Stretch v. Stretch, (1996) 186 A.R. 26 (QB)

• Judge: Johnstone, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 13, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 186 A.R. 26 (QB)

Stretch v. Stretch (1996), 186 A.R. 26 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Loretta Elaine Stretch (petitioner) v. Rodney Bernie Stretch (respondent)

(Action No. 4812-003486)

Loretta Elaine Stretch (plaintiff) v. Rodney Bernie Stretch (defendant)

(Action No. 9212-000822)

Indexed As: Stretch v. Stretch

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Johnstone, J.

June 13, 1996.

Summary:

A husband and wife separated after 15 years of marriage. They had six children, one which was severely disabled. The wife sought a divorce, child and spousal support and an unequal division of the matrimonial property.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a divorce, awarded lump sum spousal support of $15,000, child support of $600/month plus a lump sum award of $15,000, and divided the matrimonial prop­erty accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 868

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Property subject to distribution - A husband and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - The parties owned a parcel of land known as the N.W. Quarter - A comparative market analysis had been done on the property in May 1996 which valued it at $900 an acre for a value of $136,647 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the property was matrimonial property, ordered that it be sold, and the proceeds divided equally between the husband and the wife - At the husband's request, the court gave the husband's family an opportunity to purchase the property (until September 1, 1996) prior to its being listed for sale given that it had been in that family since 1929 - Should the family not wish to purchase the property, the court outlined the terms and conditions of sale - See paragraph 76.

Family Law - Topic 868.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Debts - A husband and wife separated after 15 years of mar­riage - The wife's parents loaned the couple $5,195.06 to purchase a water softener while the parties were still living together - Part of the money was also used to purchase a buggy for the couple's handicapped child and to pay for car expenses of the wife after the separation - A portion of the debt was secured by a promissory note dated after the separation for $3,500, with no interest payable there­on and signed by the wife only - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the loan was a marital debt and deducted it from its division of the matrimonial property - See paragraphs 40 and 76.

Family Law - Topic 876

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Family or matrimo­nial assets - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a "Western Grain transi­tion payment" which would realize between $3,000 and $4,000 was a matri­monial asset and should be divided equally between a husband and wife - See para­graph 73.

Family Law - Topic 880.35

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Insurance - A husband and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - There were four insurance policies in the names of four of the couple's six children - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the insurance policies were matrimonial property - The husband was ordered to assign ownership to the wife, to be main­tained by her for the educational needs of the four children - See paragraph 56.

Family Law - Topic 1992

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access - Child's prefer­ence - A husband and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - The wife sought, inter alia, supervised access of the six children of the marriage for the husband - The husband sought unsupervised access - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that the husband and wife's relationship was extremely acrimonious - Additionally, the husband, who lived 500 miles away from the children, had not exercised access for over a year - Nonetheless, the court opined that it was important for the children to have the opportunity to see both parents on a regular basis - The court outlined an access schedule which, inter alia, allowed the two oldest children, aged 17 and 14, to decide whether they wanted to see their father - It also stipulated that the father could not have the youngest child, Jason, at his home overnight unless he completed an effective parenting for handicapped children program - See para­graphs 45 to 48.

Family Law - Topic 1992

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access - Child's prefer­ence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench opined that the burden of deciding whether to visit the access parent should not be placed on young children - "[I]t presents an impossible and wholly inap­propriate burden on them. Children's wishes and preferences should be taken into account but the court must have regard to the age and maturity of the children. I view the age of 11 years too young for them to make such a decision" - See paragraph 47.

Family Law - Topic 1994.1

Custody and access - Access - Relations between parents - [See first Family Law - Topic 1992 ].

Family Law - Topic 1995

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access - Health of child - [See first Family Law - Topic 1992 ].

Family Law - Topic 2011

Custody and access - Access awards - At child's discretion - [See both Family Law - Topic 1992 ].

Family Law - Topic 2012

Custody and access - Access awards - Where mother and father reside in differ­ent cities - A husband and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - The wife sought, inter alia, supervised access of the six children of the marriage for the hus­band - The husband sought unsupervised access - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that the husband and wife's relationship was extremely acrimonious - Additionally, the husband, who lived 500 miles away from the children, had not exercised access for over a year - None­theless, the court opined that it was impor­tant for the children to have the opportu­nity to see both parents on a regular basis - The court outlined an access schedule which, inter alia, included overnight visits to the hus­band's home 500 miles away during alter­nating Christmas and Easter - See para­graphs 45 to 48.

Family Law - Topic 4011

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - Lump sum - A hus­band and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - The wife sought, inter alia, spousal support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the "conditions, means, needs and other circumstances" of the wife and concluded that not only was the wife entitled to support, she was entitled to compensation for the income earning opportunities she had forgone to prioritize the needs of her husband and children during the marriage - The court ordered the husband to pay the wife sup­port by way of a lump sum payment of $15,000 - The court stated that a lump sum award was appropriate in this case given, inter alia, the acrimony between the parties and the husband's alleged impecuniosity apart from the marital prop­erty - See paragraphs 57 to 71.

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To children and children defined - A husband and wife divorced after 15 years of marriage - The wife sought, inter alia, support for the six children of the marriage - Additionally, the wife sought to enforce the husband's arrears of $10,836.81 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to cancel arrears and awarded the wife a lump sum of $15,000 plus monthly support payments of $600 - The court stated that there was considerable reason for the wife to fear that the husband would not make future support payments and that the monthly amounts were inadequate by themselves, particularly given the needs of Jason, who was severely handicapped - See para­graphs 49 to 55.

Family Law - Topic 4021.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - Considerations - Leaving labour market for family respon­sibilities - [See Family Law - Topic 4011 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To wife - Con­sider­ations - [See Family Law - Topic 4011 ].

Cases Noticed:

Perillo v. Perillo (1994), 158 A.R. 393; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 29 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Devries v. Devries (1995), 168 A.R. 169 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].

Haisman v. Haisman (1994), 157 A.R. 47; 77 W.A.C. 47; 22 Alta. L.R.(3d) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Stricker v. Stricker (1994), 4 R.F.L.(4th) 29 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 58].

McKee v. McKee (1994), 153 A.R. 8 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61].

Zahr v. Zahr (1994), 161 A.R. 42 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 70].

Counsel:

R.D. Wyrozub, for the petitioner/plaintiff;

G.M. Advani, for the respondent/defend­ant.

This case was heard on May 16 and 17, 1996, before Johnstone, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered the following judgment on June 13, 1996.