SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 797-2011
RE: MONIQUE PETTKUS – Applicant v. LOTHAR ERIC PETTKUS - Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
COUNSEL: Jocelyne Paquette-Landry, for the Applicant
Lothar Eric Pettkus, Self-Represented
HEARD: September 15, 2014
DECISION: September 26, 2014
Reasons FOR Decision (correction)
The Reasons for Decision dated September 26, 2014 is corrected to amend para. 9.
[1] This was a one day trial.
[2] Mrs. Monique Pettkus, the Applicant sought an order for divorce and for the equalization of net family property.
[3] The parties were married on February 28, 1976 and separated on January 1, 2011. The Applicant is 73 years of age and the Respondent is 82 years of age. The only contested issue was the appropriate payment to the Respondent by the Applicant to equalize net family property.
[4] The matrimonial home was registered in the Applicant’s name alone. It was sold and the net proceeds of $187,842.54, were deposited into Mrs. Pettkus’ counsel’s trust account.
[5] A completed net family property statement was filed on behalf of the Applicant together with a book of documents corroborating virtually every number contained in the statement. If the court were to accept this evidence the payout to the Respondent would be $23,134.04.
[6] The Respondent represented himself. He did not file a net family property statement. Nonetheless, he challenged the Applicant’s NFP on the basis of two arguments: Firstly, that the Applicant stole close to $500,000 from him during the marriage; Secondly, that the beehive business and related equipment was sold by the Applicant for far too low a price.
Theft of $500,000 allegation
[7] The only evidence remotely connected to this allegation, were photocopies of a series of deposits and purchases of investment certificates that took place in the early 1980s by the Applicant. The simple truth is that they do not prove anything. The transactions took place during the course of the marriage and occurred over 30 years ago.
[8] The Applicant denied any wrong doing. The Respondent simply made the allegation and asked the court to accept it as fact.
[9] There are a myriad of possible explanations for these deposits. A court cannot engage in speculation. The events are so far removed in time that any application or relevance to the issues at this trial is unlikely in the extreme.
[10] This argument is therefore rejected.
Beehive business
[11] The Respondent proudly described the history of his beehive business, he provided photographs of the farm and equipment in the 70s 80s and 90. It appeared to be a thriving enterprise at that time. Furthermore, I have no doubt that Mr. Pettkus was a talented beekeeper.
[12] That being said the sale of the business and equipment for a total of about $6000 was not unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. I come to that conclusion based on the following findings of fact:
• Since at least 2008, the beehive business had been winding down. Income tax returns filed by the Respondent show a very modest income derived from the beehive business.
• Photographs filed by the Applicant show old dilapidated equipment, with only a few beehives seemingly in operation.
• The Respondent was court ordered to obtain a valuation of the beehive business; he chose to ignore the court orders and unfortunately did so at his own peril.
• A report from a government agency investigating the status of the beehives found most of them dead or dying, the effect is that they would have been of little value.
• Mr. Pettkus’ testified and acknowledged that over the last several years there have been a great many diseases affecting bees and that he had been winding down the business over the last several years.
[13] The result is that the amount of money received by the Applicant for disposing of the beehive business and equipment will considered accurate when calculating the correct payout to the Respondent.
[14] Therefore the net equalization payment owed to the Respondent by the Applicant is as stipulated in the net family property statement filed on September 15, 2014 being $23,134.04.
[15] With respect to the issuance of a divorce order, providing that all of the required documentation has been filed, a divorce order is granted and will to effect 31 days from the date of this decision.
Costs
[16] I will entertain two pages of written argument on the issue of costs; counsel for the Applicant is to provide the Respondent with her written argument 15 days from the date of this decision, the Respondent will have 7 days to reply. The material will be delivered to my attention within 22 days of this decision. If the Respondent fails to reply the court will decide the issue on the basis of the Applicant’s written argument.
Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Date: October 29, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 797-2011
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Monique Pettkus
Applicant
AND
Lothar Eric Pettkus
Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
COUNSEL: Jocelyne Paquette-Landry, for the Applicant
Lothar Eric Pettkus, Self-Represented
reasons for decision (correction)
Maranger J.
Released: October 29, 2014