A10 www.trailtimes.ca
Sports pan am games
Field hockey women blast Dominican Field hockey Canada There really is no place like home. Just ask the Canadian Women’s Field Hockey Team, which opened the 2015 Pan American Games with a 12-1 win over the Dominican Republic Monday at the Pan Am Fields in Toronto. The Canadians didn’t disappoint the home fans who came out in numbers, as team captain Kate Gillis and Stephanie Norlander scored three goals a piece in the rout, while Rossland native Thea Culley scored once in her team leading 136th Cap. “I think it kind of flushes the
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Trail Times
cobwebs a bit,” says Gillis who is from Kingston, Ont. “It gives us that first opportunity to get used to the pitch, get used to who we’re playing in front of.” Understandably, the Canadians were a bit tentative to start but it wasn’t long before they began to dominate. In the tenth minute, Norlander, who is playing in her first major multispot games, got Canada on the board and she was able to pounce on a ball in close and beat keeper Cindy de la Rosa. A minute after Norlander opened the scoring, Gillis got her first of the game in similar
fashion, before Karli Johansen scored on a penalty stroke in the fourteenth minute. The Canadians were not comfortable with a 3-0 lead after one quarter, scoring another three in the second and taking a 6-1 stranglehold into halftime. Canada added six more goals in the second half. Both Norlander and Gillis scored for their hat tricks, while Culley rounded out the scoring for Canadians. It will be a whole different ball game come Wednesday when the Canadian women face the tournament’s top ranked team, Argentina at 4 p.m. PT.
TYLEEN UNDERWOOD LAW OFFICE presents
You & The Law
CHILD SUPPORT RE-EXAMINED Child support obligations aren’t always clear, especially if there are unusual circumstances. The B.C. Court of Appeal recently dealt with such a case. The court considered the child support obligations for Peter (all names changed here), a pleasant 24-year-old man with a mental disability. Peter couldn’t make basic decisions for himself and likely would never be able to live independently. His life expectancy was normal, and he would need support for the rest of his life. Peter’s parents, Mark and Linda, had divorced in 1995. They initially shared joint custody and guardianship of Peter, five years old at the time, but in late 1996, they agreed that Mark would have sole custody. Since Mark’s business took him to the United States a great deal, he also agreed to pay Linda (who earned only a modest income at the time) $300 a month in child support. This was essentially to enable her to travel to the U.S. for visits with Peter, which she did frequently over the years. By the time of the court hearing over child support, however, both Linda and Mark were very well-off financially. Linda had married a venture capitalist in 1998 and enjoyed an affluent lifestyle. She didn’t work, and details of her current income were sketchy (she got some money from a company her husband was involved with). Before her first marriage to Mark, she had earned roughly $20,000 a year as a charter airline employee, and in the initial court documents in this case, she said she earned $20,000 annually, though later said it was less. Mark, 68 and retired, owned a mostly U.S. real estate portfolio worth $11 million (in addition to a substantial inheritance)and earned some $168,000 a year. Their son Peter had some significant assets himself, partly from an inheritance from his grandmother and partly from a trust fund, though that fund could only be accessed if the Public Trustee agreed. Peter also got some monthly government assistance. Due to the substantial change in Linda’s financial circumstances and her no longer having any financial difficulties in exercising access, the lower court decided Mark didn’t have to pay Linda any arrears dating from 2008 or make any further child support payments to her. But Mark also wanted his ex-wife to help pay for the ongoing support of their son. The Court of Appeal emphasized that, even though Mark could well afford to support Peter alone, Linda was also responsible for Peter’s support – it’s fundamental that both parents have an obligation to support a child like Peter, who was likely to outlive his parents. It was Linda’s voluntary choice not to work, observed the appeal court. So it said Linda should be treated as earning $20,000 annually. Using this income figure and the child support guidelines, the appeal court ordered Linda to pay Mark $174 a month toward Peter’s child support. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts and circumstances. If you’re involved in a difficult family law situation, consult your lawyer for help.
TYLEEN UNDERWOOD LAW OFFICE Family Law • Criminal Law Suite 200-507 Baker St., Nelson, BC V1L 4J2
(250) 352-6638 Written by Janice and George Mucalov, LL.B.s with contribution by TYLEEN UNDERWOOD LAW OFFICE. This column provides information only and must not be relied on for legal advice. Please contact TYLEEN UNDERWOOD for legal advice concerning your particular case. Lawyer Janice Mucalov is an award-winning legal writer. “You and the Law” is a registered trade-mark. © Janice and George Mucalov
sweepstakes winners
The Birchbank Ladies held their Sweepstakes Tournament last week with 50 golfers from Balfour, Granite Pointe, Champion Lakes, Castlegar, Redstone and, Christina Lake participating. With Sweepstakes trophies and flight prizes as well as a $5,000 hole-in-one prize, two golfers came in with a score of 84, forcing a sudden death playoff. Mary-Ann Gaschnitz of Balfour and Wanda Flack of Christina Lake teed off again in what proved to be a short-lived playoff with Gaschnitz winning on the first playoff hole. Gaschnitz (left) was presented with the overall low gross trophy, while Flack was runner-up low gross. Valerie Horkoff (right) of Christina Lake shot a 93 to give her a net 62 for the low-net trophy. Denise Gausdal of Birchbank was the runner-up low net with 63. Flight A: Susan Kim, Birchbank, low gross, 86; Ruth O’Bryan, Granite Pointe, low net 74 (by retrogression); Flight B: Shirley Wolbaum, Granite Pointe, low gross, 89 (by retrogression); Cathie McLaren, Granite Pointe, low net 68; Flight C: Corinne Scheldrup, Granite Pointe, low gross 94 (by retrogression); Beth Robinson, Birchbank, low net. 67; Flight D: Linda King, Castlegar, low gross, 104; Pat Gagne, Birchbank, low net 70.
british open
Spieth’s talent wins out
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ST. ANDREWS, Scotland - Jordan Spieth was practicing a shot he hopes he won’t need this week, banging a few wedges off the wall on the famous Road Hole in the fading sun at this, the birthplace of golf. Dead tired after winning yet again in Iowa before flying all night to get here for what could be a defining moment in golf, Spieth was still intent on having a bit of fun. “Who wants this?” he yelled out, signing a ball and then tossing it lefthanded toward the 50 or so fans still around Monday night. It caused a bit of a frenzy, but just for a moment. There weren’t many fans around, and those who were seemed as if they were still trying to figure out this young Texan who has the golf world buzzing. They’re not alone. Those in a sport that has been fixated for the better part of two decades on Tiger Woods are still trying to decipher Spieth themselves. What they do know is that he’s 21, and in the midst of greatest the stretch of golf anyone has seen since Woods burst on the scene and transformed the sleepy game into mustsee TV. Forget the fact that part of the Woods mystique was that he was a rare player of colour in a mostly lilywhite game. Woods caused more of a stir by doing other things no one had ever seen before, thrilling fans with his booming drives and winning with clutch putts punctuated by his signature fist pump. Spieth is no Tiger Woods. Doesn’t try to be, though they do share the same habit of talking angrily to themselves during a round. He doesn’t overwhelm a crowd with his presence, doesn’t intimidate
other players while wearing a red shirt on Sunday. In a game dominated by Woods and the power hitters who followed, he’s not even in the same neighbourhood as the big boys with a driver in his hand. What Spieth does do is win. This year he’s done it on the biggest stages in golf, grabbing a green jacket at the Masters and following it with a win a few weeks back at the U.S. Open. Add in a British Open and PGA Championship title, and he would be the first player to win the Grand Slam in a calendar year. He largely does it on his own terms, taking the title at the John Deere Classic on Sunday when others suggested he might be better served by leaving early for Scotland to discover the many vagaries of the oldest course in golf. But Spieth has a confidence that borders on swagger and, much like Woods in his prime, a belief that his best is better than yours no matter where you tee it up. “He beats you properly,” former U.S. Open champion Geoff Ogilvy said. “He beats you with better golf. He doesn’t beat you because he hits it further. Tiger’s intimidation was that he always did something amazing. Jordan - don’t get me wrong, his body of work is amazing - but he doesn’t beat you with a crazy par, or a crazy chip-in from the back of the 14th at Muirfield (Village). He just beats you because he’s better.” Just how much better Spieth really is, only time will tell. His career is in its infancy still, and it’s way too early to crown him as the next great player, way too soon to begin talking about whether he - and not Woods will be the one who finally takes down the record of 18 major titles held by Jack Nicklaus.