Nuttall v. Rea, 2005 ABQB 151

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 08, 2004
• Citations: 2005 ABQB 151;(2005), 374 A.R. 1 (QB)

Nuttall v. Rea (2005), 374 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. MR.039

Diana Ruth Nuttall (plaintiff) v. James William Rea (defendant)

(4803-130740; 2005 ABQB 151)

Indexed As: Nuttall v. Rea

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

March 4, 2005.

Summary:

Spouses agreed to resolve issues arising in a divorce and matrimonial property action by way of binding judicial dispute resolution. At the court's suggestion, and with the parties' consent, the matter was dealt with as a summary trial on affidavit evidence. At issue was the division of matrimonial property, including identification and valuation of such property and which property was exempt. Also at issue was shared custody and child support for their 17 year old daughter, calculation of the husband's income, the amount of spousal support and whether some of it should be paid by way of lump sum and whether support should be time-limited.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues of distribution of matrimonial property, child and spousal support.

Family Law - Topic 880.43

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Damage awards (incl. settlements) - A husband, permanently disabled in a 1996 motor vehicle accident, received a settlement of $1,713,014.41 - The spouses separated in 2003 - The wife claimed that the portion of the settlement attributed to lost income was non-exempt divisible matrimonial property - The husband interpreted s. 7(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Property Act to exempt the entire damage award - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a proper interpretation of the intent of the Legislature under s. 7(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Property Act is that a loss to the marriage partnership occurs if damages cause a loss of earning capacity during the currency of the marriage. Where a lump sum is received by a party which includes the money's worth of the lost income during the marriage, that money's worth portion amounts to property which is part of the matrimonial regime, and is not excluded by s. 7(2)(d) of the Act. Damages received by the spouse which relate to personal injuries, such as general damages for pain and suffering, damages for costs of future care, or special damages not related to income replacement, would be exempt. They would retain exemption whether or not they are part of a structured settlement that has the appearance of an income stream, or in a lump sum. ... s. 7(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Property Act does not exempt from the concept of eligible property compensation for income replacement for the period during which the marriage was intact." - The court rejected the wife's claim that 55% of the total settlement proceeds ($942,158) was attributable to income replacement - The court gave directions on the appropriate method of calculating the divisible portion of the settlement - See paragraphs 169 to 277.

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that absent special circumstances, matrimonial property was to be valued and divided as of the date of trial - See paragraph 155.

Family Law - Topic 4011

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Lump sum - [See Family Law - Topic 4022.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4012

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Lump sum and periodic payments - [See Family Law - Topic 4022.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 4021

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Considerations - General - A wife submitted that she was entitled to increased spousal support because of the frugal existence the spouses led during their 29 years of cohabitation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench acknowledged case law that "if a family was subjected to a more frugal lifestyle than necessary or appropriate during the marriage in order that one spouse could amass savings, those enhanced savings could be considered the basis for an enhancement of spousal support following breakdown" - The court held that where the frugal lifestyle was mutually agreed to, and not unilaterally inflicted on the family by one spouse, the principle was not engaged - See paragraph 105.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation -Spouses commenced a common law relationship in 1974, married in 1987 and separated in 2003 - They had one child, who was now 17 years of age - The wife was now 50 and the husband was 51 - The wife was a gifted cellist, had a university degree in music, and presently taught 26 students and did some professional work - The wife's average annual income for the last three years was $20,314 - The husband left the practice of law in 1996 after an accident left him permanently disabled - He received a settlement for over $1.7 million and his 2003 income was $59,246.31 from Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, interest on investments and dividends, plus $82,736.04 in tax-free private disability benefits (which would increase 4% per year until terminating at age 65) - A portion of his income came from investments which were to be distributed to the wife as matrimonial property (danger of double dipping) - The wife sought $4,500 per month spousal support based on "income sharing" to achieve a standard of living equivalent to that of the husband (or lump sum support or a combination of lump sum support and lesser periodic support) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded $2,500 per month spousal support, which reflected the husband's transfer of his interest in the matrimonial home to the wife as part of his support obligation - The court rejected an equalized standard of living and declined to make support time-limited, but did permit a review upon the happening of stated future events, as the court was unwilling to assume that the wife would never achieve self-sufficiency - See paragraphs 415 to 545.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation or attribution of income - A permanently disabled father's income in 2003 was taxable income of $59,246.31 from the Canada Pension Plan and interest, dividends and capital gains from investments - The father also received $6,894.67 per month ($82,736.04 in 2003) from a disability pension that was not taxable - That pension increased 4% per year - Section 19(1)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines permitted imputation of income where a parent received tax-exempt income - Section 19(1)(h) permitted imputation of income where a parent derived a significant portion of income from dividends, interest, capital gains or any other source having a preferential tax rate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, doing "rough justice", imputed income of $196,000 per year to the father - See paragraphs 355 to 390.

Family Law - Topic 4045.7

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Shared custody (at least 40% of time with each parent) - Parents had shared custody of their 17 year old daughter (mother 58%, father 42%), which invoked application of s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - The mother submitted that s. 9 should not be applied because the father's permanent disability resulted in her having extra responsibilities (driving, etc.) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the time associated with those extra responsibilities was insufficient to warrant not applying s. 9 - The court considered the different approaches of determining the level of support, and decided that the straight set-off approach was the most appropriate (table amount payable by father less table amount attributable to mother) - The court stated that "in light of the [father's] undertaking to support his daughter in university (a promise made to her), the considerable difference between the incomes of the [mother] and the [father] (resulting in a fairly significant amount payable by the [father]), [the daughter's] age and in light of the nature of the residences available to [the daughter], that a straight set-off ... will do justice in this case" - See paragraphs 322 to 354.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the principle of statutory interpretation that "there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, and the intention of Parliament" - The court stated that "not being possessed of a license to define a statute simply as it chooses, the court, generally speaking, should consider and take into account all relevant and admissible indicators of legislative meaning. After taking these into account, the court should then adopt an interpretation that is appropriate, having regard to the aforementioned broad principle and any other specific principles which are appropriate in the circumstances. Ultimately, an appropriate interpretation of an enactment is one that can be justified in terms of: (a) its plausibility, that is, its compliance with the legislative text; (b) its efficacy, that is, its promotion of the legislative purpose; and (c) its acceptability, that is, whether the outcome is reasonable and just." - See paragraphs 158 to 163.

Cases Noticed:

Abernathy (J.W.) Management & Consulting Ltd. et al. v. 705589 Alberta Ltd. et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 341; 25 Alta. L.R.(4th) 326; 2004 CarswellAlta 530; 2004 ABQB 312, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

688560 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Genesis Land Developers Ltd. et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 103; 82 Alta. L.R.(3d) 236; 2000 CarswellAlta 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 2].

Compton Petroleum Corp. v. Alberta Power Ltd. (1999), 242 A.R. 3; 1999 CarswellAlta 31; 1999 ABQB 42, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 3].

Gesco Industries Inc. v. Farber et al. (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 129; 43 W.A.C. 129; 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 358; 14 C.P.C.(3d) 156; 1993 CarswellBC 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 4].

590988 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. 728699 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 222; 30 C.P.C.(4th) 201; 1999 CarswellAlta 266; 1999 ABQB 227, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 5].

Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 202; 36 C.P.C.(2d) 199; 1989 CarswellBC 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 6].

Cotton et al. v. Wellsby (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 171; 9 W.A.C. 171; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 366; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 138; 1991 CarswellBC 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 7].

Samek v. Black Tusk Energy Inc. (2000), 273 A.R. 148; 2000 CarswellAlta 1108; 2000 ABQB 684, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 8].

Beaver First Nation Band v. A.T.N. Farms Ltd. et al. (2001), 356 A.R. 1; 2001 CarswellAlta 1181; 2001 ABQB 748, affd. [2004] A.R. Uned. 29; 2004 CarswellAlta 186; [2004] A.W.L.D. 183; 2004 ABCA 79, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 9].

Reykdal (N.V.) & Associates Ltd. v. 571582 Alberta Ltd. et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 444; 90 Alta. L.R.(3d) 37; 2000 CarswellAlta 1540; 2000 ABCA 330, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 10].

Weisgerber Estate, Re, [2003] A.R. Uned. 501; 2 E.T.R.(3d) 310; 23 Alta. L.R.(4th) 98; 2003 CarswellAlta 1293; 2003 ABQB 763, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 11].

Roberts v. Roberts (1999), 258 A.R. 392; 3 R.F.L.(5th) 148; 1999 CarswellAlta 1175; 1999 ABQB 944, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 13].

Jang v. Jang, [2001] 2 W.W.R. 388; 272 A.R. 336; 11 R.F.L.(5th) 303; 86 Alta. L.R.(3d) 264; 2000 CarswellAlta 975; 2000 ABQB 607, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 14].

Adams et al. v. Adams Estate (2001), 289 A.R. 345; 15 R.F.L.(5th) 237; 27 C.C.L.I.(3d) 235; 2001 CarswellAlta 283; 2001 ABQB 173, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 15].

Doell v. Buck (1989), 23 R.F.L.(3d) 419; 35 E.T.R. 185; 1989 CarswellBC 438 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 16].

Varga v. Varga, [1998] A.R. Uned. 416; 1998 CarswellAlta 1566; 1999 ABQB 492, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 17].

Varga v. Sihvon et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 1; 2001 ABQB 276, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 18].

Top Notch Construction Ltd. v. Rowland Ventures Inc. et al. (1998), 233 A.R. 278; 1998 CarswellAlta 855 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 19].

Comrie v. Comrie, [2001] 7 W.W.R. 294; 203 Sask.R. 164; 240 W.A.C. 164; 17 R.F.L.(5th) 271; 2001 CarswellSask 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 20].

Adams et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. (1998), 254 A.R. 185; 22 C.C.P.B. 125; 39 C.P.C.(4th) 366; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 234; 1999 CarswellAlta 1049 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 21].

Alexander v. Alexander (1988), 15 R.F.L.(3d) 363; 1988 CarswellBC 590 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 27].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 8 E.T.R. 143; 1980 CarswellOnt 299, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 31].

P.M.M. v. R.W.M., [2003] A.R. Uned. 250; 2003 CarswellAlta 656; 2003 ABQB 432, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 32].

Leblanc v. Leblanc, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 217; 81 N.R. 299; 84 N.B.R.(2d) 33; 214 A.P.R. 33; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 1988 CarswellNB 32, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 33].

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) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345; 1992 CarswellMan 143, refd to. [paras. 70, 424, footnotes 34, 136].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 44 R.F.L.(4th) 1; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 63 B.C.L.R.(3d) 77; [1999] 8 W.W.R. 740; 1999 CarswellBC 532; 1999 CarswellBC 533, refd to. [paras. 70, 424, footnotes 35, 137].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 34 R.F.L.(5th) 252; 224 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 66 O.R.(3d) 736; 2003 CarswellOnt 1374; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 36].

Metz v. Metz (2004), 368 A.R. 35; 2004 CarswellAlta 1073; 2004 ABQB 528, refd to. [para. 103, footnote 41].

Katay v. Katay (1995), 168 A.R. 31; 1995 CarswellAlta 627 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 42].

Boston v. Boston, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413; 271 N.R. 248; 149 O.A.C. 50; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 17 R.F.L.(5th) 4; 28 C.C.P.B. 17; 2001 CarswellOnt 2432; 2001 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 53].

Hodgson v. Hodgson (2005), 361 A.R. 190; 339 W.A.C. 190; 2005 ABCA 13, refd to. [para. 155, footnote 54].

Mazurenko v. Mazurenko (1981), 30 A.R. 34; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 15 Alta. L.R.(2d) 357; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 406 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1981), 39 N.R. 539; 32 A.R. 612; 30 R.F.L.(2d) xxxiv (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 156, footnote 55].

Kazmierczak v. Kazmierczak, [2001] 10 W.W.R. 139; 292 A.R. 233; 94 Alta. L.R.(3d) 116; 22 R.F.L.(5th) 321; 2001 ABQB 610, affd. [2004] 1 W.W.R. 598; 330 A.R. 400; 299 W.A.C. 400; 17 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2003 ABCA 227, refd to. [para. 156, footnote 56].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 39 C.R.(5th) 72; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 88 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 86 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [2001] 6 W.W.R. 1; 2001 CarswellBC 82; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 59].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 18 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2002 CarswellBC 851; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 60].

Medovarski v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (2004), 318 N.R. 252; 238 D.L.R.(4th) 328; 35 Imm. L.R.(3d) 161; 248 F.T.R. 319; 2004 CarswellNat 2709; 2004 FCA 85, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 161].

R. v. Clark (D.M.) (2005), 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6; 2005 CarswellBC 137; 2005 SCC 2, revd. (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 87; 303 W.A.C. 87; 2003 CarswellBC 1700; 2003 BCCA 408, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 62].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 549; 2000 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 160, footnote 63].

Alberta v. Nilsson, [2003] 2 W.W.R. 215; 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88; 8 Alta. L.R.(4th) 83; 220 D.L.R.(4th) 474; 77 L.C.R. 241; 5 R.P.R.(4th) 159; 14 C.C.L.T.(3d) 163; 2002 CarswellAlta 1491; 2002 ABCA 283, affing. [1999] 9 W.W.R. 203; 246 A.R. 201; 67 L.C.R. 1; 24 R.P.R.(3d) 237; 46 C.C.L.T.(2d) 158; 70 Alta. L.R.(3d) 267; 1999 CarswellAlta. 499 (Q.B.); leave to appeal denied [2003] 2 S.C.R. xi; 320 N.R. 398; 363 A.R. 194; 343 W.A.C. 194; [2004] 1 W.W.R. 197; 2003 CarswellAlta 1050, refd to. [para. 160, footnote 64].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 46 M.P.L.R.(3d) 1; 26 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; [2004] 7 W.W.R. 603; 2004 CarswellAlta 355; 2004 SCC 19, reving. (2002), 303 A.R. 249; 273 W.A.C. 249; 33 M.P.L.R.(3d) 1; 2002 ABCA 131, refd to. [para. 160; footnote 65].

R. v. J.H. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 146; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 161, footnote 66].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 621; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 48 E.T.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 329; [1993] 3 W.W.R. 337; [1993] R.D.F. 369; 1993 CarswellBC 44, refd to. [para. 165, footnote 68].

Dwell v. Dwell (1982), 46 A.R. 1; 31 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 1982 CarswellAlta 349, refd to. [para. 167, footnote 69].

Shaver v. Shaver, [1992] W.D.F.L. 199; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 117; 1991 CarswellOnt 346 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 171, footnote 70].

Kowalski v. Kowalski, [1997] O.J. No. 4050; 1997 CarswellOnt 4598 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 171, footnote 71].

Lobo v. Lobo (1999), 240 A.R. 257; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 366; 1999 CarswellAlta 114; 1999 ABQB 107, refd to. [para. 179, footnote 72].

Soyland v. Soyland, [1992] A.W.L.D. 229; 128 A.R. 89; 1992 CarswellAlta. 629; [1992] W.D.F.L. 404 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 179, footnote 73].

P.T. v. R.B. et al., [2002] 2 W.W.R. 530; 296 A.R. 232; 2001 ABQB 739 (Q.B.), affd. (2004), 361 A.R. 163; 339 W.A.C. 163; 242 D.L.R.(4th) 30; 30 Alta. L.R.(4th) 36; 2004 CarswellAlta 906; 2004 ABCA 244, refd to. [para. 183, footnote 74].

Gabriel v. Gabriel (1982), 41 A.R. 363; 30 R.F.L.(2d) 150, refd to. [para. 186, footnote 75].

Peters v. Peters (1999), 253 A.R. 167; 1999 CarswellAlta 1070; 1999 ABQB 874, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 76].

Goetjen v. Goetjen (1981), 41 A.R. 269; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 57; 1981 CarswellAlta 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 187, footnote 77].

Purich v. Purich (1998), 226 A.R. 351; 1998 CarswellAlta 1282; 1998 ABQB 700, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 78].

Brokopp v. Brokopp (1996), 181 A.R. 91; 116 W.A.C. 91; 19 R.F.L.(4th) 1; 1996 CarswellAlta 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 79].

Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 269; 1989 CarswellAlta 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 80].

Quigg v. Quigg (1983), 44 A.R. 5; 24 Alta. L.R.(2d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 81].

Murray v. Murray (1994), 157 A.R. 224; 77 W.A.C. 224; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 46; 10 R.F.L.(4th) 60; 1994 CarswellAlta 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 193, footnote 82].

Hughes v. Hughes, [1999] 6 W.W.R. 243; 232 A.R. 224; 195 W.A.C. 224; 168 D.L.R.(4th) 112; 70 Alta. L.R.(3d) 380; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 319; 1998 CarswellAlta. 1206; 1998 ABCA 409, refd to. [para. 205, footnote 83].

Rohl v. Rohl (1993), 140 A.R. 229; 48 R.F.L.(3d) 220; 1993 CarswellAlta 448 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 207, footnote 84].

Dixon v. Dixon (1981), 14 Man.R.(2d) 40; 25 R.F.L.(2d) 266; 1981 CarswellMan 41 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 210, footnote 85].

Nesbitt v. Nesbitt, [1998] 1 W.W.R. 690; 159 Sask.R. 252; 31 R.F.L.(4th) 297 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 212, footnote 86].

Girouard v. Girouard (1992), 79 Man.R.(2d) 274; 40 R.F.L.(3d) 157 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 215, footnote 88].

East v. East (2000), 201 Sask.R. 264; 2000 CarswellSask 744; 2000 SKQB 557 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 218, footnote 90].

Pallister v. Pallister (1990), 29 R.F.L.(3d) 395; 23 A.C.W.S.(3d) 782; 1990 CarswellOnt 313 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 223, footnote 91].

Iurincic v. Iurincic (1998), 69 O.T.C. 81; 40 R.F.L.(4th) 258; 1998 CarswellOnt 2263 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 225, footnote 92].

McLean v. McLean, [2004] O.T.C. 904; 2004 CarswellOnt 4234 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 227, footnote 93].

Tataryn v. Tataryn, [1984] 3 W.W.R. 97; 30 Sask.R. 282; 38 R.F.L.(2d) 272; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 77; 1984 CarswellSask 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 234, footnote 94].

Sutton v. Davidson (1999), 244 A.R. 126; 209 W.A.C. 126; 76 Alta. L.R.(3d) 216; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 157; 1999 CarswellAlta 941; 1999 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 236, footnote 95].

Diebert v. Calder (2001), 289 A.R. 228; 14 R.F.L.(5th) 21; 2001 ABQB 187, refd to. [para. 244, footnote 96].

Minister of National Revenue v. Tsiaprailis (2005), 330 N.R. 201; 2005 CarswellNat 431 (S.C.C.), affd. [2003] 4 F.C. 112; 301 N.R. 336; 225 D.L.R.(4th) 697; 35 C.C.P.B. 151; [2003] 3 C.T.C. 171; 2003 D.T.C. 5246; 2003 FCA 136, refd to. [para. 247, footnote 97].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225; 1978 CarswellAlta 214, refd to. [para. 250, footnote 98].

Jackson v. Jackson (1989), 97 A.R. 153; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 118; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 442; 1989 CarswellAlta 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 260, footnote 99].

Nicholson v. Nicholson, [1988] A.W.L.D. 818; 87 A.R. 293; [1988] W.D.F.L. 1057; 1988 CarswellAlta 426 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 286, footnote 101].

Mallette v. Robertson, [2004] A.R. Uned. 617; 2004 CarswellAlta 1222; 2004 ABQB 696, refd to. [para. 286, footnote 102].

Souder v. Wereschuk (2004), 357 A.R. 173; 334 W.A.C. 173; 245 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2004 CarswellAlta 1359; 2004 ABCA 339, refd to. [para. 293, footnote 103.

Panara v. De Ascenzo (2005), 361 A.R. 382; 339 W.A.C. 382; 2005 CarswellAlta 135; 2005 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 309, footnote 105].

Berry v. Hart, [2004] 3 W.W.R. 311; 190 B.C.A.C. 108; 311 W.A.C. 108; 233 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 21 B.C.L.R.(4th) 142; 48 R.F.L.(5th) 1; 2003 CarswellBC 2990; 2003 BCCA 659, refd to. [para. 328, footnote 107].

Contino v. Leonelli-Contino (2003), 178 O.A.C. 281; 42 R.F.L.(5th) 295; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 654; 2003 CarswellOnt 4099 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 329, footnote 108].

Green v. Green, [2000] 6 W.W.R. 130; 138 B.C.A.C. 121; 226 W.A.C. 121; 6 R.F.L.(5th) 197; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 37; 75 B.C.L.R.(3d) 306; 2000 CarswellBC 1048; 2000 BCCA 310, refd to. [para. 330, footnote 109].

Slade v. Slade (2001), 197 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 4; 591 A.P.R. 4; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 108; 13 R.F.L.(5th) 187; 2001 NFCA 12, refd to. [para. 110, footnote 339].

Middleton v. MacPherson, [1997] 7 W.W.R. 601; 204 A.R. 37; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 519; 29 R.F.L.(4th) 334; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 152; 1997 CarswellAlta 512, refd to. [para. 340, footnote 111].

Hubic v. Hubic (1997), 157 Sask.R. 150; 1997 CarswellSask 399 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 340, footnote 112].

Moran v. Cook, [2000] O.T.C. 507; 9 R.F.L.(5th) 352; 2000 CarswellOnt 2391 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 345, footnote 113].

Luedke v. Luedke (2004), 198 B.C.A.C. 293; 324 W.A.C. 293; 2004 CarswellBC 1565; 2004 BCCA 327, refd to. [para. 350, footnote 114].

C.R.H.E. v. F.G.E. (2004), 199 B.C.A.C. 269; 326 W.A.C. 269; 29 B.C.L.R.(4th) 43; 1 R.F.L.(6th) 173; 2004 CarswellBC 1157; 2004 BCCA 297, refd to. [para. 351, footnote 115].

Giene v. Giene (1998), 234 A.R. 355; 1998 CarswellAlta 1084; 1998 ABQB 961, refd to. [para. 353, footnote 116].

J.S.B. v. J.C.B., [2003] A.R. Uned. 712; 46 R.F.L.(5th) 233; 2003 ABQB 957, refd to. [para. 353, footnote 117].

Wozniak v. Foster (2001), 293 A.R. 389; 257 W.A.C. 389; 23 R.F.L.(5th) 454; 2001 CarswellAlta 1677; 2001 ABCA 258, refd to. [para. 358, footnote 118].

Demers v. Moar (2004), 361 A.R. 214; 339 W.A.C. 214; 6 R.F.L.(6th) 240; 2004 CarswellAlta 1580; 2004 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 359, footnote 119].

Dahlgren v. Hodgson (1999), 228 A.R. 332; 188 W.A.C. 332; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 176; 1998 CarswellAlta 1243; 1999 ABCA 23, refd to. [para. 365, footnote 120].

Vickers v. Vickers (2001), 194 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 606 A.P.R. 268; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 65; 18 R.F.L.(5th) 431; 2001 CarswellNS 194; 2001 NSCA 96, refd to. [para. 366, footnote 121].

Griffiths v. Griffiths (1999), 242 A.R. 186; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 353; 1999 CarswellAlta 234; 1999 ABQB 193, refd to. [para. 366, footnote 122].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 228; 1999 CarswellOnt 2734, refd to. [para. 367, footnote 123].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 161; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405; 1994 CarswellSask 48, refd to. [para. 370, footnote 124].

Parkes v. Mones (2001), 214 Sask.R. 285; 2001 SKQB 572, refd to. [para. 371, footnote 125].

D.B.S. v. S.R.G. (2005), 361 A.R. 60; 339 W.A.C. 60; 7 R.F.L.(6th) 373; 2005 CarswellAlta 18; 2005 ABCA 2, refd to. [para. 374, footnote 126].

Henry v. Henry (2005), 357 A.R. 388; 334 W.A.C. 388; 7 R.F.L.(6th) 275; 2005 CarswellAlta 17; 2005 ABCA 5, refd to. [para. 374, footnote 127].

Sharpe v. Sharpe, [2005] 1 W.W.R. 430; 180 Man.R.(2d) 305; 310 W.A.C. 305; 8 R.F.L.(4th) 166; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 447; 2004 CarswellMan 59; 2004 MBCA 26, refd to. [para. 385, footnote 129].

Kirk v. Sharpe - see Sharpe v. Sharpe.

Dyck v. Highton, [2004] 8 W.W.R. 265; 239 Sask.R. 38; 111 C.R.R.(2d) 137; 2003 SKQB 396, refd to. [para. 386, footnote 130].

Chalmers v. Chalmers, [1997] A.J. No. 433 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 413, footnote 132].

Giorno v. Giorno (1992), 110 N.S.R.(2d) 87; 299 A.P.R. 87; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 345; 1992 CarswellNS 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 413, footnote 133].

Crawford v. Crawford (1999), 212 N.B.R.(2d) 196; 541 A.P.R. 196; 45 R.F.L.(4th) 211; 1999 CarswellNB 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 413, footnote 134].

Scott v. Scott (2004), 278 N.B.R.(2d) 61; 728 A.P.R. 61; 2004 CarswellNB 587; 2004 NBCA 99, refd to. [para. 413, footnote 135].

MacLean v. MacLean (2004), 274 N.B.R.(2d) 90; 718 A.P.R. 90; 243 D.L.R.(4th) 56; 7 R.F.L.(6th) 125; 2004 CarswellNB 455; 2004 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 424, footnote 138].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 50 C.R.R. 59; 74 O.R.(2d) 763; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 165; 1990 CarswellOnt 366, refd to. [para. 428, footnote 139].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 42 C.R.(5th) 1; 82 C.R.R.(2d) 247; 2001 CarswellOnt 1702; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 428, footnote 140].

R. v. Krymowski (K.) et al. (2005), 330 N.R. 58; 195 O.A.C. 341; 2005 CarswellOnt 634; 2005 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 428, footnote 141].

Olson v. Olson, [2003] 7 W.W.R. 12; 320 A.R. 379; 288 W.A.C. 379; 36 R.F.L.(5th) 196; 225 D.L.R.(4th) 735; 14 Alta. L.R.(4th) 104; 2003 CarswellAlta 254; 2003 ABCA 56, refd to. [para. 428, footnote 142].

Heinemann v. Heinemann, [1989] W.D.F.L. 1027; 91 N.S.R.(2d) 136; 233 A.P.R. 136; 20 R.F.L.(3d) 236; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 648; 1989 CarswellNS 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 430, footnote 143].

Riad v. Riad (2002), 317 A.R. 201; 284 W.A.C. 201; 10 Alta. L.R.(4th) 207; 2002 CarswellAlta 1372; 2002 ABCA 254, refd to. [para. 430, footnote 144].

Brand v. Brand (1996), 186 A.R. 205; 1996 CarswellAlta 596 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 439, footnote 147].

Sharpe v. Sharpe (1997), 22 O.T.C. 298; 27 R.F.L.(4th) 206; 1997 CarswellOnt 227 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 444, footnote 148].

Krause v. Krause, [1976] 2 W.W.R. 622; 23 R.F.L. 219; 64 D.L.R.(3d) 352; 1975 CarswellAlta 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 447, footnote 149].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 513; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 84 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 41; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 117; [1993] R.D.F. 703; 1993 CarswellBC 264, refd to. [para. 447, footnote 150].

Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt, [2001] 11 W.W.R. 233; 286 A.R. 248; 253 W.A.C. 248; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 712; 20 R.F.L.(5th) 409; 97 Alta. L.R.(3d) 238; 2001 CarswellAlta 1357; 2001 ABCA 229, refd to. [para. 447, footnote 151].

Elliot v. Elliot (1993), 65 O.A.C. 241; 48 R.F.L.(3d) 237; 15 O.R.(3d) 265; 106 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 1993 CarswellOnt 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 449, footnote 152].

Spiers v. Spiers, [2003] A.R. Uned. 577; 25 Alta. L.R.(4th) 131; [2004] 9 W.W.R. 371; 2003 CarswellAlta. 1413; 2003 ABQB 830, refd to. [para. 454, footnote 153].

MacLeod v. MacLeod (1999), 190 Sask.R. 90; 3 R.F.L.(5th) 401; 1999 CarswellSask 931; 1999 SKQB 267 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 484, footnote 156].

Strang v. Strang, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 112; 137 N.R. 203; 125 A.R. 331; 14 W.A.C. 331; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 762; 39 R.F.L.(3d) 233; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 1992 CarswellAlta 70, refd to. [para. 485, footnote 157].

Best v. Best, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 868; 242 N.R. 1; 123 O.A.C. 1; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 21 C.C.P.B. 1; 49 R.F.L.(4th) 1; 1999 CarswellOnt 1995, refd to. [para. 485, footnote 158].

Schmidt v. Schmidt, [1998] 6 W.W.R. 624; 102 B.C.A.C. 124; 166 W.A.C. 124; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 94; 36 R.F.L.(4th) 1; 44 B.C.L.R.(3d) 223; 1998 CarswellBC 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 488, footnote 159].

Lawson v. Lawson, [2004] A.R. Uned. 440; 2004 CarswellAlta 1867; 2004 ABQB 415, refd to. [para. 489, footnote 160].

Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn (2001), 150 O.A.C. 149; 19 R.F.L.(5th) 167; 2001 CarswellOnt 3480; C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 493, footnote 161].

Leskun v. Leskun, [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 145; 31 B.C.L.R.(4th) 50; 244 D.L.R.(4th) 612; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 110; 2004 CarswellBC 1779; 2004 BCCA 422, leave to appeal granted (2005), 336 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 513, footnote 162].

Baker v. Baker, [2003] A.R. Uned. 371; 2003 CarswellAlta 866; 2003 ABQB 533, refd to. [para. 523, footnote 165].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 4 [para. 381]; sect. 9 [para. 322]; sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17(1) [para. 355].

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

Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-8, sect. 7(1), sect. 7(2) [para. 157]; sect. 7(3), sect. 7(4), sect. 8 [para. 164]; sect. 36 [para. 191].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Report on Matrimonial Property, Report No. 18 (1975), pp. 60, 61 [para. 221].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 158, footnote 58].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), generally [para. 161, footnote 66]; p. 132 [para. 163, footnote 67].

Ellman, I.M., The Theory of Alimony (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 1, pp. 99, 100 [para. 536, footnote 166].

Grassby, Miriam, Two Income Couples: Presumption of Need for the Lower Income Spouse (2004), 20 C.J.F.L. 322, p. 365 [para. 434, footnote 145].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Leblanc v. Leblanc (1988), 12 R.F.L.(3d) 225, generally [para. 69].

McLeod, James G., and Mamo, Alfred A., Annual Review of Family Law (2000), pp. 218, 219 [para. 523, footnote 165].

Rogerson, Carol, Child Support Under the Guidelines in Cases of Split and Shared Custody (1998), 15 C.J.F.L. 11 (No. 2) 11, pp. 20, 21 [para. 395, footnote 131].

Rogerson, Carol, and Thompson, Rollie, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A Draft Proposal, generally [para. 436, footnote 146].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), generally [para. 161, footnote 66].

Counsel:

Susan L. Zwaenepoel (Cochard Gordon), for the plaintiff;

Jean McBean, Q.C., for the defendant.

This matter was heard on November 8, 2004, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on March 4, 2005.