Williams v. Williams,

• Judge: Berger,Bielby,Veit
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ABCA 246
• Citation: 2015 ABCA 246,(2015), 602 A.R. 376,602 AR 376,(2015), 602 AR 376,602 A.R. 376
• Date: 27 April 2015
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Williams v. Williams (2015), 602 A.R. 376; 647 W.A.C. 376 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.095

Douglas Irwin Williams (appellant)

(plaintiff/applicant) v. Carla Marie Williams (respondent)

(defendant/respondent)

(1403-0300-AC; 2015 ABCA 246)

Indexed As: Williams v. Williams

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger and Bielby, JJ.A., and Veit, J.(ad hoc)

July 22, 2015.

Summary:

The parties married in 1980, separated in 2005 and divorced in 2008. The divorce judgment required the husband to pay spousal support. The husband, while self-represented, applied to terminate spousal support. The chambers judge dismissed the application, finding that the husband had failed to prove a material change in circumstances. The husband appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 589

Judges - Duties - To self-represented party - A self-represented husband applied to terminate his spousal support obligations - The chambers judge dismissed the application due to a lack of evidence to support the husband's argument that his income had materially changed - The husband appealed, arguing that the chambers judge failed to provide him with procedural fairness by granting an adjournment to allow him to better present his application - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The chambers judge would have been aware that the parties had been involved in litigation respecting spousal support on a virtually ongoing basis since their separation in 2005 - The husband had the benefit of legal advice and representation for many years - When he did not have the assistance of a lawyer, he had access to legal information online and in written materials - In these circumstances, it was not necessary to give the husband an adjournment - He was treated fairly - See paragraphs 36 to 43.

Family Law - Topic 2384

Maintenance of spouses and children - Variation of - Grounds (incl. changed circumstances) - [See Family Law - Topic 4017 ].

Family Law - Topic 2419

Maintenance of spouses and children - Practice - Adjournments - [See Courts - Topic 589 ].

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award - The parties' 2008 divorce judgment required the husband to pay spousal support of $1,500/month - The husband applied to terminate spousal support in August 2010 - Manderscheid, J., denied the application but reduced the amount of spousal support to $1,342/month - The husband applied to terminate spousal support in April 2014 - The chambers judge dismissed the application - The husband appealed, arguing that he had met the legal onus to prove a material change of circumstances by proving that he was no longer employed by the same company that employed him at the time of Manderscheid, J.'s order - He further argued that once he met that onus, the onus shifted to the wife to establish that the change of employment was not a change of circumstance - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - A change of employment was not necessarily a material change of circumstance - The husband was unable to prove a material change of circumstance because he did not prove what the starting circumstances of the previous spousal support order were - He did not provide a transcript of Manderscheid, J.'s reasons - There was a gap in the evidence - The evidentiary onus was not transferred to the wife because the husband did not satisfy the preliminary test of proving a material change of circumstance - See paragraphs 26 to 35.

Family Law - Topic 4128

Divorce - Practice - Parties - Representation by nonlawyer (incl. self) - [See Courts - Topic 589 ].

Family Law - Topic 4195

Divorce - Practice - Judgments and orders - Variation of - [See Family Law - Topic 4017 ].

Practice - Topic 1002

Parties - Parties unrepresented by counsel - Duty of court - [See Courts - Topic 589 ].

Practice - Topic 5068.2

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - Self-represented litigants - [See Courts - Topic 589 ].

Words and Phrases

Change - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this word in the context of an applicant's obligation to prove a "material change of circumstances" pursuant to an application to vary spousal support under the Divorce Act - See paragraph 30.

Cases Noticed:

L.M.P. v. L.S. (2011), 424 N.R. 341; 2011 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 27].

R.P. v. R.C. (2011), 425 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 30].

P.B. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) et al. (2014), 356 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 1126 A.P.R. 45; 2014 NSCA 113, refd to. [para. 39].

Cicciarella v. Cicciarella (2009), 252 O.A.C. 156 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Judicial Council, Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons, preamble; Part B, principle 4(d) [para. 38].

Counsel:

T. Huizinga (agent for L.H. Bruyer), for the appellant;

R.D. Gallant, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 27, 2015, before Berger and Bielby, JJ.A., and Veit, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the court was filed at Edmonton, Alberta, on July 22, 2015.