ] With this decision pronounced on income (none imputed for now), Mr.

Van Tassell can calculate the applicable child support (straight set-off basis) for the “fully launched into shared-parenting” period and appropriate s. 7 load-sharing percentages and insert the missing information on those aspects into the order. [ 9 ] I approve the proposed paras 5 and 6 (child support) “as is” i.e. once the appropriate numbers are inserted. III. Closing note [ 10 ] I find materially divided success here. Each party will bear his or her own costs. [ 11 ] I look forward to receiving a new draft of the order, via the SharePoint portal. [ 12 ] I thank Ms. Keirstead and Mr.

Van Tassell for their submissions on these points. Heard on March 30 and 31, 2023. Oral decision delivered on April 5, 2023. Written submissions on follow-up aspects received on April 7 and 14, 2023. Dated at Grande Prairie, Alberta this 1 st day of May, 2023. M. J. Lema J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Derek Van Tassell, K.C.

Stringam LLP for the Applicant Holly Slate (Keirstead) Self – Represented Litigant