Wright v. Wright, 2002 MBQB 11

• Judge: Goodman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 10, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2002 MBQB 11;(2002), 162 Man.R.(2d) 12 (QBFD)

Wright v. Wright (2002), 162 Man.R.(2d) 12 (QBFD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.024

Lenore Dianne Wright (petitioner) v. Robert Kenneth Wright (respondent)

(FD 97-01-51104; 2002 MBQB 11)

Indexed As: Wright v. Wright

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Winnipeg Centre

Goodman, J.

January 10, 2002.

Summary:

A couple separated after 27.5 years of marriage. At issue were: spousal support; the wife's entitlement to a share of the husband's sick leave benefit; compensation to the wife for her contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial home and whether the wife's vehicle and the husband's line of credit debt were to be included in the accounting under the Marital Property Act.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, determined spousal support. The court held that the wife was entitled to a share of the husband's sick leave benefits. She was not entitled to compensation for her contribution to the purchase of the marital home. The court held that the wife's vehicle was a family asset and the husband's line of credit was a family debt.

Family Law - Topic 637

Husband and wife - Marital property - Constructive trusts - Following her father's death, a wife received a $50,000 gift from her mother - Subsequently, the wife became interested in purchasing a new house - They had previously paid off their mortgage and the husband did not want to enter into another mortgage - However, they purchased the new home and the wife contributed the $50,000 gift towards the purchase price - The couple separated - The wife claimed compensation for her contribution to the purchase of the marital home by way of constructive trust - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that there was no constructive trust - When the couple purchased the home, they did not contemplate separation - The court stated that it should not weigh the contributions of a husband and wife in the purchase of a marital home which they agreed to share in joint tenancy - See paragraphs 49 to 55.

Family Law - Topic 880.3

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Gift, trust, bequest or award - A couple purchased a vehicle - The vehicle was primarily used by the wife - Payments were made from the couple's joint account - Subsequently, the wife's mother gifted her $18,900, which she used to pay off the balance owing on the vehicle - The couple separated - The wife retained the vehicle - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the vehicle was to be included in the accounting of marital property - The mother's gift was not shareable - However, the wife used the gift to pay off the balance owing on a family asset - See paragraphs 56 to 58.

Family Law - Topic 880.51

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Sick leave benefits - A couple separated after 27.5 years' marriage - The husband had a sick leave benefit - He was not entitled to cash in the sick leave benefit until he retired - Injury or illness could cause him to utilize his sick leave benefits - If the husband had retired at the date of separation, he would have been entitled to a sick leave cash out benefit of $52,558 - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the wife was entitled to a share in the husband's sick leave benefit - The court adopted the formula for sharing pension benefits used in George v. George (Man. C.A.) to determine the wife's interest - The court ordered that, on his retirement, the husband would share any remaining sick leave benefit with the wife in accordance with the formula - See paragraphs 39 to 48.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - A couple separated after 27.5 years' marriage - The wife sought spousal support - She had been the homemaker and primary care giver for the children - It was unlikely that the wife would ever be able to hold remunerative employment because of her medical condition and educational background - The husband conceded that the mother was entitled to spousal support - He paid her $1,800 per month for 3.5 years - In 2000, the husband's income was $6,405 per month - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, increased spousal support to $2,100 per month - See paragraphs 30 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Alger v. Alger (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 211 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hilderley v. Hilderley (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 383 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Cliche v. Cliche (1991), 36 R.F.L.(3d) 297 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Woodman v. Deremo, [1994] O.J. No. 2419 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1996] O.J. No. 2619 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Leavoy v. Leavoy, [2000] O.J. No. 3427, refd to. [para. 44].

George v. George (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 89 (C.A.), folld. [para. 45].

Sidorski v. Sidorski (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 51].

Smith v. Smith (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 206; 18 R.F.L.(2d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Schroeder v. Schroeder (2002), 163 Man.R.(2d) 57; 269 W.A.C. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Counsel:

Alain J. Hogue, for the petitioner;

George J. Orle, Q.C., for the respondent.

This matter was heard by Goodman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on January 10, 2002.