C.A.G. v. S.G., 2013 ABQB 12

• Judge: Jones, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 05, 2012
• Citations: 2013 ABQB 12;(2013), 548 A.R. 257 (QB)

C.A.G. v. S.G. (2013), 548 A.R. 257 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. FE.005

C.A.G. also known as C.A.R. (plaintiff) v. S.G. (defendant)

(4801 114904; 2013 ABQB 12)

Indexed As: C.A.G. v. S.G.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Jones, J.

January 7, 2013.

Summary:

A father applied for a reduction or termination of his spousal support obligations, and spousal support and child support arrears. He also sought an adjustment of his ongoing child support obligations and cancellation of maintenance enforcement fees and penalties. He asserted that his ability to work had been compromised by a deterioration of his physical and emotional condition since a car accident in 1999.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 548 A.R. 226, did not impute additional income to the father. His ongoing child support obligations would be based on the income reported on Line 150 of his 2012 tax return. The court stayed indefinitely the child support arrears, extinguished the spousal support arrears, and terminated his ongoing spousal support obligations. The court did not cancel the maintenance and enforcement fees and penalties. The parties were directed to make written submissions respecting costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that each party should bear their own costs.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 4183

Divorce - Practice - Costs - Refusal to award costs to successful party - A father applied for a reduction or termination of his spousal support obligations, and spousal support and child support arrears - He also sought an adjustment of his ongoing child support obligations and cancellation of maintenance enforcement fees and penalties - He asserted that his ability to work had been compromised by a deterioration of his physical and emotional condition since a 1999 car accident - The mother argued that previous court decisions dismissing the father's request for cancellation of support arrears had rendered that issue res judicata - Jones, J., stayed indefinitely the child support arrears, extinguished the spousal support arrears, and terminated the father's ongoing spousal support obligations - No income was imputed - The father's income for child support purposes would be based on the income reported in his 2012 tax return - The maintenance and enforcement fees and penalties were not cancelled - The father was self-represented and had travelled from British Columbia to participate in the application - He sought reimbursement of travel expenses ($1,350) - The mother sought costs of $10,618 that she had incurred for legal services - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined that although the father was substantially successful, each party should bear their own costs - Given his medical condition, the father could have asked to participate in the application by video link - It was unnecessary for him to travel to Calgary - The mother's costs were incurred to advance the argument that the issue of arrears extinguishment was res judicata - This was an important issue that had not been thoroughly canvassed in previous decisions - The father advanced no argument that shed light on the point - It was appropriate to recognize the mother's contributions to the resolution of this issue by requiring the father to bear his own costs.

Practice - Topic 7024

Costs - Party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - General - [See Family Law - Topic 4183 ].

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See Family Law - Topic 4183 ].

Cases Noticed:

Budge v. Budge, [2010] A.R. Uned. 788; 2010 ABQB 608, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

C.G. was self-represented;

S.G. was self-represented.

This matter was heard by way of written submissions on June 5, 2012, before Jones, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on January 7, 2013.