Veselic-Titheridge v. Titheridge, (2007) 427 A.R. 384 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 03, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: (2007), 427 A.R. 384 (QB);2007 ABQB 456

Veselic-Titheridge v. Titheridge (2007), 427 A.R. 384 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JL.070

Sherry Marie Veselic-Titheridge (respondent/plaintiff) v. Trevor George Titheridge (applicant/defendant)

(FL01 02550; 2007 ABQB 456)

Indexed As: Veselic-Titheridge v. Titheridge

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Veit, J.

July 6, 2007.

Summary:

Spouses married in 1995 and separated in 2006. At issue was the right to exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the wife was entitled to possession of the matrimonial home. She had much less in the way of financial resources than did her husband. Moreover, the balance of convenience favoured the wife.

Family Law - Topic 631

Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - Right to possession of - Spouses married in 1995 and separated in 2006 - The husband had two adult children - The wife had one adult child - They had no children together - The matrimonial home was an acreage appraised at $12.7 million - The husband had property worth $10 million and annual income of at least $1.3 million - The wife had annual income of $500,000 - At issue was the right to exclusive possession of the matrimonial home - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the wife was entitled to possession of the matrimonial home - The children were independent - The wife had much less in the way of financial resources then did her husband, more need of the property and fewer options available to her than the husband - The balance of convenience favoured the wife - See paragraphs 23 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Karpow v. Go Vacations Canada Ltd. et al. (1994), 154 A.R. 303 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 6].

Suncor Inc. v. Canada Wire and Cable Ltd. et al. (1990), 114 A.R. 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

C.J.D. v. R.I.J., [2003] A.R. Uned. 457; 2003 ABQB 702, refd to. [para. 6].

North West Trust Co. v. Modest Investments Ltd. et al. (1987), 77 A.R. 282 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 6].

Barefoot v. Paranet Services Inc. (2000), 185 N.S.R.(2d) 88; 575 A.P.R. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Verburg v. Verburg (1994), 153 A.R. 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

Wakeford v. Wakeford (2000), 279 A.R. 382; 2000 ABQB 964, refd to. [para. 6].

Kronenberger v. Kronenberger (1977), 4 A.R. 546; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 121 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Brody v. Brody (1976), 1 A.R. 470 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hickey v. Hickey (1980), 13 Alta. L.R.(2d) 39 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Verburg v. Verburg (1995), 172 A.R. 380 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Grunenwald v. Grunenwald, [2006] A.R. Uned. 261; 2006 ABQB 186, refd to. [para. 7].

Timms v. Timms (1997), 203 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Herchuk v. Herchuk (1982), 44 A.R. 193 (Q.B.), revd. (1983), 48 A.R. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

P.Y. v. E.W.Y. - see Yakemchuk v. Yakemchuk.

Yakemchuk v. Yakemchuk (2000), 283 A.R. 162 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Chevron Canada Resources et al. v. Canada (1998), 239 A.R. 138; 68 Alta. L.R.(3d) 90 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Millington v. Loring (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

C.L.M. v. D.G.W. (2004), 346 A.R. 381; 320 W.A.C. 381; 2004 ABCA 112, refd to. [para. 8].

Silva v. Silva (1990), 42 O.A.C. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Robert W. Calvert, Q.C. (Davis LLP), for Mr. Titheridge;

Pam L. Bell (Daunais Boyes), for Ms. Veselic-Titheridge.

This application was heard on July 3, 2007, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on July 6, 2007.