J.W.L. v. C.B.M., 2008 NSSC 215

• Judge: MacDonald, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2008 NSSC 215;(2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 86 (SC)

J.W.L. v. C.B.M. (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 86 (SC);

    853 A.P.R. 86

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.011

L.(J.W.) (petitioner) v. M.(C.B.) (respondent)

(1201-060431; SFHD-044383; 2008 NSSC 215)

Indexed As: J.W.L. v. C.B.M.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

MacDonald, J.

July 4, 2008.

Summary:

The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008. The wife sought an equal division of all assets. The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets". If any of the assets were classified as sole business assets of the husband, the wife sought remuneration for her contribution to those assets under s. 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act, failing which she sought an unequal division of assets under s. 13. The husband requested an equal division of matrimonial assets and that he, under s. 18, be given a greater share of the jointly held business assets. The wife also requested spousal support.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the residential apartment and office building, the publishing company owned solely by the husband, the shareholder's loans and the husband's interest in a residential apartment arising through a partnership, were business assets. The wife made no contribution to those assets and her s. 18 claim was dismissed. The husband had contributed to the jointly owned companies and was awarded a greater interest as a result. He was not awarded a greater interest in the jointly owned share in the residential apartment building. An equal division of the matrimonial assets was not unfair or unconscionable. The wife was awarded spousal support of $800 per month.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Company Law - Topic 5763

Sale of shares - Valuation - Basis for valuation - [See fifth Family Law - Topic 888 ].

Family Law - Topic 868.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Debts - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - In November 2002, following their separation, the wife requested the husband's consent to place a collateral mortgage on the matrimonial home to secure an independent line of credit - The husband consented, but required that his liability be limited to $50,000 - They signed a document evidencing this intent - The amount outstanding on her line of credit was now $90,000 - She sought to have the husband share the debt equally, arguing that he was not paying her spousal support, that her income from their publishing company was insufficient, and that she was responsible for upkeep to the matrimonial home and cottage - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the debt incurred after November 2002 was the wife's post separation debt - The court was not satisfied that any of the debt was for maintenance of the matrimonial properties - There was no evidence of the wife's expenses in 2002 to 2006, inclusive - Further, the court considered the parties' respective incomes since their separation, and stated that the husband's income "has not been so disparate to justify his assumption of one-half of her post separation debt" beyond the amount he agreed to assume - See paragraphs 32 to 39.

Family Law - Topic 873

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Bars - Unfair and inequitable - [See first and second Family Law - Topic 875 ].

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions (incl. judicial reapportionment) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets - The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - If any of the assets were classified as business assets, the wife sought, inter alia, an unequal division of assets under s. 13 of the Matrimonial Property Act - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, in determining the meaning to be attributed to the wording of s. 13, noted that courts have decided that matrimonial assets were to be divided equally unless there was strong evidence showing that an equal division would be clearly unfair and unconscionable based on the factors listed in s. 13 - The court reviewed the meaning of "unfair and unconscionable", the discretionary limitations under s. 13, as well as the necessity of conducting a contextual assessment when considering whether an equal division would be unfair or unconscionable - See paragraphs 19 to 24.

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions (incl. judicial reapportionment) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets -The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - If any of the assets were classified as business assets, the wife sought, inter alia, an unequal division of assets under s. 13 of the Matrimonial Property Act - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the equal division was neither unfair nor unconscionable - The primary reason for the wife's request related to the differences in the parties' net worth - The court noted that this was "not a factor directly enumerated in section 13 but it may be a reason for deciding an equal division is unfair or unconscionable if an enumerated factor was present" - The length of the marriage and the wife's premarital ownership of the matrimonial home were the two enumerated factors under s. 13 that were relevant, but the court was not satisfied that either factor was sufficient reason to justify a finding that an equal division was unfair or unconscionable - See paragraph 84.

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions (incl. judicial reapportionment) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets -The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - If any of the assets were classified as business assets, the wife sought, inter alia, an unequal division of assets under s. 13 of the Matrimonial Property Act - The division of the matrimonial property left the husband with assets worth at least twice as much as those retained by the wife - The wife submitted that she should receive an unequal division, arguing that the husband's interest in the business assets and the income and "perks" derived therefrom, which benefited her during the marriage, was an "other benefit" she had lost - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that an unequal division would amount to a redistribution of wealth - There was nothing in the history of the relationship to justify an unequal division - This was not a traditional marriage - The husband had no pension except for his RRSP which was divided with the wife - The court did not accept the wife's interpretation of the words "other benefit", but considered those words to refer to benefits such as death benefits and benefits provided under other instruments or entitlements similar to pensions - See paragraphs 80 to 83.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets - The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, began its classification analysis by stating that "In Nova Scotia all assets are matrimonial assets unless the party maintaining otherwise satisfies the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the disputed asset falls within one of the exceptions contained in s. 4(1) of the Matrimonial Property Act ..." - After noting that business assets were one of those enumerated exceptions, and that the primary purpose for which an asset was used or held would generally determine its classification, the court pointed out that reliance on the intended use of an asset "has its dangers" - "While intention is to be explored, it is essential to consider whether an asset is working or being worked in an entrepreneurial way" - See paragraphs 9 to 17.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The assets included real property in Toronto which the husband purchased many years prior to the marriage, allegedly as an income producing investment, although there were years when there were losses - In 1997, he subdivided the property and sold the original house, one of the subdivided lots, and one of two units built on the remaining lots - The husband managed the remaining unit as a rental property - The original house was occupied by the wife during the two years she worked in Toronto - The wife alleged that the husband's intent in retaining the asset during the marriage was for retirement, as he was not in the "business" of real estate development or rentals - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the asset was a business asset - The wife's occupation was not sufficient to justify a finding that it was a matrimonial asset - The court was satisfied that the husband's use of the asset was entrepreneurial - The wife made no contribution to the asset - See paragraphs 43 to 44.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The assets included the husband's one-quarter interest in real property (warehouse-office building) which he purchased in partnership with friends in 1971 - The husband's Toronto publishing company occupied the building on the land, along with the business of his partners - The husband sold part of his interest in 1990 when he required cash - After separation, he sold his remaining interest - The wife suggested that the investment was for "retirement" and a matrimonial asset - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, disagreed and held that the asset was a business asset - "This was an ... investment ... to provide a commercial residence ... The profit or gain aspect of the investment was long term both for the Husband as an owner of the Toronto Publishing Company and personally. This investment is not similar to an RRSP. It was not a static investment. It required attention and management. When the potential to realize on this investment became available it was taken" - The wife made no contribution to the asset - See paragraphs 45 to 46.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - In 1985-1986, the husband invested with friends in a residential apartment building - The share ownership gave a 25% joint ownership share to the husband and the wife, and another share to the husband through his partnership interest, a portion of which was sold by the husband in 1990 - The wife had a legal 12.50% interest in the property - The wife sought a determination that the husband's interest derived through the partnership was a matrimonial asset - If the asset was classified as a business asset, the wife sought remuneration for her contribution to the asset under s. 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act - The husband also claimed under s. 18 in respect to the wife's interest - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the property was a business asset in which each party had a share as provided by their registered legal ownership, and dismissed their respective s. 18 claims - The majority of use was a rental property - Nor was the asset acquired as security for retirement - The wife made no direct investment to purchase the property and paid nothing towards its upkeep - The husband was directly involved in leasing and managing the asset - See paragraph 48.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The husband was the sole owner of a Toronto publishing company - The parties jointly owned a Halifax publishing company - During the marriage, both publishing companies owed money to the husband pursuant to a shareholder's loan - After separation, the husband received payment from the companies to satisfy the debt owing to him ($115,000) - The wife sought to have the loans classified as matrimonial assets - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the shareholder's loans were business assets - The husband was required to invest in the companies and he continued to do so over time - There was risk involved in investing the money - The money was not merely "parked in the companies" as a type of savings vehicle - If tracing was a factor to be considered, the court accepted the husband's information that the money invested came from his other business assets and borrowing from his family - See paragraph 76.

Family Law - Topic 880

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Contribution to business asset - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets - The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - If any of the assets were classified as business assets, the wife sought, inter alia, remuneration for her contribution to those assets under s. 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act - The husband requested that he be given a greater share of the jointly held business asset, under s. 18 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, began its assessment of the parties' contributions by noting that "Whether the legislature ever contemplated how this section would or should impact spouses who had a joint ownership in a business asset is unknown. Courts ... have decided that the share ownership in a business asset does not guarantee the interest in that asset will be in accordance with the share structure if the shareholder has little involvement in purchasing, managing and improving the asset ... Such is the power of section 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act to rearrange the indicia of ownership so as to render it meaningless" - See paragraph 18.

Family Law - Topic 880

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Contribution to business asset - [See fourth Family Law - Topic 877 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.18

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Tracing - [See first Family Law - Topic 880.32 and fifth Family Law - Topic 877 ].

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. - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The assets included real property which the husband purchased years prior to the marriage, allegedly as an income producing investment - In 1997 he subdivided the property and sold the original house, one of the subdivided lots, and one of two units built on the remaining lots - He placed his profit into a GIC that had a value at separation of $95,000 - After separation, the husband cashed out the GIC to purchase a home - The wife sought to have the GIC classified as a matrimonial asset - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, agreed - Although the money used to purchase the GIC came from the sale of a business asset, the GIC itself was a "static" asset, similar to a savings account - It carried little risk and required no management - In classifying the asset, the court looked first at the asset itself, noting that "the source of the funds used to purchase the asset should not be used as a means by which to classify the asset ... The Matrimonial Property Act has provided a definition of 'business asset' and tracing is not part of that definition" - See paragraph 75.

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. - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - They agreed that the husband's RRSP was to be valued for division at $34,032, but did not agree on the value of the wife's RRIF - The husband's valuation of the RRIF was from a November 2007 statement - The wife's valuation was from a February 2008 statement, which was the most current statement provided - With a 30% discount for tax, the value was $163,974 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, assigned a value of $163,974 - "In general it is considered equitable to value RRSP accounts and investments in corporations to the date of the actual cash in, transfer, or rollover between the parties (division date) after taking tax consequences and disposition costs into consideration" - See paragraph 42.

Family Law - Topic 880.47

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Company shares, stock options, etc. - [See fifth Family Law - Topic 888 ].

Family Law - Topic 883

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Contributions of parties (incl. unequal contributions) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The husband was the sole owner of a Toronto publishing company - It was a business asset - The wife argued that she made a significant contribution to the publishing company, for which she should be compensated under s. 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act - In 1987 the company was in a financial crisis and the wife moved to Toronto for about two-and-one-half years as it's manager - The husband suggested her alcoholism interfered with her effectiveness so that her contribution was not as significant as she alleged - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dismissed the wife's claim - She was paid for her work, and there was no evidence to suggest the amount paid was not in keeping with salary levels - There was no evidence that the husband would have had to employ additional staff - The fact that the wife also provided services to the parties' Halifax companies that in turn provided services to the Toronto publishing company were commercial arrangements between the companies, which "do not provide her with the foundation for a compensatory claim pursuant to section 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act " - See paragraphs 49 to 53.

Family Law - Topic 883

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Contributions of parties (incl. unequal contributions) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - They jointly owned a publishing company (Halifax), purchased in 1982 - The wife, who suffered from alcoholism, was less involved in the business since 1990 and not actively involved since 1997, but received income of $35,000 per year - The husband managed the company - He requested that, under s. 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act, he be awarded the entirety of the wife's interest in the company either because of her lack of involvement or because he purchased her interest by paying her a yearly income - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the husband had contributed more to the maintenance and development of the asset than had the wife and that he was to receive a 15% interest in her share of the business, giving him a 65% ownership interest -The court, however, dismissed the husband's suggestion that he had already "purchased" the wife's interest in the property - "The possibility that the wife would recover from her alcoholism and return as a productive member to the business continued as an option" until the marriage could not be sustained - See paragraphs 56 to 61.

Family Law - Topic 883

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Contributions of parties (incl. unequal contributions) - [See fourth Family Law - Topic 877 ].

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife sought an equal division of all assets - The husband sought to have several of the assets classified as "business assets" - They did not agree upon values to be assigned to certain assets, including the shares in their jointly owned publishing company - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, began its valuation of the assets by noting that the Matrimonial Property Act did not specify the date or time upon which an asset was to be valued for the purpose of division, and that the issue was to be determined in the discretion of the trial judge - The court examined the principles used when valuing assets in the family law context, including the concepts of "fair market value" and "fair value", and noted that "In Nova Scotia there is support for the concept that valuation encompasses something more than an acceptance of the fair market values put forth in evidence" - Specifically, the court noted the reservations of Nathanson, J., in Nickerson v. Nickerson (1983) (N.S.S.C.) in determining the evaluations of shares, and the exercise of the court's "best judgment" in resolving the matter - See paragraphs 25 to 31.

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife resided in the matrimonial home - In valuing the home, the husband suggested that the property could be subdivided and the present home moved to permit the sale of a lot upon which a new home could be built - He provided an assessment valuing the property at potentially $700,000 - The wife argued that it was uncertain whether the lot could be subdivided or the house moved, and requested that the property be valued at $500,000, being its appraised value without subdivision - Further, the wife's son had signed a purchase and sale agreement to purchase the property for that amount - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, stated that the husband's figure was "speculative", and agreed with the wife's valuation - See paragraph 40.

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - There was no appraisal for the parties' cottage and lot - The husband suggested the property was worth $125,000 in his Statement of Property - In her Statement of Property, the wife suggested that it was between $125,000 and $150,000 - The husband wished to use the higher of those figures - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, had no evidence to assist it in choosing between the estimates, and picked the mid value of $137,500 - The husband assumed that the wife would keep the property and will it to her children from a previous marriage - He argued that because the property was not to be sold, notional disposition costs should not be deducted - The court noted that "This argument has frequently been made in courts in Nova Scotia and it has generally failed" - The court had no definitive evidence on the point and given the wife's age and her need for financial security, sale was not an unrealistic proposition - Notional costs were deducted for real estate commission, migration and legal costs - See paragraph 41.

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - In 1985-1986, the husband invested with two friends in a residential apartment building - The owners were the husband, the wife, and the two friends independently and as partners with the husband - The share ownership essentially gave a 25% joint ownership share to the parties and another share to the husband through his partnership interest, a portion of which was sold by the husband in 1990 - The husband assessed the value of the interests in the property by the square footage of the unit to be occupied by each owner - The wife argued that the value should be the appraised value of the entire property and the percentage ownership interest then applied - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, accepted the value calculated by the husband, which was $325,466 for the joint interest he shared with the wife and $41,588 for the interest he held with the partners - The units could be sold separately and would likely carry a different value, based on size - In addition, the court had no information about the mortgage on the building - See paragraph 47.

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The husband was the sole owner of a Toronto publishing company - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the husband also had a 65% ownership interest in a Halifax publishing company he jointly owned with the wife - The parties also jointly owned an investment company and a distribution company - The husband did not provide a value for the Toronto publishing company, but suggested liquidation value - The court's analysis of the value to be assigned to that company was contained within its analysis of the value of the other companies "since similar principles apply" - The husband wished to purchase his wife's interest in the Halifax publishing company, and suggested that the only dollar value was the value of its real estate to be calculated at fair market value and other assets at liquidation value - After reviewing the reports generated on behalf of the parties, the court determined that the valuations prepared on behalf of the wife, using a net asset approach, to be the most reasonable - See paragraphs 62 to 74.

Family Law - Topic 894

Husband and wife - Liability for spouse's debts - Considerations in determining liability - [See Family Law - Topic 868.2 ].

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - Periodic payments - [See Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards - To wife - Considerations - The parties married in 1981, separated in 2002, and divorced in 2008 - The wife (70) requested spousal support - There was no suggestion she should seek employment - Her present annual income totalled $25,400 consisting of Canada Pension, Old Age Security, and an RRIF - She would receive $500,000 for the purchase of the matrimonial home and $208,694 from the husband as a result of this decision - The husband had a projected income for 2008 at about $70,000 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, ordered the husband to pay $800 per month spousal support "until such time as the parties consent to a change or one succeeds in a variation application" - The wife had a present financial need but it was not substantial - She was entitled to non-compensatory dependency based support, not to equalize the parties' standard of living, but to provide her with a standard of living appropriate to her circumstances - The wife's education, career development and earning potential were not impeded by the marriage -The $208,694, once invested, would provide her income similar to her RRIF, giving her a total annual income of $37,400 - The spousal support guidelines suggested a range between $815 and $1,087 - See paragraphs 85 to 99.

Cases Noticed:

Adie v. Adie (1994), 134 N.S.R.(2d) 60; 383 A.P.R. 60; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 54 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Lawrence v. Lawrence (1981), 47 N.S.R.(2d) 100; 90 A.P.R. 100; 25 R.F.L.(2d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Curren v. Curren (1988), 81 N.S.R.(2d) 118; 203 A.P.R. 118; 1987 CarswellNS 189 (T.D.), [para. 12].

Hebb v. Hebb (1991), 103 N.S.R.(2d) 147; 282 A.P.R. 147; 1991 CarswellNS 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Roberts v. Shotton (1997), 156 N.S.R.(2d) 47; 461 A.P.R. 47; 1997 CarswellNS 8 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 24]; dist. [para. 75].

Leverman v. Leverman, [2007] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 100; 2007 CarswellNS 814 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Voiculescu v. Voiculescu, [2003] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 44; 2003 CarswellNS 252 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Jenkins v. Jenkins (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 18; 290 A.P.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Young v. Young (2003), 216 N.S.R.(2d) 94; 680 A.P.R. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 352 A.P.R. 17; 1993 CarswellNS 52 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Baggs v. Baggs (1997), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 477 A.P.R. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (2007), 255 N.S.R.(2d) 270; 814 A.P.R. 270; 2007 CarswellNS 262 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Sproule v. Sproule (1985), 69 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 163 A.P.R. 103; 1985 CarswellNS 52 (T.D.), revd. on other grounds (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 176 A.P.R. 131; 1986 CarswellNS 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lynk v. Lynk (1989), 92 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 237 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Reardon v. Smith (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 339; 557 A.P.R. 339; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Nickerson v. Nickerson (1983), 59 N.S.R.(2d) 133; 125 A.P.R. 133; 1983 CarswellNS 466 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Simmons v. Simmons (2001), 196 N.S.R.(2d) 140; 613 A.P.R. 140 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Tibbetts v. Tibbetts (1992), 112 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 307 A.P.R. 173; 1992 CarswellNS 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 85].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 275, sect. 2 [para. 10]; sect. 4(1) [para. 9]; sect. 13 [para. 19]; sect. 18 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Freedman, Andrew J., Loomer, Sue C., Alterman, Vivian M., and White, Paula G., Financial Principles of Family Law (2001 Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 1-2 [para. 26]; 3-12 [para. 27]; 3-14 [para. 28].

McLeod, James Gary, and Mamo, Alfred A., Matrimonial Property Law in Canada (1993), vol. 1, Section V, p. V-14 [para. 29].

Counsel:

M. Jean Beeler, for the petitioner;

B. Lynn Reierson, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Halifax, N.S., on March 25 to 27, and April 28, 2008, before MacDonald, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following written decision on July 4, 2008.