Lavoie v. Wills, (2000) 280 A.R. 16 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Tuesday November 14, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 280 A.R. 16 (QB);2000 ABQB 1014;280 AR 16;13 RFL (5th) 93;[2000] AJ No 1359 (QL)

Lavoie v. Wills (2000), 280 A.R. 16 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. DE.045

Marie Louise May Lavoie (plaintiff) v. Steven Richard Wills (defendant)

(Action No. 9501-17279)

Indexed As: Lavoie v. Wills

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

November 14, 2000.

Summary:

The parties had three children during an eight year common law relationship. The mother sought child support under the Domestic Relations Act dating back to 1997. The issues included, attribution of income, application of the 40% shared custody rules and the appropriateness of special and extraordinary expenses.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly. The court characterized the father as a "21st Century Deadbeat Dad" who was attempting to use the support system under the Child Support Guidelines to avoid justice to his ex-spouse and children, while making unreasonable claims for his own rights.

Family Law - Topic 2353

Maintenance of wives and children - Maintenance of children - Retroactive maintenance - The parties had three children during an eight year common law relationship - The mother sought child support under the Domestic Relations Act dating back to 1997 - The issue of retroactivity was not raised - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench assumed that there had been earlier applications respecting setting maintenance dating back to 1997 - The court stated that the setting of child support back to 1997 was justified, even without reviewing all the interim applications in detail, as the father had, inter alia, attempted to falsify his income so as to achieve a lower amount of maintenance payable - See paragraph 3.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Attribution of income - A mother sought child support under the Domestic Relations Act dating back to 1997 - The father was largely self-employed - The mother sought an attribution of income to the father - She argued that he had the ability to earn a wage that was in excess of the amount that he had actually earned or should properly be chargeable to him and, therefore, a greater income should be attributed to him under s. 19 of the Guidelines - This was an easier alternative than calculating the actual income to be attributed from the father's businesses - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The court found that the father's purpose in pursuing the businesses was not to avoid paying maintenance so as to entitle the court to attribute income as if father were a wage earner - See paragraphs 53 to 61.

Family Law - Topic 4045.7

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Shared custody (at least 40% of time with each parent) - A mother sought child support under the Domestic Relations Act dating back to 1997 - The parties had joint custody - The father sought to take advantage of the 40% shared custody rules (Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 9) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the father had sought increased access soley in an attempt to reduce child support payments - The court agreed with the mother that s. 9 was partially an equitable statutory remedy and that the father had not come to court with clean hands - Therefore, the court allowed only a reduction of $50/month for the increased food costs from the shared custody - See paragraphs 117 to 135.

Cases Noticed:

M.C. v. V.Z. (1998), 228 A.R. 283; 188 W.A.C. 283; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Ennis v. Ennis (2000), 281 A.R. 161; 248 W.A.C. 161; 77 Alta. L.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (1998), 233 A.R. 131 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].

Hauger v. Hauger (2000), 268 A.R. 25 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Wilson v. Wilson (1998), 165 Sask.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Levesque v. Levesque, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 859; 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26; 4 R.F.L.(4th) 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin, [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 754 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk (1999), 180 Sask.R. 73; 205 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Miller v. Miller, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2489, refd to. [para. 43].

Yeo v. Yeo (1998), 43 R.F.L.(4th) 408 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Hill v. Hill, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 42; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 110 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Holtby v. Holtby (1997), 42 O.T.C. 101; 30 R.F.L.(4th) 70 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 43, 112].

Jassma v. Jassma (1999), 249 A.R. 357 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Roy v. Roy, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 232 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

Ashworth v. Ashworth, [1999] S.J. No. 799 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Shaw v. Shaw (1997), 120 Man.R.(2d) 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Boehm v. Boehm, [1998] Sask.R. Uned. 41 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Elliott v. Elliott (1997), 210 A.R. 268 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Orser v. Grant, [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 402 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

Henry v. Henry, [1997] O.T.C. Uned. 655 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

Omah-Maharajh v. Howard (1998), 215 A.R. 159 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Williams v. Williams (1997), 32 R.F.L.(4th) 23 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Quintal v. Quintal (1997), 38 O.T.C. 68 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 55].

J.C.E. v. D.D.E. (1998), 224 A.R. 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Mitansky v. Mitansky (2000), 258 A.R. 188 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57].

VanGool v. VanGool (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 200; 184 W.A.C. 200; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Lobo v. Lobo (1999), 240 A.R. 257 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57].

Donovan v. Donovan (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 116; 230 W.A.C. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk (1998), 218 A.R. 153; 38 R.F.L.(4th) 312 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

Meloche v. Kales (1997), 43 O.T.C. 81; 35 O.R.(3d) 688 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 119].

Giene v. Giene (1998), 234 A.R. 355 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

Gore-Hickman v. Gore-Hickman (1999), 187 Sask.R. 45 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 119].

Kolada v. Kolada, [1999] A.R. Uned. 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

Hamm v. Hamm, [1998] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 13 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Rose v. Bulkowski (1999), 238 A.R. 345 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

Hunter v. Hunter (1998), 60 O.T.C. 97; 37 R.F.L.(4th) 260 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 119].

Dennett v. Dennett (1998), 225 A.R. 50 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

Green v. Green (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 121; 226 W.A.C. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Hall v. Hall, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 770; 35 B.C.L.R.(3d) 311 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 128].

MacNaught v. MacNaught (1998), 169 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 153; 521 A.P.R. 153 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 131].

Rosati v. Dellapenta, [1997] O.T.C. Uned. 738 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 134].

Middleton v. MacPherson (1997), 204 A.R. 37; 29 R.F.L.(4th) 334 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 147].

Sanders v. Sanders, [1998] A.R. Uned. 168; 42 R.F.L.(4th) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 147].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 9 [para. 119]; sect. 19(1)(a) [para. 110].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

McLeod, J.G., Annotation to, D.L.A. v. J.T.A. (1999), 45 R.F.L.(4th) 1, p. 5 [para. 59].

Rogerson, Child Support Under the Guidelines in Cases of Split and Shared Custody (1998), 15:2 Can. J. Fam. L. 11, pp. 20, 21 [para. 128]; paras. 34, 35 [para. 128].

Counsel:

Clarence J. Hookenson (Zenith Hookenson), for the plaintiff;

Terry D. Hutcheon (Demiantschuk Miller Burke & Hoffinger), for the defendant.

This action was heard before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on November 14, 2000.