COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-2524
DATE: 20190603
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ERICA ARMSTRONG
Applicant
– and –
ROBERT ARMSTRONG
Respondent
Katherine Cooligan, for the Applicant
Self-represented
HEARD: May 23, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
Audet J.
[1] By the time this trial was held before me, most of the issues had been resolved. The only disputes that required trial were the following:
- The husband’s claim to exclude two assets from his Net Family Property;
- The husband’s claim for compensation for vacation time taken by him to prepare the matrimonial home for sale;
- The wife’s claim for occupation rent;
- post-separation adjustments claimed by both parties;
- The wife’s request for reimbursement of past special and extraordinary expenses incurred by her for the parties’ two children;
- The wife’s claim for reimbursement of medical and dental expenses incurred by her since the date of the parties’ separation, submitted to the husband’s health insurance plan, and paid to the husband;
- The wife’s request that the husband name her as the beneficiary of his life insurance to secure child support;
- prejudgment interest, and;
- costs
[2] The issues of parenting and past child support were resolved at the last minute settlement conference held three weeks prior to trial before Justice Kershman. This reduced the length of trial from 7 days to 3 days. Then, a few days prior to the commencement of trial, the parties were able to reach agreement on several factual issues, which resulted in this trial requiring only one day.
[3] Most of the facts pertaining to the remaining issues to be decided are not in dispute.
Background
[4] The parties were married on November 16, 1999 after roughly one year of cohabitation. They separated on or about November 6, 2017. The parties have two children from their marriage; Grace Lila-Mary Armstrong (“Grace”), who was born on April 8, 2001 (she is currently 18 years old) and Sarah Maureen Armstrong, who was born on June 7, 2003 (she is almost 15 years old).
[5] Both parties have been employed full-time throughout the marriage. The wife is employed as a law clerk with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and the husband is employed as an operations technician with Environment Canada. They earn a similar income, in the range of $64,000. Pursuant to the Final Order of Justice Kershman dated April 25, 2019 (“the Final Order”), which was made on consent, the wife has sole custody of the two children who live primarily with her. Although the Final Order provides that the children have access with their father in accordance with their wishes, neither child is currently having access with him. This has been the case since the date of separation as far as Grace is concerned, and since February 2018 as far as Sarah is concerned.
[6] Pursuant to the Final Order, the parties have settled the issues of child support and ongoing section 7 expenses, and any future disputes in relation to the children’s post-secondary expenses have been left to be addressed by the parties with Justice Kershman, should it become necessary.
[7] The wife and the children vacated the matrimonial home located at 98 Fieldgate Drive in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 17, 2017 and relocated into their own residence. As such, the husband remained in exclusive possession of the home until it was sold in May 2018. The net proceeds from the sale of the home in the amount of $143,995.75 remain held in trust since that date.
Equalization of Net Family Property
[8] The parties have agreed to the value of all debts and assets that each owned at the date of their marriage and of their separation, with the exception of their household contents and their respective use of funds held in their joint bank account at the time of their separation. The only other issue in dispute related to the equalization of the parties’ Net Family Property is whether the husband is entitled to exclude from his Net Family Property the value of his interest in a farmland owned by him (or not) at the date of the parties’ separation, as well as the value of a monetary gift received from his mother during the parties’ marriage.
Household contents
[9] It is always difficult to assess the fair market value of household contents without a formal appraisal. Given the value of the contents that are in dispute in this case, it would have been unreasonable for either party to insist on a formal appraisal. In her testimony, the wife explained how she searched on various websites such as Kijiji to come up with an estimate of the value of the household contents kept by each of the parties. Her testimony was supported by pictures of the various items retained by each of them, and was the best evidence before me (other than voicing his objections, the husband offered no evidence with regards to value). I accept the wife’s evidence in that regard.
[10] I conclude that for the purpose of equalizing the parties’ Net Family Property, a value of $1700 should be attributed to the household contents retained by the husband and a value of $200 should be attributed to the household contents retained by the wife.
Joint bank account
[11] During his testimony, the husband admitted that all of the funds held by the parties in their Royal Bank joint account was used solely by him after the parties’ separation. As such, the entire value of those funds are attributed to him for the purpose of the equalization calculations.
Farmland
[12] The following facts which are relevant to the husband’s claim for an exclusion of the value of his interest in the farmland property are not disputed:
- The husband’s grandmother, Mary Moore Armstrong, died leaving a Will dated December 14, 1983, which left her farmland, “the Lylestead Farm”, to her four grandchildren, on her death and the death of the husband’s father, William Armstrong. The husband is one of the four grandchildren;
- Pursuant to the husband’s grandmother’s Will, the husband’s father was given a life interest in the farmland, allowing him to continue to carry on the farming business and to collect the net profits therefrom for his own benefit for as long as he wished;
- The husband’s grandmother died on December 5, 1988. This is many years before the parties got married;
- On the date of the parties’ marriage, being November 16, 1999, the husband’s father was still alive;
- Although the husband’s grandmother died in 1988, the transfer of the farmland was only registered on October 13, 2006 from the husband’s father, as the personal representative of his mother’s estate, to the husband’s father as Life Estate and to the husband and his siblings as the Remainders (for one dollar), in accordance with the terms of the husband’s grandmother’s Will;
- The husband’s grandmother’s Will provided that at the husband’s father’s death, the farm was to be transferred to the grandchildren in equal shares as tenants-in-common;
- The husband’s father died on December 23, 2014 at which time his life interest terminated;
- At the time of the parties’ separation, being November 6, 2017, the husband was the registered owner of one quarter of the fair market value of the farmland, along with his siblings;
- On the date of the parties’ marriage, the value of the farmland was $180,000, discounted to $66,000 to account for the husband’s father’s life interest therein. As the husband is one of four beneficiaries of the Will, the value of his interest in the farmland on the date of the parties’ marriage would be $16,507.25;
- On the date of the parties’ separation in 2017, the fair market value of the husband’s interest in the farmland was $77,500 (25% of $310,000);
- In his testimony, the husband admitted that if his father had died before 2006, he would have become the owner of a quarter of the farmland.
[13] The husband takes the position that he had no legal interest in the farmland until the formal registration of the transfer was made in accordance to his grandmother’s Will in 2006. Since he would have become an owner of a quarter of the farmland only at that time, which is after the parties’ marriage, he argues that he is entitled to exclude from the value of his Net Family Property the entire value of his interest in the farmland as of the date of separation.
[14] This argument must clearly fail. Section 4(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”) defines “Net Family Property” as follows:
net family property” means the value of all the property, except property described in subsection (2), that a spouse owns on the valuation date, after deducting,
(a) the spouse’s debts and other liabilities, and
(b) the value of property, other than a matrimonial home, that the spouse owned on the date of the marriage, after deducting the spouse’s debts and other liabilities, other than debts or liabilities related directly to the acquisition or significant improvement of a matrimonial home, calculated as of the date of the marriage.
[15] Section 4(2) of the FLA provides that the value of property that was acquired by gift or inheritance from a third person after the date of the marriage (other than a matrimonial home) does not form part of the spouse’s Net Family Property. Section 4(1) defines “property” as follows:
“property” means any interest, present or future, vested or contingent, in real or personal property and includes […]
[16] There is absolutely no question that upon the death of the husband’s grandmother, the husband acquired a vested proprietary interest in the farmland. While it was subject to the life interest granted to his own father, his proprietary interest in it was bestowed to him unquestionably. Therefore, such interest constituted “property” as defined by the FLA which he owned on the date of the parties’ marriage. Consequently, the husband is entitled to deduct the date of marriage value of his interest in the farmland from the value of his interest therein at the date of separation, but he cannot claim an exclusion of its entire value.
Monetary gift
[17] The husband claims a $7,500 exclusion representing the value of a monetary gift he received from his mother during the parties’ marriage. The husband was ordered on two occasions to provide evidence supporting his claim that this money could be traced into an asset he owned on the date of the parties’ separation, including proof of the deposit and the source of those funds, but he failed to do so. Having no evidence that this monetary gift can be traced to an asset owned by the husband on the date of separation, this claim for an exclusion is also dismissed.
Equalization
[18] As a result, I conclude, based on the Net Family Property Statement attached to this decision as Schedule “A”, that the wife is entitled to an equalization payment in the amount of $81,176.88. In addition to this, the husband’s pension plan with the federal government (which was not included in the equalization calculation) will be divided at source, as agreed to by the parties, and each party is additionally entitled to one half of the net proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, subject to post-separation adjustments and other claims which I will deal with below.
Occupation Rent and Post-Separation Adjustments
[19] Both parties have claimed various post-separation adjustments.
Occupation Rent
[20] It is not disputed that the husband remained in exclusive possession of the matrimonial home from shortly after the parties’ separation, on November 17, 2017, until the home was sold in May 2018. It is also not disputed that the wife moved out of the home and into her own residence with the children on November 17, 2017, requiring her to pay rent elsewhere.
[21] The parties agreed that the value of the occupation rent owing by the wife to the husband, should I find her entitled to it, is $4,500 (being 50% of $1,500 per month, for six months).
[22] Counsel for the wife referred me to the case of Ganie v. Ganie, 2019 ONSC 1128, in which Justice L. Shaw summarized the principles applicable to claims for occupation rent. At para. 287 and 288, the court stated:
287 In Griffiths v. Zambosco (2001), 2001 CanLII 24097 (ON CA), 54 O.R. (3d) 397 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 49-50, Osborne J.A. held that a judge has jurisdiction to order that occupation rent be paid if it is reasonable and equitable to do so. The relevant factors to be considered will vary from case to case. However, in a family law context, some factors are consistently taken into account such as: (a) the timing of the claim for occupation rent; (b) the duration of the occupancy; (c) the inability of the non-resident spouse to realize on his or her equity in the property; (d) any reasonable credits to be set off against occupation rent; and (e) any other competing claims in the litigation. The weight to be given to these and other relevant factors is a matter for the judge to determine.
288 In Higgins v. Higgins (2001), 2001 CanLII 28223 (ON SC), 19 R.F.L. (5th) 300 (Ont. S.C.J.), Quinn J., after reviewing the jurisprudence, stated at para. 53, that the following factors must be considered in making an order for occupation rent:
(a) the conduct of the non-occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;
(b) the conduct of the occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;
(c) delay in making the claim;
(d) the extent to which the non-occupying spouse has been prevented from having access to his or her equity in the home;
(e) whether the non-occupying spouse moved for the sale of the home and, if not, why not;
(f) whether the occupying spouse paid the mortgage and other carrying charges of the home;
(g) whether children resided with the occupying spouse and, if so, whether the non-occupying spouse paid, or was able to pay, child support;
(h) whether the occupying spouse has increased the selling value of the property; and
(i) ouster is not required.
[23] In considering these factors, I make the following findings:
- Before the wife made the decision to leave the matrimonial home, she expressed to the husband her wish to remain in the home with the children. The husband refused to leave. In his testimony, he expressed the view that since the wife had chosen to leave the marriage, she also needed to leave the home;
- Shortly after the parties’ separation, the wife told the husband that she was prepared to sell him her interest in the matrimonial home. As it quickly became apparent that the husband would not cooperate in that process, she made it clear that she wanted to put the home up for sale immediately, so as to allow her to access her equity therein;
- The wife filed her application on December 6, 2017, exactly one month after the parties’ separation and her application contained a claim for occupational rent. Her request for the home to be put up for sale was made clear to the husband from very early on and she did not waver from that position thereafter;
- The husband only consented to put the matrimonial home up for sale in the context of the Case Conference held in March 2018. It was sold very quickly and the closing occurred less than two months after, in May 2018;
- During the first three months after the parties’ separation and until a few days before the March Case Conference, the father refused to pay child support, insisting to set-off his child support obligations from other claims he was advancing in relation to the payment of debts and the division of the parties’ property;
- During the months that preceded the Case Conference, the father was quite resistant to paying for any of the children’s special and extraordinary expenses and, as a result, accumulated some arrears in that regard;
- Although the father consented to a temporary order at the Case Conference confirming that he owed $1,207 in child support arrears, he subsequently refused to pay those arrears because he was of the view that they had been miscalculated. Those arrears are still owing today;
- The husband also withheld his insurer’s reimbursements for medical and dental expenses incurred by the wife and submitted by her to the husband’s insurer, once again taking the position that those payments should be set-off from amounts he claimed were owed by the wife on account of joint debts and claims related to the division of the parties’ property. This is despite the wife’s express acknowledgement that she was responsible for some of those debts and that those amounts would later be set-off against her equalization payment;
- Although it was clear from very early on in these proceedings that the husband would be the one owing an equalization payment to the wife, he refused to allow her to access her 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale of the home, maintaining the position that they were either disbursed to both parties or to none;
- As a result of all of the above, the wife had to increase her debt load in order to fund her and the children’s day-to-day expenses, incurring interests on those debts;
- The husband assumed all of the household expenses related to the matrimonial home from November 2017 until its sale in May 2018. There was no traditional mortgage registered against the home, only a mortgaged line of credit. During those six months, the husband paid the interests only, along with the property taxes, home insurance and utilities.
[24] Based on those facts, I find that the wife is entitled to occupation rent from December 2017 to and including May 2018, which is set at $4,500.
[25] From that amount, I deduct one half of the following household expenses assumed solely by the husband during those months, which were the joint responsibility of both owners:
− interest on the joint mortgage line of credit: $2,148.12
− home insurance: $358.90
− property taxes: $1,703.02
− for a total of: $4,210.04
− the wife’s 50% share: $2,105.02
The net amount owing by the husband to the wife is therefore $2,394.98.
The wife’s use of the joint line of credit post-separation
[26] It is not disputed that on or about the time she left the matrimonial home, the wife borrowed money from the parties’ joint line of credit to pay for personal expenses as well as for legal fees. She also used the parties’ joint line of credit to pay off joint debts as well as the cost of Sarah’s dance lessons. While the wife’s personal expenses paid with the joint line of credit are her sole responsibility, the other expenses (joint debts and Sarah’s dance expenses) were the joint responsibility of both parties and as such no adjustment is required in that regard.
[27] It is not disputed that the total borrowed by the wife from the parties’ joint line of credit for her personal purposes is $12,461.29 (comprising of: $811.29 in personal charges, $7,500 in legal fees and $4,150 for first and last month’s rent). As the parties’ joint line of credit was fully repaid with the proceeds from the sale of the home, the wife has already repaid one half of those amounts, and the husband is entitled to the reimbursement of the one half paid by him from his share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, being $6,230.65.
Expenses related to the sale of the matrimonial home
[28] The husband is seeking the reimbursement of one half of the cost (50% of $389.85, being $194.92) of the dumpster truck he used to dispose of many items contained in the matrimonial home for the purpose of its sale. The wife does not dispute her responsibility in that regard.
[29] The wife is seeking the reimbursement of one half of the costs of a cleaning lady (50% of $120) that she had to hire the day before the closing of the sale of the matrimonial home to clean up the home. This is agreed to by the husband.
[30] The husband seeks compensation for the time he had to take off work to prepare the matrimonial home for sale. He used vacation and sick days for that purpose and seeks to be compensated at the rate of $15 an hour for 14 days. The husband’s claim in that regard is dismissed. The evidence before me makes it clear that the wife used at least as many vacation days to clean up the house as well, and to move her and the children out of the matrimonial home. She also had to take one day off of work to remove all of the contents left behind by the husband on the day before the closing of the sale of the matrimonial home.
[31] Finally, the husband seeks the reimbursement of one half of the costs he was required to incur to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of his interest in the farmland for the purpose of this litigation. This claim is also denied. The husband’s interest in the farmland is property that he owned in his sole name and that he was required to value for the purpose of this litigation. This expense is his sole responsibility, subject to any costs award that I may make later in the context of my assessment of the parties’ claims for costs.
Section 7 expenses
[32] The evidence before me shows that the husband owes the wife $1,806.19 on account of past special and extraordinary expenses incurred by her from the date of the parties’ separation to the date of the Final Order. The evidence presented by the wife during the course of trial was very thorough and supported by all relevant receipts as well as a detailed chart highlighting amounts paid by the wife, reimbursed by the father, and still outstanding. They comprise of medical, dental and counselling expenses for the children which are all proper section 7 expenses, and costs related to Sarah’s competitive dance, in which she was already heavily engaged before the parties’ separation. I accept all of these expenses as proper s. 7 expenses.
[33] The father disputes the need for math tutoring expenses for Sarah as well as his obligation to pay for the cost of Grace’s driver’s education course. I find that Sarah benefited greatly from her math tutoring, and therefore, this was a necessary and reasonable expense for her. I also find that the cost of Grace’s drivers’ course was necessary and reasonable as well. It is to be noted that the husband agreed to pay for Sarah’s drivers education course, as confirmed in the Final Order, and I fail to see why he should not also have contributed to Grace’s.
[34] The husband, therefore, owes the wife $1,806.19 on account of past special and extraordinary expenses.
Medical and Dental expenses
[35] The husband does not dispute that he owes the wife $481.93 on account of reimbursements received by him from his health insurer on account of health expenses incurred by the wife.
Conclusion
[36] In the end, the wife owes the husband a net amount of $1,682.47 on account of post-separation adjustments, calculated as follows:
Wife Husband
− net occupation rent: $2,394.98
− use of joint line of credit: $6,230.65
− Mr. Dumpster: $194.92
− cleaning costs: $60.00
− s. 7 expenses: $1,806.19
− medical and dental expenses: $481.93 ________
− Owed by wife to husband: $4,743.10
− Owed by husband to wife: $6,425.57
Pre-judgment interests
[37] I see no reason why the wife should be denied pre-judgment interest on the equalization payment owed to her. The equalization payment results from the discrepancy in the value of assets owned by each of the parties at the date of their separation in their sole name. The wife is entitled to pre-judgment interest on her equalization payment, calculated at the rate of 1% for 18 months, in the amount of $1,217.65. This amount is to be deducted from the above post-separation adjustments owed by the wife to the husband.
Conclusion
[38] In light of the above, the husband owes the wife an equalization payment in the amount of $80,712.06, being her equalization payment of $81,176.88, minus net post-separation adjustments owed by her of $1,682.47, plus pre-judgment interests of $1,217.65.
[39] The above equalization payment shall be repaid by the husband to the wife through his share of the net proceeds from the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home, currently held in trust, and any balance owing shall be paid by certified cheque within 15 days.
Life Insurance
[40] The father agrees to maintain a life insurance policy on his life in the amount of $100,000.00 naming the Applicant as irrevocable beneficiary in trust for the children, and I so order.
Divorce
[41] A divorce is hereby granted.
Other
[42] On consent of both parties, a number of corollary orders will issue to facilitate the claiming and payment of future medical and dental expenses for the children, the yearly financial disclosure, and the division of the husband’s pension plan.
Costs
[43] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, I will accept written submissions not exceeding five pages (excluding Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle), in accordance with the following timelines:
- The wife shall provide her submissions within 20 days from this decision;
- The husband shall provide his submissions within 20 days from the date of service of the wife’s submissions;
- The wife will have 7 days thereafter to provide a brief reply, if necessary, not exceeding 2 pages.
Madam Justide Julie Audet
Released: June 3, 2019
Schedule "A"
ONTARIO Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Court File Number: FC-17-2524-0 at: 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa ON K2P 2K1
Form 13B: Net Family Property Statement
Applicant(s) Erica Armstrong Katherine A. Cooligan Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 100 Queen Street, Suite 1300 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 Tel: (613) 787-3565 Fax: (613) 230-8842 kcooligan@blg.com Box 368
Respondent(s) Robert Armstrong 757 Everton Way Ottawa ON K1V 1C7
My name is (full legal name): Erica Armstrong The valuation date for the following material is (date): November 6, 2017 The date of marriage is (date): November 16, 1999
Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date (List in the order of the categories in the financial statement)
PART 4(a): LAND
| Nature & Type of Ownership (State percentage interest) | Address of Property | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matrimonial Home | 98 Fieldgate Dr., Nepean ON (joint – sold May 2018) | $147,500.00 | $147,500.00 |
| Farm land | 200 Armstrong Rd., Smith Falls ON (25% interest) | $77,500.00 | |
| 15. Totals: Value of Land | $147,500.00 | $225,000.00 |
PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES
| Item | Description | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household goods & furniture | TV, TV stand, chair and curio cabinet | $200.00 | |
| Master bedroom, child’s bedroom, living room, buffet, TV with other electronic equipment, kitchen table with contents, two freezers, small appliances, barbecue, lawnmower, tools and treadmill | $1,700.00 | ||
| Cars, boats, vehicles | 2014 KIA Rondo | $6,000.00 | |
| 2016 F150 Ford truck | $40,000.00 | ||
| 2004 ski-doo | $565.00 | ||
| Jewellery, art, electronics, tools, sports & hobby, equipment | |||
| Other special items | |||
| 16. Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles | $6,200.00 | $42,265.00 |
PART 4(c): BANK ACCOUNTS AND SAVINGS, SECURITIES AND PENSIONS
| Category (Savings, Checking, GIC, RRSP, Pensions, etc.) | Institution | Account Number | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank | 7051386 | $352.98 | |
| Chequing | Royal Bank (joint $565.03 on date of separation – balance at time account closed attributed to husband solely) | 5007448 | $2,075.00 | |
| RRSP | Manulife Financial | RS100300/08316 | $54,351.89 | |
| RRSP | Sun Life Financial | $77,359.09 | ||
| Bonds | Canada Savings Bonds | 2147449961 | $200.03 | |
| Vacation pay | Borden Ladner Gervais | $659.42 | ||
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank (joint with Sarah but funds belong to Sarah) ($450.84 on date of separation) | 5115274 | ||
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank (joint with Sarah but funds belong to Sarah) ($218.58 on date of separation) | 5079363 | ||
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank (joint with Grace but funds belong to Grace) ($746.13 on date of separation) | 5147111 | ||
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank (joint with Grace but funds belong to Grace) ($1,850.02 on date of separation) | 5130422 | ||
| Bank acct. | Royal Bank (joint with Marie West – for estate purposes only) ($23,656.24 on the date of separation) | 5033790 | ||
| Chequing | Royal Bank | 7603558 | $10,558.73 | |
| Savings | Royal Bank | 5040118 | $60,529.09 | |
| RRSP | Royal Bank (as at November 20, 2017) | 303397822 | $90,845.34 | |
| RRSP | Primerica Life Insurance (as at December 31, 2017) | 60022357 | $10,446.17 | |
| RSP | RBC Dominion Securities Inc. | 494-31105-1-2 | $0.00 | |
| TFSA | Royal Bank (as at November 20, 2017) | 563818491 | $39,306.02 | |
| Pension | Federal government ($266,338.18 – to be divided) | 001221925 | ||
| Vacation | Federal government (as at November 16, 2017) | $5,974.25 | ||
| Severance | Federal government (cashed out in June 2011) | N/A | ||
| Sick leave | Federal government (no monetary value) | N/A | ||
| 17. Totals: Value of Accounts And Savings | $132,923.41 | $219,734.60 |
PART 4(d): LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
| Company, Type & Policy No. | Owner | Beneficiary | Face Amount ($) | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Through employment | $127,000 | No CSV | |||
| Through employment | 2x salary | No CSV | |||
| Foresters Financial policy no. 001 A00039200 (as at January 12, 2018) | Husband | Maureen Armstrong | $1,000 | $4,891.06 | |
| Combined Insurance accident policy no. 27887652 | Husband | Unknown | No CSV | ||
| 18. Totals: Cash Surrender Value Of Insurance Policies | $0.00 | $4,891.06 |
PART 4(e): BUSINESS INTERESTS
| Name of Firm or Company | Interests | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19. Totals: Value Of Business Interests | $0.00 | $0.00 |
PART 4(f): MONEY OWED TO YOU
| Details | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 Income Tax refunds (wife’s refund $1,399.17 pro-rated for 10 months and husband’s refund $85.63 pro-rated for 10 months) | $1,165.98 | $71.36 |
| 2016 child tax benefit | $3,578.30 | |
| 20. Totals: Money Owed To You | $4,744.28 | $71.36 |
PART 4(g): OTHER PROPERTY
| Category | Details | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reward points | Royal Bank Visa (2,970 points as at November 10, 2017 @ 0.00714285714) | $21.21 | |
| Westjet dollars | Royal Bank MasterCard | $179.00 | |
| Airmiles | 2,837 miles @ 0.10526315789 | $298.63 | |
| Petro Points | 768,792 points @ 0.001 | $768.79 | |
| Cash back | Royal Bank MasterCard cash back | $50.43 | |
| 21. Totals: Value Of Other Property | $1,267.63 | $50.43 |
22. VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE, (TOTAL 1) (Add: items [15] to [21]) APPLICANT: $292,635.32 RESPONDENT: $492,012.45
Table 2: Value Of Debts and Liabilities on Valuation Date
PART 5: DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES
| Category | Details | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matrimonial Home | CIBC Home Equity line of credit account no. 01086-01-96932 (joint – paid with proceeds of sale from matrimonial home) | $68,351.59 | $68,351.59 |
| Real estate commission | Re/Max (joint) | $6,667.00 | $6,667.00 |
| Legal fees & disbursements | KMH Lawyers (joint) | $627.54 | $627.54 |
| Car loan | Scotiabank account no. 564165838212 | $9,132.30 | |
| Credit card | CIBC Visa account ending 1904 (joint) | $736.07 | $736.07 |
| Credit card | Royal Bank MasterCard account ending 4518 | $954.53 | |
| Credit card | Royal Bank Visa account ending 9352 | $492.37 | |
| Promissory note | Marie West | $5,200.00 | |
| Truck maintenance program | Budco Financial | $185.12 | |
| Credit card | Royal Bank MasterCard account ending 5157 | $675.42 | |
| Notional tax | RRSPs @ 20% | $26,342.20 | $20,258.30 |
| Notional tax | Vacation pay @ 22% | $145.07 | $1,314.34 |
| 23. Totals: Debts And Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2) | $118,648.67 | $98,815.38 |
Table 3: Net value on date of marriage of property (other than a matrimonial home) after deducting debts or other liabilities on date of marriage (other than those relating directly to the purchase or significant improvement of a matrimonial home)
PART 6: PROPERTY, DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES ON DATE OF MARRIAGE
| Category and Details | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| Land Husband - Farm land, 200 Armstrong Rd., Smith Falls ON, “remainder man” interest, $66,029 (25% interest) |
$0.00 | $16,507.25 |
| General household items & vehicles | $0.00 | |
| Bank accounts, savings, securities, pensions Husband - Royal Bank chequing account no. 7603558, $16,834.54 - Royal Bank RRSP account no. 303397822, $18,285.21 (as at September 30, 1999) - Royal Bank RRSP account no. 035129576, $3,735.17 (as at September 30, 1999 – account closed March 7, 2000) - Primerica Life Insurance RRSP account no. 60022357, $4,042.84 - RBC Dominion Securities RSP account no. 494-31105-1-2, $500 |
$0.00 | $43,397.76 |
| Life & disability insurance Husband - Foresters Financial life insurance policy no. 001 A00039200, $2,264.29 (as at December 1999) |
$0.00 | $2,264.29 |
| Business interests | $0.00 | |
| Money owed to you | $0.00 | |
| Other property (Specify.) | $0.00 | |
| 3(a) TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS | $0.00 | $62,169.30 |
| Debts and other liabilities (Specify.) Husband - Notional tax on RRSPs @ 20% |
$0.00 | $5,312.64 |
| 3(b) TOTAL OF DEBTS ITEMS | $0.00 | $5,312.64 |
| 24. NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE, (NET TOTAL 3) | $0.00 | $56,856.66 |
Table 4: PART 7: VALUE OF PROPERTY EXCLUDED UNDER SUBS. 4(2) OF "FAMILY LAW ACT"
| Item | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| Gift or inheritance from third person | ||
| Income from property expressly excluded by donor/testator | ||
| Damages and settlements for personal injuries, etc. | ||
| Life insurance proceeds | ||
| Traced property | ||
| Excluded property by spousal agreement | ||
| Other Excluded Property | ||
| 26. TOTALS: VALUE OF EXCLUDED PROPERTY, (TOTAL 4) | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Summary
| APPLICANT | RESPONDENT | |
|---|---|---|
| TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities (item 23) | $118,648.67 | $98,815.38 |
| TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage (item 24) | $0.00 | $56,856.66 |
| TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property (item 26) | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4) | $118,648.67 | $155,672.04 |
| APPLICANT | RESPONDENT | |
|---|---|---|
| TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date (item 22) | $292,635.32 | $492,012.45 |
| TOTAL 5: (from above) | $118,648.67 | $155,672.04 |
| TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5) | $173,986.65 | $336,340.41 |
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
| Applicant Pays Respondent | Respondent Pays Applicant |
|---|---|
| $0.00 | $81,176.88 |
COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-2524
DATE: 20190603
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ERICA ARMSTRONG
Applicant
– and –
ROBERT ARMSTRONG
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
Released: June 3, 2019