Wright-Watts v. Watts, (2005) 387 A.R. 293 (QB)

• Judge: McMahon, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 26, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 387 A.R. 293 (QB);2005 ABQB 708

Wright-Watts v. Watts (2005), 387 A.R. 293 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. OC.036

Catherine E. Wright-Watts, also known as Catherine Elizabeth Wright (plaintiff) v. Thomas Henry Watts also known as Thomas H. Watts (defendant)

(4801-109103; 2005 ABQB 708)

Indexed As: Wright-Watts v. Watts

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McMahon, J.

September 26, 2005.

Summary:

Spouses commenced an intimate relation­ship in 1991, became engaged in 1992, married in 1996 and separated in 2000. The wife, now 52, had been previously married with two adult children. The husband, now 57, had been previously married twice with one adult daughter. The spouses had no children together. The wife petitioned for a divorce, a distribution of marital property and spousal support. The wife also claimed that their 1991-1996 pre-marital relationship constituted a common law relationship giving rise to a constructive trust claim for unjust enrichment.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a divorce. The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding that there was no pre-marital common law relationship. The court determined and valued the marital property and made an unequal division in the husband's favour. The wife was awarded 25% of property distributable under s. 7(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act and 40% of property distributable under s. 7(4), for a total of $448,070.82. The spousal support claim was dismissed.

Family Law - Topic 314

Marriage - Common law marriage - What constitutes - [See Family Law - Topic 1001 ].

Family Law - Topic 875

Husband and wife - Marital property - Dis­tribution orders - Statutes requiring equal division - Exceptions - Spouses com­menced an intimate relationship in 1991, became engaged in 1992, married in De­cember 1996 and separated in January 2000 - The wife, now 52, had been pre­viously married with two adult children - The husband, now 57, had been previously married twice with one adult daughter - The spouses had no children together - The husband had assets exceeding $4,000,000, of which $1.65 Million was non-exempt and distributable - The wife brought mini­mal assets into the marriage and left with minimal assets - The husband dissipated assets, ignored interim support orders and gifted over $200,000 to friends and fami­lies instead of paying down debts - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered an unequal division of marital property in the husband's favour, given the short duration of the marriage (little over three years) and where most of the divisible assets resulted from increased equity in exempt property brought into the marriage by the husband - The wife was awarded 25% of property distributable under s. 7(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act ($353,053.22) and 40% of property dis­tributable under s. 7(4) ($95,107.60), for a total of $448,070.82 - See paragraphs 29 to 80.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Dis­tribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - General (incl. pre-marriage acquisitions) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "to be considered exempt under s. 7(2) of the [Matrimonial Property Act], proper­ty that a party owned at the time of mar­riage must be 'still owned or traceable into other still owned property' at the time of trial ... While the party claiming an exemp­tion must prove the continued existence of exempt property or its substitute at the time of trial, this court in some cases can infer, imply or presume that exempt prop­erty is traceable. The source of existing property need not be clear and established for such an inference to be drawn; how­ever, there must be a good factual base for, or evidence logically permitting, the draw­ing of an inference that existing property had its source in exempt property." - See paragraph 36.

Family Law - Topic 880.18

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Tracing - [See Fami­ly Law - Topic 880.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 890.5

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Dissipation or disposal of assets - A husband incurred over $200,000 in post-separation losses following heavy trading in the stock market - The husband used revenue and large debt to finance the in­vestments - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a failed in­vestment of matrimonial property in and of itself is not dissipation. A failed investment of matri­monial property in relatively con­servative stock due to market conditions is unlikely to be dissipation. An investment of matri­monial property that is reasonably made and subsequently fails may not con­stitute dissipation, while an investment of matri­monial property unreasonably made and then lost is almost invariably dis­sipation. ... Had the [husband's] trading in the stock market been lighter and had he used only revenue from his real property to finance the trading, I would not have found dis­sipation. ... Here, given the [hus­band's] heavy trading and his incurrence of sig­nificant debt to finance the trading, which I am compelled to characterize as reckless behaviour, I find that the [hus­band] has dissipated matrimonial property" - The court arbitrarily assessed $100,000 in dis­sipated assets to be distributed - See para­graphs 54 to 60.

Family Law - Topic 1000

Common law, same-sex or adult interde­pendent relationships - General - A wife brought a constructive trust claim on the basis that the five year period before she and her husband married constituted a common law marriage - The Adult Inter­dependent Relationships Act came into force on June 1, 2003, and applied to re­lationships arising before or after the Act came into force - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that the Act did not apply to relationships which terminated prior to June 1, 2003 - See paragraph 16.

Family Law - Topic 1001

Common law, same-sex or adult inter­dependent relationships - What constitutes common law relationship - Spouses com­menced an intimate relationship in 1991, became engaged in 1992, married in 1996 and separated in 2000 - The wife, now 52, had been previously married with two adult children - The husband, now 57, had been previously married twice with one adult daughter - The spouses had no chil­dren together - The wife claimed that their 1991-1996 pre-marital relationship consti­tuted a common law relationship giving rise to a constructive trust claim for unjust enrichment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding that the pre-marital relation­ship was not a common law relationship under the Domestic Relations Act - The spouses did not cohabit until they married, although they periodically overnighted - There was no consistent division of house­hold expense or chores, no joint bank accounts or credit cards, no spouse-like provisions in wills and no joint names on property - They socialized as a couple, but there was no evidence that others recog­nized them as a domestic unit - See para­graphs 7 to 24.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation -Spouses separated in January 2000 after a little over three years' marriage - Both had been previously married with adult chil­dren - The husband was now 57 - The wife was now 52 - The wife was an unem­ployed psychiatric nurse - She received almost $450,000 in the marital property division and received interim spousal support for over five years, longer than the period of marriage - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the wife was not entitled to further spousal support - See paragraph 81.

Cases Noticed:

Panara v. Di Ascenzo (2005), 361 A.R. 382; 339 W.A.C. 382; 2005 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 8].

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, refd to. [para. 8].

Sorochan v. Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; 69 N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 8].

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, refd to. [para. 8].

Spracklin v. Kichton (2003), 345 A.R. 324; 2003 ABQB 992, refd to. [para. 16].

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 18].

Spracklin v. Kichton (2000), 278 A.R. 27; 2000 ABQB 812, refd to. [para. 18].

Diebert v. Calder (2001), 289 A.R. 228; 14 R.F.L.(5th) 21; 2001 ABQB 187, refd to. [para. 18].

Medora v. Kohn (2003), 336 A.R. 163; 2003 ABQB 700, refd to. [para. 18].

McEachern v. Fry Estate, [1993] O.J. No. 1731 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

Smithson v. Bock Estate (1998), 217 A.R. 50; 1998 ABQB 110, refd to. [para. 19].

Hodgson v. Hodgson (2005), 361 A.R. 190; 339 W.A.C. 190; 2005 ABCA 13, refd to. [para. 25].

Jackson v. Jackson (1989), 97 A.R. 153; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Roenisch v. Roenisch (1991), 115 A.R. 255; 32 R.F.L.(3d) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Hughes v. Hughes (1998), 232 A.R. 224; 195 W.A.C. 224; 1998 ABCA 409, refd to. [para. 36].

Miller v. Miller (2004), 354 A.R. 321; 329 W.A.C. 321; 5 R.F.L.(6th) 380; 2004 ABCA 257, refd to. [para. 36].

Krolick v. Krolik (1996), 24 R.F.L.(4th) 205 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Sutton v. Davidson (1999), 244 A.R. 126; 209 W.A.C. 126; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 157; 1999 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 42].

Mazurenko v. Mazurenko (1981), 30 A.R. 34; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1981] 2 S.C.R. ix; 39 N.R. 539; 32 A.R. 612, refd to. [para. 45].

Cox. v. Cox (1998), 233 A.R. 258; 1998 ABQB 987, refd to. [para. 55].

Metz v. Metz (2004), 368 A.R. 35; 34 Alta. L.R.(4th) 252; 2004 ABQB 528, refd to. [para. 56].

Tocker v. Tocker et al. (2000), 273 A.R. 257; 2000 ABQB 582, refd to. [para. 57].

Potter v. Potter (2001), 300 A.R. 124; 2001 ABQB 810, refd to. [para. 87].

Boisvert v. Boisvert, 2002 CarswellAlta 634; 2002 ABQB 449, refd to. [para. 59].

Agioritis v. Agioritis (1981), 25 R.F.L.(2d) 256 (Sask. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Dwelle v. Dwelle (1982), 46 A.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Trenchie v. Trenchie (1987), 84 A.R. 188; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 357 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].

Peters v. Peters (1999), 253 A.R. 167; 1999 ABQB 874, refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, S.A. 2002, c. A-4.5, sect. 1(1)(f) [para. 15]; sect. 3 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Lori G. Andreachuk, Q.C., for the plain­tiff;

Glenda F. Graham, Q.C., for the defen­dant.

This case was heard on May 9-20, 2005, before McMahon, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on September 26, 2005.