Digest: Dupuis v Taschuk, 2018 SKQB 227

• Date: August 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 227

Docket Number: QB18229 , DIV 303/10 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-08-18

Judges:

• Leurer

Subjects:

• Family Law � Division of Family Property � Dissipation
• Family Law � Division of Family Property � Exemptions
• Family Law � Division of Family Property � Valuation
• Family Law � Division of Family Property � Valuation Date

Digest: The parties married in 2001 and ceased cohabiting in 2008. The parties owned and operated various businesses through corporations during their time together. One corporation, a holding company (Hold Co.) managed and acquired rental properties. Another corporation was incorporated to operate a coffee shop (Coffee Co.). In 2005, the parties incorporated another company (Office Co.) as a vehicle for an investment in an office building. In 2007, another corporation (WC Co.) was incorporated with a third party to sell mobile homes and acquire real estate. The petition was issued in June 2010. There was incomplete financial information regarding the financial situation of the companies at or near the petition date. After the petition date, the applicant continued to operate Coffee Co. and draw a salary from the same. She planned to continue to own and operate Coffee Co. after the division of assets. The other corporations continued operation until their assets could be sold. The respondent drew a salary to manage those companies. A month after the petition, the respondent opened investment accounts and eventually transferred $443,000 into them. The respondent also withdrew $205,379.47 from the accounts but did not account for the money. When all accounts were eventually closed, only $62,890.37 remained. The issues were as follows: 1) what family property existed as of the petition date; 2) what value should be attributed to family property to be divided; and 3) what orders should be made to effect a distribution of family assets in accordance with the Act.
HELD: The issues were determined as follows: 1) the Act requires identification of the property at the time the application was made, the petition date. The investment account did not exist at that time. The court listed the property that did exist at the time; 2) the respondent argued that the investment losses were losses of the companies and therefore he did not have to account for them all. The court made several conclusions: a) the money invested came from the companies; and b) the respondent...