Olson v. Olson,

• Judge: Hunt,McMahon,O'Leary
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABCA 56
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Date: 08 October 2002
• Citation: (2003), 320 A.R. 379 (CA),2003 ABCA 56,225 DLR (4th) 735,[2003] 7 WWR 12,14 Alta LR (4th) 104,320 AR 379,36 RFL (5th) 196,[2003] CarswellAlta 254,[2003] AJ No 230 (QL),288 WAC 379,320 A.R. 379,[2003] A.J. No 230 (QL),225 D.L.R. (4th) 735,288 W.A.C. 379,(2003), 320 AR 379 (CA)

Olson v. Olson (2003), 320 A.R. 379 (CA);

    288 W.A.C. 379

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MR.065

James Ossion Olson (appellant/petitioner) v. Sandra Lee Olson (respondent/respondent)

(00-18929; 2003 ABCA 56)

Indexed As: Olson v. Olson

Alberta Court of Appeal

O'Leary and Hunt, JJ.A., and McMahon, J.(ad hoc)

February 28, 2003.

Summary:

A father applied for a declaration that one of his two children was no longer a "child of the marriage".

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The father appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 2274.1

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Particular matters - Factors affecting employment or career - Christopher graduated from high school at age 19 - Since then, he had devoted 11 months a year to training as a member of the Canadian National Nordic Combined Ski Team - He claimed that his travel and training requirements made it impossible for him to earn meaningful income - Christopher's father applied for a declaration that Christopher was no longer a "child of the marriage" - The motions judge dismissed the application - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal - The motions judge erred in holding that no evidence was required to show that Christopher's sports training would advance his career and in relying on judicial notice to conclude that athletes often have career advantages - The court held that Christopher was no longer a child of the marriage - Although the evidence established that he was talented and committed, there was no evidence as to how his training would advance his career plans - Further, there was no evidence that the father supported his skiing endeavours.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children and children defined - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "participation in athletics can sometimes enhance later career opportunities. Thus, some advanced sports training may fulfill a similar function to formal education, in that it may help the individual to pursue a career that will enable him to become self-supporting and independent of his parents. In such circumstances, trial judges may be persuaded that the athletic pursuit qualifies as 'other causes' under the definition of 'child of the marriage'." - The court discussed factors that might be taken into consideration in making such a determination - See paragraphs 26 to 28.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children and children defined - [See Evidence - Topic 2274.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Whitton v. Whitton (1989), 34 O.A.C. 31; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Crump v. Crump (1970), 14 D.L.R.(3d) 477 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Jackson v. Jackson, [1973] S.C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 15].

Wahl v. Wahl (2000), 257 A.R. 212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (B.C.S.C. Master), folld. [para. 16].

Darlington v. Darlington (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 134; 162 W.A.C. 134; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Strand v. Strand (1995), 12 R.F.L.(4th) 188 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Thompson v. Thompson (1999), 181 Sask.R. 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Krueger v. Tunison (1999), 183 Sask.R. 255 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, [1996] M.J. No. 549 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Larner v. Sapergia (1995), 133 Sask.R. 197 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Pink v. Pink (1991), 71 Man.R.(2d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Potts (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 43 N.R. 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Payne, J.D., Child Support in Canada (3rd Ed. 2001), generally [para. 19].

Counsel:

M.W. Gruman, for the appellant;

T.F. Glenn, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at on October 8, 2002, by O'Leary and Hunt, JJ.A., and McMahon, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Hunt, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court which was filed at Calgary, Alberta, on February 28, 2003.