Kohan v. Kohan, (2016) 616 A.R. 376

• Judge: Martin, Slatter and Veldhuis, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: Tuesday March 08, 2016
• Citations: (2016), 616 A.R. 376;2016 ABCA 125

Kohan v. Kohan (2016), 616 A.R. 376; 672 W.A.C. 376 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. AP.101

Carrie Louise Kohan (respondent/plaintiff) v. Miles Nelson Scott Kohan (appellant/defendant)

(1501-0243-AC; 2016 ABCA 125)

Indexed As: Kohan v. Kohan

Alberta Court of Appeal

Martin, Slatter and Veldhuis, JJ.A.

April 27, 2016.

Summary:

A couple with two children divorced after a 20 year marriage. The wife sought child support for a child over the age of 18, and spousal support. The trial judge found that the child in issue remained a child of the marriage after she turned 18 and awarded lump sum spousal support of $500,000. The husband appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The award of child support for the adult child of the marriage was set aside because the wife was unable to prove on a balance of probabilities that the child remained a child of the marriage. The lump sum award of spousal support was also set aside, and the quantum of spousal support was submitted back to the trial court to be dealt with in accordance with the appeal court's reasons.

Family Law - Topic 4011

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Lump sum - A wife was awarded lump sum spousal support of $500,000 representing the amount owing for the 10 years from separation to trial - The husband appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the award and remitted the matter to the trial judge to determine quantum - The trial judge erred in factoring into the spousal support calculations large post-separation bonuses received by the husband as a result of anomalous market conditions - It was difficult to attribute those bonuses to any contributions of the wife - Further, the trial judge did not provide an explanation for awarding support "at large" - The lump sum spousal support award could not be sustained - See paragraphs 26 to 52.

Counsel:

C.J. Popowich and C. Harris, for the respondent;

A.D. Martens and J. Griffith, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on March 8, 2016, before Martin, Slatter and Veldhuis, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed in Calgary, Alberta, by the court, on April 27, 2016.