Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt,

• Judge: Picard, Berger and Wittmann, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 ABCA 229
• Citation: 2001 ABCA 229,(2001), 286 A.R. 248 (CA),205 DLR (4th) 712,[2001] 11 WWR 233,286 AR 248,97 Alta LR (3d) 238,20 RFL (5th) 409,[2001] CarswellAlta 1357,[2001] AJ No 1170 (QL),253 WAC 248,286 A.R. 248,205 D.L.R. (4th) 712,253 W.A.C. 248,(2001), 286 AR 248 (CA),[2001] A.J. No 1170 (QL)
• Date: 06 April 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (2001), 286 A.R. 248 (CA);

    253 W.A.C. 248

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. SE.038

Terrence Stuart Allan Hunt (appellant) v. Mary-Jean Christine Smolis-Hunt (respondent)

(9803-0329-AC; 9803-0285-AC; 2001 ABCA 229)

Indexed As: Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt

Alberta Court of Appeal

Picard, Berger and Wittmann, JJ.A.

September 14, 2001.

Summary:

The parties married in 1981 and separated in 1994. The husband petitioned for divorce. The issues were the division of matrimonial property, child support and spousal support.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 224 A.R. 68, determined the issues and ordered accordingly. The husband appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Picard, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal in part.

Family Law - Topic 868.4

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - To satisfy child maintenance order - [See first Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions - A wife's father gave her a rental property in 1980 valued at $60,000 prior to her marriage - In a divorce action, the parties agreed that the wife was entitled to an exemption of $60,000 - The husband sought an equal division of the increase in the value of the property - The trial judge held that a fair and equitable distribution of the increase in the value was a 75/25 split in favour of the wife - The court considered the manner of the acquisition, the husband's nominal involvement in the rental property's management, the husband's dissipation of marital assets in order to establish a law practice and the wife's disportionate contribution to the care and nurturing of the family unit - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal respecting this issue - See paragraphs 1 and 183 to 185.

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions - A wife's father gifted a duplex property jointly to the wife and husband in a holograph will -The husband as an articling student had advised the wife on how to assist her father with the will - An issue in their divorce action was the division of the increase in the value of the duplex after it was acquired - The trial judge ordered that the increase be split 75/25 in favour of the wife - The court considered the husband's limited involvement in the duplex's management, his dissipation of other marital assets in order to establish a law practice and his limited contribution to the family household - It also considered the circumstances surrounding the testamentary disposition, including the husband's conduct in placing himself in conflict by indirectly assisting in the preparation of the will - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal respecting this issue - See paragraphs 1 and 183 to 185.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - A father petitioned for divorce - The mother sought, inter alia, retroactive and future lump sum child support for their two children funded by a transfer of the marital assets available for distribution to her solely - The trial judge agreed - Given the father's lack of appreciation of his obligations to his children and his precarious financial situation with no foreseeable improvement in the future, the only realistic means of meeting the needs of the children was a lump sum award retroactive to the date of separation and a prospective lump sum award - The husband appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that trial judge made no error in deciding to award a retroactive and prospective lump sum child support payment - See paragraphs 36 and 37.

Family Law - Topic 4001.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Retroactive awards - The Alberta Court of Appeal concluded that trial judges were vested with a discretion, in appropriate circumstances, to order retroactive child support for a period of time preceding the commencement of proceedings under the Divorce Act - A trial judge, before exercising his or her discretion, should take pains to ensure that the parent paying support was not treated unfairly by a sudden demand to pay support for a period which, applying an objective test, a reasonable parent would think had passed - On the other hand, where the payee had made it clear by her actions that she intended to pursue child support, the passage of time could in no way diminish the obligation of the noncustodial parent -See paragraphs 2 to 35.

Family Law - Topic 4011

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Lump sum - [See first Family Law - Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4014

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To children and children defined - [See first Family Law -Topic 4001.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation of income - A mother in a divorce action asked that income be imputed to the father pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - The trial judge held that the father by choosing to continue with his unsuccessful law practice with no reasonable prospect of future improvement, was undervaluing his earning capacity - The court imputed income of $55,000 per year, the same figure he earned in 1991 while working with Statistics Canada, and held that he had the capacity to earn this amount from 1994 onward (when he passed up a job opportunity) - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal on this issue - The evidentiary foundation cited by the trial judge did not support her conclusion - The trial judge also erred by attributing income on the basis of the speculative 1994 job opportunity - See paragraphs 117 to 124.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation of income - Section 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines permitted a court to impute income to a spouse in circumstances where the spouse was intentionally under-employed or unemployed - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that s. 19(1)(a) should be interpreted to impute income where the obligor had pursued a deliberate course of conduct for the purpose of evading child support obligations -The section required either proof of a specific intention to undermine or avoid support obligations, or circumstances which permitted the court to infer that the intention of the obligor was to undermine or avoid his or her support obligations - The court relied on the context and wording of s. 19, the objectives and effect of the Guidelines, and the potentially unreasonable requirements imposed on an obligor - See paragraphs 39 to 77.

Cases Noticed:

Girard v. Girard (1990), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 377; 259 A.P.R. 377 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sartor v. Sartor, [1993] N.W.T.R. 102; 45 R.F.L.(3d) 250 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Rebus v. McLellan (1993), 43 R.F.L.(3d) 196 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Pritchett v. Pritchett, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2704 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Headrick v. Headrick (1970), 8 D.L.R.(3d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

L.S. v. E.P. (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 28; 206 W.A.C. 28; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

MacMinn v. MacMinn (1995), 174 A.R. 261; 102 W.A.C. 261; 17 R.F.L.(4th) 88, additional reasons (1997), 209 A.R. 58; 160 W.A.C. 58; 29 R.F.L.(4th) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 100, 144].

Allen v. Allen, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2418 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Ambrose v. Ambrose (1990), 24 R.F.L.(3d) 353 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sauso v. Berard (1991), 73 Man.R.(2d) 147; 3 W.A.C. 147; 33 R.F.L.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Weist v. Zordel (1992), 99 Sask.R. 303; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 171 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Borris v. Borris (1992), 126 A.R. 195; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 339 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

MacNeal v. MacNeal (1993), 50 R.F.L.(3d) 235 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 14].

Elliot v. Elliot (1993), 65 O.A.C. 241; 15 O.R.(3d) 265; 48 R.F.L.(3d) 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Steinhuebl v. Steinhuebl, [1970] 2 O.R. 683; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 669 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 104, refd to. [paras. 18, 168].

Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [paras. 22, 16].

Wellesley v. Duke of Bedford (1827), 2 Russ. 1; 38 E.R. 236, refd to. [para. 24].

Wellesley v. Wellesley (1828), 2 Bli. N.S. 124; 4 E.R. 1078, refd to. [para. 24].

X (a minor), Re, [1975] 1 All E.R. 697 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Zacks v. Zacks, [1973] S.C.R. 891, refd to. [paras. 27, 150].

Papp v. Papp, [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Andries v. Andries (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 189; 167 W.A.C. 189; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Hauff v. Hauff (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 83; 70 W.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Kloos v. Kloos (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 129; 118 W.A.C. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Dahl v. Dahl (1995), 178 A.R. 119; 110 W.A.C. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Hoar v. Hoar (1993), 62 O.A.C. 50; 45 R.F.L.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lobo v. Lobo (1999), 240 A.R. 257; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 366 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242; 235 N.R. 1; 134 Man.R.(2d) 19; 193 W.A.C. 19, refd to. [para. 45].

Furlong v. Furlong, [1998] A.R. Uned. 525; 42 R.F.L.(4th) 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Stamp v. McIntosh, [1998] A.J. No. 429 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52].

Strand v. Strand (1999), 246 A.R. 70; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 53, 106].

Montgomery v. Montgomery (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 184; 563 A.P.R. 184; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 53, 106].

Hanson v. Hanson, [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 688 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 53, 107].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 59].

Zuk v. Zuk, [1998] A.R. Uned. 659; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 431 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Bates v. Bates (2000), 133 O.A.C. 319; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 642 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Dergousoff v. Dergousoff (1999), 177 Sask.R. 64; 199 W.A.C. 64; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 65].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083; 245 N.R. 1; 128 B.C.A.C. 1; 208 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Wilson v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.) (1988), 53 D.L.R.(4th) 171 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta (1986), 68 A.R. 259; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 527 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Williams v. Williams (1997), 32 R.F.L.(4th) 23 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 70, 106].

Hall v. Hall (1999), 91 O.T.C. 230 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 70].

Dennis v. Wilson (1997), 104 O.A.C. 250; 35 R.F.L.(4th) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Melzack v. Germain, [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Currie v. Currie (1999), 2 R.F.L.(5th) 153 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 200; 184 W.A.C. 200; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Hickey v. Hickey (1999), 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40; 46 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 94].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 94].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 94].

Haisman v. Haisman (1994), 157 A.R. 47; 77 W.A.C. 47; 22 Alta. L.R.(3d) 56; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Levesque v. Levesque, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 589; 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk (1998), 218 A.R. 153; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 180 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106].

Donovan v. Donovan (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 116; 23 W.A.C. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Petrick v. Petrick, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. J13; 76 A.C.W.S.(3d) 793 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Krause v. Krause (1975), 64 D.L.R.(3d) 352 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].

Bushnell v. Bushnell, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1300 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 140].

Myatt v. Myatt (1993), 45 R.F.L.(3d) 45 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 140].

Letourneau v. Letourneau (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 123; 187 W.A.C. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].

McNaughton v. McNaughton, [1997] A.J. No. 1287 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 140].

Alford v. Che-Alford, [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 928 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 141].

Lessard v. Lessard (1999), 242 A.R. 363 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 141].

Villeneuve v. Lafferty (1999), 3 R.F.L.(5th) 310 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 141].

B.A.S. v. G.D.S., [2000] A.R. Uned. 94 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 141].

Rees v. Rees, [1999] A.R. Uned. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 141].

Rolls v. Rolls, [2000] A.R. Uned. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

Fairbanks v. Fairbanks (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 181; 171 W.A.C. 181; 37 R.F.L.(4th) 404 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

D.V. v. M.B.B., [1998] B.C.J. No. 2004 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 141].

Caldwell v. Caldwell (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 73; 206 W.A.C. 73; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

Stricker v. Stricker (1991), 118 A.R. 138; 33 R.F.L.(3d) 367 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 142].

Lauderdale v. Lauderdale (1997), 200 A.R. 198; 146 W.A.C. 198; 29 R.F.L.(4th) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143].

Zielke v. Zielke (1982), 40 A.R. 299; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

Andries v. Andries (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 189; 167 W.A.C. 189; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Young v. Young (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 272; 578 A.P.R. 272; 7 R.F.L.(5th) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

S.E.M. v. D.L.M. (1997), 28 R.F.L.(4th) 352 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 154].

Lovell v. Lovell (1993), 11 Alta. L.R.(3d) 320 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 155].

McFadden v. McFadden (1918), 42 O.L.R. 599, refd to. [para. 156].

Ennis v. Ennis (2000), 281 A.R. 161; 248 W.A.C. 161; 5 R.F.L.(5th) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Beson et al. v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 716; 44 N.R. 602; 39 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246; 111 A.P.R. 246, refd to. [para. 162].

Harris v. Harris (1979), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 699 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 162].

K.M. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 475 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 164].

L.S. v. E.P. (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 28; 206 W.A.C. 28; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].

Cherry v. Cherry (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 202; 125 W.A.C. 202; 24 B.C.L.R.(3d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Brett v. Brett (1999), 119 O.A.C. 94; 46 R.F.L.(4th) 433 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Bracklow v. Bracklow (1999), 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 191].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), sect. 15.1(1) [para. 4]; sect. 17(1) [para. 3]; sect. 26.1(2) [para. 58].

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 1 [para. 5]; sect. 19(1) [para. 46].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Family Law Project Overview, Report No. 18.1, generally [para. 160].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, p. 420, footnote 9 [para. 151].

Da Costa, Mendes, Studies in Canadian Family Law (1972), vol. 1, p. 289 [para. 20].

Davies, Christine, Family Law in Canada (1984), p. 253 [para. 20].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), para. 21 [para. 44].

Hainsworth, T.W., Child Support Guidelines Service (2000) (Looseleaf), p. 5:10 [para. 116].

MacDougall, D.J., Alimony and Maintenance, in Da Costa, Mendes, Studies in Canadian Family Law (1972), vol. 1, p. 289 [para. 151].

McLeod, James G., and Mamo, Alfred A., Annual Review of Family Law (1999), generally [para. 175].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to D.L.A. v. J.T.A. (1999), 45 R.F.L.(4th) 1, generally [para. 116].

Payne, Julien, D., Child Support in Canada (2nd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 157].

Payne, Julien, D., Imputing Income, Determination of Income, Disclosure of Income, Child Support in Canada (1999), generally [paras. 76, 116].

Counsel:

B.L. Stothert-Kennedy, for the appellant;

E.L. Martin, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 6, 2000, before Picard, Berger and Wittmann, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On September 14, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and following opinions were filed:

Berger and Wittmann, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 88;

Picard, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 89 to 199.