Trueman v. Trueman,

• Judge: Johnstone, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABQB 780
• Citation: (2000), 273 A.R. 334 (QB),2000 ABQB 780,273 AR 334,88 Alta LR (3d) 243,[2000] AJ No 1301 (QL),273 A.R. 334,(2000), 273 AR 334 (QB),[2000] A.J. No 1301 (QL)
• Date: 03 October 2000
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Trueman v. Trueman (2000), 273 A.R. 334 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. NO.063

Margaret Maureen Trueman (petitioner) v. Elwood Allan Trueman (respondent)

(Action Nos. 4803-103007; 9803-15216; 2000 ABQB 780)

Indexed As: Trueman v. Trueman

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Johnstone, J.

November 2, 2000.

Summary:

The parties married in 1980, had two children (born in 1983 and 1986), and separ­ated in 1989. The wife applied for child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The issues were: 1) whether income should be imputed to the husband, a farmer and the sole shareholder of a construction company; and 2) whether the s. 7 expenses claimed by the petitioner were reasonable and necessary.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the application accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Special or extraordi­nary expenses - A couple had two children - They separated in 1989 - The mother earned $17,000 annually - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench imputed income to the father and held that he had an annual income of $57,581 - The court held that $2,500 per year for extracurricular activities for the parties' daughter was an extraordinary expense, given the parties' incomes - The court ordered the father to pay his pro rata share of these expenses in light of his demonstrated ability to pay support in the past and in light of the fact that, given the daughter's age, these s. 7 expenses would only be payable for an abbreviated period of time - See para­graphs 36 to 42.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation or attribu­tion of income - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed when capital cost allowance and depreciation should and should not be added back into income for the purposes of a child support assessment - See paragraphs 16 to 32.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation or attribu­tion of income - A payor father was a farmer and the sole shareholder of a con­struction company - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench added back into the father's income 50% of the capital cost allowance and depreciation taken for both his farming operation and construction business - Of an average $11,000 per year in the company's retained earnings over the past 21 years (termed modest), the court added back $5,000 annually - The court considered the father's practice of financing his company's expansion out of earnings rather than through debt, but refused to impute further income from the company's pre-tax income, given the ad­justments already made - The adjusted income level fairly reflected all the money available to the father for payment of child support - See paragraphs 16 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Hauger v. Hauger (2000), 268 A.R. 25 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Tidball v. Tidball (1999), 93 O.T.C. 52 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

Cornelius v. Andres (1998), 134 Man.R.(2d) 140; 193 W.A.C. 140; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Klaver v. Klaver, [1997] O.T.C. Uned. 577; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 223 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

Henderson v. Henderson (1999), 248 A.R. 210 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Jaasma v. Jaasma (1999), 249 A.R. 357 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Rudachyk v. Rudachyk, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 321; 180 Sask.R. 73; 205 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Morley v. Morley (1999), 176 Sask.R. 287 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

Forrester v. Forrester (1997), 46 O.T.C. 159 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

E.K.R. v. G.A.W. (1998), 122 Man.R.(2d) 120; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 202 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

Kofoed v. Fichter, [1998] 2 W.W.R. 685; 160 Sask.R. 55 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 168 Sask.R. 149; 173 W.A.C. 149; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ares, Louise, Determining Income for the Self-Employed, p. 17 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Terry L. Hodgkinson, for the petitioner;

James W. Mandick, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on October 3, 2000, by Johnstone, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following decision on November 2, 2000.