Tinant v. Tinant, 2001 ABQB 889

• Judge: Dea, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 24, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 889;(2001), 301 A.R. 150 (QB)

Tinant v. Tinant (2001), 301 A.R. 150 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.143

Constance Minerva Tinant (plaintiff) v. Roger Felix Tinant (defendant)

(Action No. 4803 108280; 2001 ABQB 889)

Indexed As: Tinant v. Tinant

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Dea, J.

October 18, 2001.

Summary:

The parties married in 1985, separated in 1997, and divorced in 2001. Joint custody was granted with respect to their two children, the principal residence of the son being with the husband and the principal residence of the daughter being with the wife. At issue in this trial were division of matrimonial property, an injunction, arrears of existing support, the incomes of the parties, spousal support and child maintenance.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - General - Including pre-marriage acquisitions - [See Family Law - Topic 880.18 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.18

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Tracing - The parties divorced - The husband had owned a funeral home prior to the marriage, which he sold after the marriage for $124,275, and a lot with a house - The husband put the $124,275 into a bank account in his name (the Gain Account) - The house on the lot burned and insurance proceeds of $20,000 were paid to the husband and put into the Gain Account - The lot was transferred to one of the husband's companies -The husband argued that the assets from the funeral business sale were exempt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed an exemption of $15,000 on the lot - The exempt status of the $124,275 from the funeral home and the $20,000 insurance proceeds was lost where those funds had been intermingled with other funds in the Gain Account and there were no existing assets to which the funds were traced - The interest payments on the funds were never exempt and all of those assets had merged and their exempt character had been lost - See paragraphs 19 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Calculation or attribution of income - A wife's annual income was shown as $10,500 - This came from farm rentals and wages earned as a dental assistant two days a week and from some additional income as a bartender - The wife suffered from angina, celiac disease and osteoporosis, which made carrying on employment difficult for her - However, the evidence of her doctors suggested that she could work three days a week and the wife wanted to do that, although she expressed some concern respecting her abilities - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the evidence indicated that a three day work week was within the wife's abilities and that it was prepared to impute the further day to her present regime, which would increase her annual income for child support purposes from $10,500 to $15,750 - See paragraphs 42 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

Hughes v. Hughes (1998), 232 A.R. 224; 195 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hrycak v. Hrycak (2000), 261 A.R. 349; 225 W.A.C. 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Louise M. Ares, Q.C. (Ares Barker), for the plaintiff;

Michael L. Pollock (Pollock Stothert-Kennedy), for the defendant.

This action was heard on September 24, 2001, before Dea, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 18, 2001.