Derworiz v. Derworiz, 2015 SKQB 100
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan|
|Case Date:||April 07, 2015|
|Citations:||2015 SKQB 100;(2015), 471 Sask.R. 241 (QB)|
Derworiz v. Derworiz (2015), 471 Sask.R. 241 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  Sask.R. TBEd. AP.037
Edward Marvin Derworiz (petitioner) v. Cecelia Paulette Derworiz (respondent)
(2006 DIV No. 560; 2015 SKQB 100)
Indexed As: Derworiz v. Derworiz
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial Centre of Regina
April 7, 2015.
The parties married in 1976 and separated in 2006. At issue was the division of family property.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues.
Family Law - Topic 880.32
Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Registered Retirement Savings Plans, R.E.S.P.'s, Income Funds, unregistered investments, etc. - [See Family Law - Topic 888 ].
Family Law - Topic 882
Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Relevant considerations - The parties separated in 2006 after 30 years of marriage - The wife was currently battling terminal cancer - At issue was a division of the family property - The husband argued that it would not be appropriate to provide a sizable asset to the wife given her short life expectancy, because it would simply be passed on to her beneficiaries - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated "I am not inclined from a public policy perspective to accept the validity of this argument. I am not willing to consider this particular aspect of [the wife's] situation in the division of the assets of the marriage as it is not appropriate." - See paragraph 32.
Family Law - Topic 888
Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - A husband petitioned for divorce in December 2006 - He sought a division of the family property, which included three investments (RRSPs converted to RRIFs) in the couple's names at the relevant time - The two that were in the husband's name had a combined value of $359,360 in 2006, and had dropped to $185,917 by the time of trial in December 2013 - The investment in the wife's name had a value of $141,490 in 2006, and had dropped to $26,941 by the time of trial - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that "The proper date for valuation of the investment accounts of each of the parties is the date of the petition. Each party has spent differing amounts of the income and capital of each of their respective investments and it would not be reasonable to take the date of trial as the date for valuation without unraveling all of the transactions from the date of petition in December 2006, to the time of trial. We are not looking at a situation where it is purely the market influences that effected the change in values here and therefore, the date of the petition is appropriate" - See paragraphs 21 to 28.
Michalishen v. Michalishen (2002), 227 Sask.R. 107; 287 W.A.C. 107; 2002 SKCA 128, refd to. [para. 18].
Benson v. Benson (1994), 120 Sask.R. 17; 68 W.A.C. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
Williams v. Williams (2011), 375 Sask.R. 145; 525 W.A.C. 145; 2011 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 22].
Russell v. Russell (1999), 180 Sask.R. 196; 205 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
Lehr v. Lehr (2011), 383 Sask.R. 125; 2011 SKQB 343 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].
Miller v. Miller (1992), 102 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].
Ivanochko v. Ivanochko (1994), 119 Sask.R. 113 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].
Sparks v. Sparks (1994), 159 A.R. 187 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].
Edward Derworiz, self-represented;
Foster Weisgerber, Q.C., for the respondent.
This matter was heard before Brown, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on April 7, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP