COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-100-00 DATE: 2024-03-13

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Pamela Joan Peters Applicant

- and -

Robert Ernest Colin Peters Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau

COUNSEL: B. Morgan, for the Applicant B. White, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 18, 19 and 20, 2023, and By Written Final Submissions at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Reasons For Judgment

Introduction

[1] The Applicant, Pamela Joan Peters (“Ms. Peters”) and the Respondent, Robert Ernest Peters (“Mr. Peters”) were married on December 26, 2007, and separated on October 10, 2018. The parties seek a Divorce Order and an equalization of their net family properties (“NFP’s”).

[2] Ms. Peters frames the issues to be determined as follows:

1. Is the jointly owned residence located at 1033 Colonization Road West, Fort Frances, Ontario (the “Colonization Rd. home”) a matrimonial home within the meaning of section 18 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.F.3 (the “FLA”);
2. Is the residence located at 931 McKenzie Avenue, Fort Frances, Ontario (the “McKenzie Ave. home”), owned by Ms. Peters on the date of marriage and sold on July 8, 2011, a matrimonial home within the meaning of section 18 of the FLA;
3. What should Mr. Peters pay to Ms. Peters as reimbursement for post-separation expenses paid by Ms. Peters? It is agreed that Ms. Peters paid $70,034.58 post-separation on what she claims were joint debts;
4. The value of Mr. Peters’ date of marriage assets.

[3] Mr. Peters agrees that issues 1, 3 and 4 above, are in issue. He submits that the following are also in issue:

1. The value of his household contents/tools/bank accounts on the valuation date;
2. The balance of his debts on the valuation date.

[4] With respect to issue 2, Mr. Peters maintained at trial that the status of the McKenzie Ave. home remained in issue. However, in final submissions, Mr. Peters did not identify this as an issue and did not make any submissions in response to Ms. Peters’ position that the McKenzie Ave. home was not a matrimonial home because it was sold prior to the valuation date.

[5] It is not in issue that the McKenzie Ave. home owned by Ms. Peters on the date of marriage was sold on July 8, 2011, seven years prior to the valuation date. There is no basis to suggest that this residence qualifies as a matrimonial home within the meaning of section 18 of the FLA and I therefore find that the McKenzie Ave. home was not a matrimonial home. The parties have agreed that the value of the McKenzie Ave. home on the date of marriage was $50,000.

[6] In addition to the specific issues outlined above, the valuation date and date of marriage values of many miscellaneous assets remained in dispute at trial. To their credit, the parties have agreed on many of the values required to equalize their NFP’s. These agreed upon values will be indicated as such in my equalization calculation attached to these Reasons. My summary of each party’s evidence will only refer to disputed values and issues.

The Evidence of the Applicant

[7] Ms. Peters was born on February 29, 1964, and was 59 years old at the time of trial. Ms. Peters resides in Fort Frances and works in Dryden as an administrative assistant at an accounting firm.

[8] When the parties married on December 26, 2007, Ms. Peters was employed in Fort Frances and resided in the McKenzie Ave. home, while Mr. Peters was employed in, and resided in an apartment in, Balmertown. For a period of time after they were married, Mr. Peters resided with Ms. Peters in the McKenzie Ave. home when he was not working and was in Fort Frances.

[9] The McKenzie Ave. home was sold on July 8, 2011. Ms. Peters then moved to Balmertown and resided with Mr. Peters in his Balmertown apartment. While residing in Balmertown, the parties purchased property at 79 and 81 Detta Road, also in Balmertown, and built a home. The property at 79 and 81 Detta Road shall be referred to collectively as the “Balmertown residence”. The Balmertown residence was sold after separation and net sale proceeds in the amount of $117,620.98 remain in trust pending the resolution of this trial.

[10] The Colonization Rd. home was owned solely by Mr. Peters on the date of marriage. At that time, Mr. Peters was working and residing in Balmertown and renting out the Colonization Rd. home. The tenants were evicted in 2009. Ms. Peters testified that the home had been extensively damaged by the tenants and that she and Mr. Peters jointly contributed to the labour required to clean and repair the home.

[11] Ms. Peters acknowledged that Mr. Peters purchased, via his credit cards, materials in the approximate amount of $15,000 to complete the required repairs. She testified that payments on these credit accounts were made from the parties’ joint RBC account. According to Ms. Peters, these repairs “tripled or quadrupled” the value of the Colonization Rd. home.

[12] In 2011, Mr. Peters placed a collateral $80,000 mortgage on the Colonization Rd. home, securing a CIBC Line of Credit (#...1136) which he had taken out to assist in paying for the construction of the Balmertown home. Ms. Peters, who was not on title to the Colonization Rd. home at the time, testified that she was not in agreement with Mr. Peters doing so but that she nevertheless guaranteed this debt. Ms. Peters testified that Mr. Peters assured her that he would have her name added to the title to this residence “right away”. She further testified that payments on this credit line were made from one of their joint accounts.

[13] Ms. Peters told the court that the parties started building their Balmertown home in 2011 and that they moved into the home in May 2012. At the same time, the Colonization Rd. home, which was furnished with Ms. Peters’ furniture and appliances, was being used by the parties as their residence when they were in Fort Frances, according to Ms. Peters.

[14] Ms. Peters testified that she and Mr. Peters travelled from Balmertown, visited Fort Frances, and stayed in the Colonization Rd. home more in the summer than in the winter, averaging one or two trips per month during summer months. Ms. Peters testified that she kept some of her clothing at this residence, and when they were there, they entertained modestly and did the usual yard work and light maintenance.

[15] On August 13, 2018, Mr. Peters transferred title to the Colonization Rd. home from his name alone into the joint names of him and Ms. Peters (the “transaction” or “transfer”). The consideration for this transfer was $1.00. Ms. Peters testified that from the point in time when she became a guarantor on the mortgage registered against this property, Mr. Peters had promised to put her on title. She further testified that Mr. Peters suffered a heart attack in 2017 and was on disability until he retired in August 2018, and that this transaction was part of his general estate planning.

[16] When Ms. Peters was asked about the date of the transaction in relation to the date of separation (October 10, 2018), she testified that at the time of the transfer there was no discussion about separation. She added that it was Mr. Peters who made the initial appointment with the lawyer who completed this transaction.

[17] Mr. Peters owned a rental property at 935 Victoria Ave., Fort Frances, Ontario (the “Victoria Ave. property”) on the date of marriage. The value of the Victoria Ave. property on the date of marriage is in issue. There is no appraisal as to it’s value on the date of marriage. Ms. Peters testified that she placed a date of marriage value of $30,000 on the Victoria Ave. property because this is the value Mr. Peters placed on it for income tax purposes.

[18] The valuation date value of household contents and furniture remaining in Ms. Peters’ possession after separation is in issue. Ms. Peters claims that she retained possession of only a couch, chair, two cabinets and a “tall cabinet” purchased on sale at Canadian Tire and that these chattels had no appreciable market value.

[19] Mr. Peters owned a Jayco “5th wheel” trailer (“the Jayco trailer”) on the date of marriage and on the valuation date. The parties agree that the date of marriage value of this asset was $15,000, but disagree on its valuation date value. Ms. Peters values it at $6,000 without explanation.

[20] The parties jointly owned a 2017 Chevrolet truck and a 2018 Jeep Cherokee on the valuation date. On separation, Ms. Peters assumed possession of the Jeep Cherokee and responsibility for the associated debt and Mr. Peters assumed possession of the Chevrolet truck and responsibility for the associated debt. The valuation date values and debt balances for these vehicles are agreed. For reasons unknown, the parties have yet to transfer ownership and registration for these vehicles, and formal responsibility for the debts, in accordance with this post-separation arrangement.

[21] There is an issue as to the value of the hand and power tools owned by Mr. Peters, both on the date of marriage and the valuation date. In Mr. Peters’ Comparative Net Family Property Statement, he asserts that Ms. Peters retained tools owned by him post-separation, which he valued at $5,000. In response, Ms. Peters testified that she took/retained none of his tools upon separation and furthermore, she counters that she saw Mr. Peters post sale advertisements for his tools after the parties separated. She suggests that Mr. Peters retained tools worth $4,000 on the valuation date.

[22] The parties agree that their joint RBC account (#…0959) had a balance of $1,513.39 on the valuation date. Ms. Peters testified that she “moved the money out” of this account post-separation to pay joint bills. Ms. Peters asserts that both parties are nonetheless required to account for one-half of the agreed upon valuation date balance of this account in the calculation of their NFP’s.

[23] The parties agree that their joint Scotiabank account (#...1784) had a balance of $95.86 on the valuation date. Ms. Peters asserts that both parties should account for one-half of the agreed upon valuation date balance of this account in the calculation of their NFP’s.

[24] Ms. Peters testified that she had a CIBC “Waive” account with a balance of $52,038.02 on the date of marriage. Mr. Peters’ name was added to this account during the marriage such that it was a joint account on the valuation date. Ms. Peters has supplied a bank statement for this account confirming a valuation date balance of $1,346.21. As I understand the evidence of the parties, Ms. Peters retained this entire balance post-separation.

[25] Mr. Peters asserts that he had a debt of $29,540.54 (CIBC Line of Credit #...6935) on the valuation date. Ms. Peters disputes this assertion and submits that Mr. Peters filed no direct documentary evidence at trial to substantiate this debt.

[26] Mr. Peters purchased a pontoon boat, motor and trailer (“the unit”) in June 2006, a year before their marriage, for $29,690 plus taxes. The parties agree that this chattel had a value of $15,000 on the valuation date. They do not agree on the value of this chattel on the date of marriage.

[27] Ms. Peters testified that she feels the value of this asset on the date of marriage was $21,600, based on the depreciation over the 18 months between the date of purchase and the date of marriage. She adds that she and Mr. Peters spoke to a dealer about this boat in the summer of 2018 and were advised that they “would be lucky to get $14,500” for it at that time.

[28] The parties do not agree on the balance of Ms. Peters’ Sears Club Credit Card on the date of marriage. Ms. Peters testified that on the date of marriage, she had a credit of $31.35, not a debt of $361.94 as suggested by Mr. Peters. Ms. Peters has provided her Sears Club account summary for the relevant time period. Ms. Peters testified that this document confirms a payment of $361.94 on December 14, 2007, which resulted in a credit balance of $31.35 as of December 26, 2007, the date of marriage.

[29] Ms. Peters testified that she does not agree with the value of $2,000 which Mr. Peters placed on the travel trailer hitch which he owned on the date of marriage. She testified that she doesn’t know what it was worth on the date of marriage but that it was sold after marriage for $150.

[30] Ms. Peters testified that she does not agree with the value of $12,000 which Mr. Peters placed on a 1972 Plymouth Duster which he owned on the date of marriage because no appraisal or valuation has been provided to support that value. She also disputed the value of $5,000 which Mr. Peters placed on the tools he owned on the date of marriage for the same reason.

[31] The parties agree that Ms. Peters paid $70,034.58 toward joint debts post-separation. Ms. Peters testified that she feels she is entitled to be reimbursed ½ of this amount from Mr. Peters due to the nature of debts for which these payments were made.

[32] Ms. Peters testified that she made the following payments in 2019:

1. Property taxes on the Colonization Rd. home $829.44
2. Property taxes on the Balmertown residence $4,767.23
3. CIBC PCL registered on the Colonization Rd. home $2,763.87

[33] Ms. Peters testified that she made the following payments in 2020:

1. Property insurance on the Colonization Rd. home and on the Balmertown residence $2,226.66
2. Auto insurance Jeep and Chev trucks $2,675.48
3. CIBC PCL registered on the Colonization Rd. home $3,261.00
4. Property taxes on the Colonization Rd. home $1,737.31
5. Property taxes on the Balmertown residence $4,873.70
6. Scotiabank PCL registered on the Balmertown residence $1,297.23

[34] Ms. Peters testified that she made the following payments in 2021:

1. Property insurance on the Colonization Rd. home and on the Balmertown residence $1,998.00
2. Auto insurance Jeep and Chev trucks $2,632.08
3. CIBC PCL registered on the Colonization Rd. home $2,762.00
4. Property taxes on the Colonization Rd. home $1,316.68
5. Property taxes on the Balmertown residence $2,436.85
6. Mortgage on the Balmertown residence $10,094.31
7. Scotiabank PCL registered on the Balmertown residence $757.81

[35] Ms. Peters testified that she made the following payments in 2022:

1. Property insurance on the Colonization Rd. home and on the Balmertown residence $1,384.17
2. Auto insurance Jeep and Chev trucks $2,457.00
3. CIBC PCL registered on the Colonization Rd. home $1,814.00

[36] Ms. Peters testified that she made the following payments in 2023:

1. Auto insurance for the Jeep $1,432.27
2. Property insurance on the Colonization Rd. home $710.67

[37] Ms. Peters told the court that she paid these debts because Mr. Peters was not doing so, and she was afraid of the financial repercussions if these joint debts went unpaid. Ms. Peters testified that she had little or no income during the period of time when she paid these joint debts and that she made the required payments from credit cards or from RRSP withdrawals.

[38] On cross-examination, Ms. Peters confirmed that a May 28, 2020, Temporary Order granted her temporary exclusive possession of the Balmertown residence, and granted Mr. Peters temporary exclusive possession of the Colonization Rd. home. Ms. Peters agreed that she lived in the Balmertown residence until it was sold in August 2021.

The Evidence of the Respondent

[39] Mr. Peters was born on August 10, 1953, and was 70 years old at the time of trial. Mr. Peters, a Gas Fitter and Red Seal Plumber, owned and operated a plumbing and heating business for 25 years. He also built two homes and finished the interior of the Balmertown residence. Consistent with this background, Mr. Peters testified that he accumulated a significant tool collection throughout his life, both in his business and for the construction work he did on the side.

[40] After passing his business on to his son, Mr. Peters secured employment with Gold Corp., as a Gas Fitter/Plumber, in Red Lake in 2007. He suffered a heart attack in 2017 and was then on disability until August 2018 when he retired at age 65. He began to draw CPP and OAS immediately upon retirement in 2018.

[41] Mr. Peters testified that between separation in October 2018 and October 2019, his CPP payments were deposited into the parties’ joint RBC chequing account, while his OAS payments were deposited into their joint Scotiabank account. He told the court that this was done because “she paid all the bills” online. This arrangement was terminated in October 2019 after Mr. Peters was served with the application in this case.

[42] Mr. Peters testified that Ms. Peters never treated the Colonization Rd. home as a family home, referring to it as “a piece of crap” and constantly asking him to sell it. Mr. Peters told the court that he never wanted to add Ms. Peters as a registered owner to the Colonization Rd. home but that he did so at her insistence shortly before separation to “show that [he] loved her.”

[43] Mr. Peters told the court that the Colonization Rd. home was kept as a “convenience” for when the parties were in Fort Frances, because they had dogs and that it was used for storage. He acknowledged that he and Ms. Peters did reside in this home together, “on days off, once a month for a few days during the non-winter months” during the marriage. He added that he would also reside in this residence when he and Ms. Peters “had spats”. He did not elaborate on the frequency of these latter periods of occupation.

[44] Mr. Peters testified that he purchased the 935 Victoria Ave. property in Fort Frances for $35,000 in March 2001, as a rental property. Mr. Peters told the court that the Victoria Ave. property did sustain damage from tenants such that it was “in pretty rough shape” when the tenants were evicted in 2009. However, he maintained that the damage was incurred after the parties got married in 2007 and that on the date of marriage it would have been worth its 2001 purchase price of $35,000. He testified that he sold this property for $20,000 or $21,000 at some point during the marriage.

[45] Mr. Peters testified that he owned a trailer hitch for a “fifth wheel” trailer prior to marriage which he sold to Ms. Peters’ brother after marriage. He did not provide any evidence as to the value of this chattel on the date of marriage. Mr. Peters testified that Ms. Peters removed many items from the Jayco trailer following separation but before it was sold. However, he did not provide any evidence as to the value of these items and simply referred to his Comparative Net Family Property Statement.

[46] In his Comparative Net Family Property Statement, Mr. Peters alleges that he owned tools worth $5,000 on the date of marriage and on the valuation date. However, these items were not particularized in his evidence, nor did he testify as to how he arrived at these values.

[47] Mr. Peters testified that Ms. Peters retained the entire valuation date balances in the parties’ joint RBC chequing account ($1,513.39), the joint Scotiabank account ($95.86) and the joint CIBC Waive account ($673.11).

[48] Mr. Peters concedes that he has not been able to provide any documents to support his allegation that he had $30,000 in credit card debt on the valuation date. However, he testified that during a period of attempted reconciliation in 2019, Ms. Peters insisted that he open a line of credit and draw on that line of credit to pay the credit cards debts that he still had from the date of separation.

[49] Mr. Peters told the court that he withdrew a total of $24,700 from a CIBC Personal Line of Credit (#...6935) which he paid on his credit card debt that existed on the valuation date. Mr. Peters supplied the court with copies of his CIBC PCL statements for account (#...6935) for the months of May, July, August, September and October 2019 which confirm the following debits to this PCL for these months, all noted on the statement as being “IN-BRANCH BILL PMT”:

May 2019 $15,000 July 2019 $1,500 August 2019 $3,500 September 2019 $2,500 October 2019 $2,200 TOTAL $24,700

[50] Mr. Peters testified that the pontoon boat, motor and trailer that he purchased for $29,690 in July 2006 was worth the same amount on December 26, 2007, the date of marriage. He provided no evidence as to why this asset would not have depreciated over the 18 months between purchase and the date of marriage.

[51] As I understand his evidence, Mr. Peters does not dispute that Ms. Peters paid property taxes for the Colonization Rd. home in the total amount of $3,883.43 for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. I further understand that Mr. Peters agrees that Ms. Peters paid property taxes for the Balmertown residence in the total amount of $12,077.78 for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. However, Mr. Peters asserts that there was $2,877.90 in outstanding taxes owing on the Balmertown residence when it was sold in August 2021, and that this amount was paid from the joint proceeds of sale.

[52] Mr. Peters further asserts that Ms. Peters should be responsible for all expenses for the Balmertown residence post-separation, including the $2,877.90 in outstanding taxes paid from net sale proceeds, because she had exclusive possession of this residence pursuant to the May 28, 2020, Temporary Order. The net result of this, according to Mr. Peters, is that he should receive a credit of $1,438.95 (1/2 of $2,877.90) in regard to the paid post-separation property taxes for the Balmertown residence.

[53] Mr. Peters provided some evidence in relation to payments made by him and Ms. Peters on the CIBC Line of Credit (#...1136) post-separation. As Ms. Peters also testified, this credit facility was taken out in 2011 to assist in paying for the construction of the parties’ Balmertown residence. It was secured by a charge on the Colonization Rd. home. Ms. Peters’ evidence, supported by exhibit #4, is that she paid a total of $10,600.87 on this joint CIBC PCL between 2019 and 2022.

[54] Mr. Peters placed into evidence a document entitled Expenses After Separation/Interest on CIBC Joint Line of Credit (#...1136) (exhibit #14). Mr. Peters testified that he paid $3,000 on this debt on April 22, 2019. Attached as part of exhibit #14 is a CIBC transaction record confirming this payment.

[55] Mr. Peters acknowledged that Ms. Peters paid $2,763.87 on this line of credit in 2019. Mr. Peters acknowledged that Ms. Peters paid $3,001.84 on this line of credit in 2020 (her evidence was that she paid $3,261 in 2020). Mr. Peters acknowledged that Ms. Peters paid $1,345.01 on this line of credit in 2021 (her evidence was that she paid $2,762 in 2021). Mr. Peters did not comment on Ms. Peters’ evidence that she paid $1,814 on this line of credit in 2022 prior to the debt being paid in full on July 21, 2022.

[56] Mr. Peters testified that he did not withdraw any funds from this line of credit post-separation and that any increase in the line of credit post-separation should be the responsibility of Ms. Peters alone.

[57] Mr. Peters concedes that Ms. Peters paid $2,055.04 on the Scotiabank line of credit post-separation. Mr. Peters also concedes that Ms. Peters paid a total of $5,020 between 2019 and 2022 for the insurance on the Chevrolet truck he took possession of post-separation. Finally, Mr. Peters concedes that Ms. Peters paid a total of $4,725.67 for insurance on the Colonization Rd. home and for the pontoon boat between 2019 and 2023 and that he is responsible for this entire amount.

The Positions of the Parties

The Applicant

The Colonization Road Home

[58] The Colonization Rd. home was owned by Mr. Peters on the date of marriage and was transferred to the parties as joint tenants shortly prior to separation. Ms. Peters submits that this residence qualifies as a matrimonial home within the meaning of s. 18 of the FLA and that Mr. Peters therefore cannot deduct its date of marriage value in calculating his NFP. Ms. Peters further submits that each of the parties must account for one-half of its valuation date value in calculating their NFP’s.

[59] Ms. Peters submits that Colonization Rd. home was regularly used by the parties as a second residence when they travelled to Fort Frances from Balmertown, more often during the summer months but nonetheless on a year-round basis. She notes that Mr. Peters acknowledged this fact in his testimony.

[60] Ms. Peters submits that the Colonization Rd. home was fully furnished and that the parties stored excess chattels at this residence, entertained at this residence, and maintained the residence as their Fort Frances home. Ms. Peters contends that prior to separation, expenses to operate, maintain and repair this residence came from the parties’ joint bank accounts, as did payments for property taxes, utilities, and home insurance.

[61] Ms. Peters submits that her evidence regarding the work she and Mr. Peters undertook in repairing and improving the Colonization Rd. home after the tenants were evicted was not challenged on cross-examination and was not contradicted by Mr. Peters in his evidence.

[62] Ms. Peters further contends that she assumed a financial interest in the Colonization Rd. home when she, at the request of Mr. Peters, guaranteed the $80,000 CIBC PCL he took out in June 2011 to finance construction of their Balmertown residence. Ms. Peters submits that she maintained a financial interest in this property post-separation, between 2019 and 2023, when she paid the property taxes, the CIBC PCL, and the home insurance. She submits that her intention in doing so was to preserve this asset for the benefit of both parties.

[63] Ms. Peters submits that the jointly owned Colonization Rd. home was ordinarily occupied by the parties as a family residence at and prior to the date of separation. As such, Ms. Peters contends that the date of marriage value of this home should not be deducted from Mr. Peters’ NFP calculation and that both parties must account for one-half of this asset’s valuation date value. Ms. Peters further submits that Mr. Peters may purchase her joint interest in the Colonization Rd. home for one-half of the agreed upon valuation date value ($42,500).

Valuation Date Value of Miscellaneous Assets

[64] Ms. Peters disputes the value which Mr. Peters placed on several assets owned by each of them on the valuation date. These include the following:

1. Household goods retained by Ms. Peters;
2. Jayco trailer and hitch owned by Mr. Peters;
3. Chattels retrieved from the Jayco trailer by Ms. Peters;
4. Hand and power tools owned by Mr. Peters.

[65] Ms. Peters denies Mr. Peters’ assertion that she retained $10,000 worth of household goods post-separation while he retained none, and she submits that he provided no evidence as to what items she is alleged to have retained, and no evidence as to value. Ms. Peters submits that each party provided general evidence supporting a conclusion that they each retained possession of some household contents, and in the absence of any other evidence, the court should find that each of the parties retained household contents of equal value.

[66] Mr. Peters owned the Jayco trailer on the valuation date. It has not been appraised. Ms. Peters values this asset on the valuation date at $6,000 and Mr. Peters at $5,000. Ms. Peters suggest that, in the absence of any evidence as to the asset’s date of separation value, the court should simply split the value “down the middle”.

[67] Ms. Peters submits that the trailer hitch should be valued at $2,000 on the valuation date but concedes that she did not provide any evidence on this issue.

[68] Ms. Peters denied that she took $1,000 worth of property from the Jayco trailer post-separation, and submits that Mr. Peters has provided no evidence to support this claim.

[69] Ms. Peters denies Mr. Peters’ suggestion that he owned hand and power tools worth $5,000 on the valuation date and that she either retained or disposed of them post-separation.

Mr. Peters’ Valuation Date Debts

[70] Ms. Peters submits that Mr. Peters has not provided any direct proof that he had credit card debts of $30,000, or of any amount, on the valuation date and that he should therefore be denied this deduction.

Date of Marriage Value of Mr. Peters’ Assets

[71] Ms. Peters disputes the value placed on several date of marriage assets of Mr. Peters. She submits that Mr. Peters, being the party claiming a deduction in the calculation of his NFP for date of marriage assets, bears the burden of proving the value of these assets. Ms. Peters submits that the date of marriage assets owned by Mr. Peters for which the value is in issue are:

1. 935 Victoria Avenue;
2. 1972 Plymouth Duster;
3. Tools;
4. Pontoon boat, motor and trailer.

[72] Mr. Peters owned 935 Victoria Ave., Fort Frances, on the date of marriage. It has not been appraised for the purposes of this litigation. Ms. Peters submits that it was worth $30,000 on the date of marriage, as opposed to the $35,000 value placed on it by Mr. Peters.

[73] Mr. Peters owned a 1972 Plymouth Duster on the date of marriage. Ms. Peters submits that Mr. Peters should be denied the $12,000 date of marriage deduction he claims for this asset because he has not provided any documentary or objective proof of its date of marriage value.

[74] In his evidence, Mr. Peters asserted that he owned hand and power tools worth $5,000 on the date of marriage. Again, Ms. Peters submits that he should be denied this deduction because Mr. Peters has provided no evidence as to their date of marriage value.

[75] Mr. Peters purchased the pontoon boat, motor and trailer in June 2006 for $29,690 and he owned this unit on the date of marriage. Ms. Peters submits that Mr. Peters claimed a deduction of $29,690 for the value of this asset on the date of marriage, 18 months after purchase, absent any independent evidence to support this value, is contrary to common sense. Ms. Peters submits that a reasonable rate of depreciation for an asset of this type would be 27%, resulting in a date of marriage value/deduction of $21,600.

Ms. Peters’ Payments of Joint Debts Post-Separation

[76] Ms. Peters notes that Mr. Peters does not dispute that she paid a total of $70,034.58 on the parties’ joint debts post-separation. She submits that she is entitled to be reimbursed one-half of this amount ($35,172.90) from Mr. Peters and requests an order that this amount be paid to her from Mr. Peters’ share of the net proceeds from the sale of their Balmertown matrimonial home, currently held in trust by Mr. Peters’ counsel.

[77] Ms. Peters submits that she has proven, by way of both her evidence and supporting documents, that these payments were made between 2019 and 2023 and were for:

1. Property taxes on the Colonization Rd. Home;
2. Property taxes on the Balmertown residence;
3. CIBC PCL registered against the Colonization Rd. home;
4. Home insurance on the Colonization Rd. home and on the Balmertown residence;
5. Auto insurance for the Jeep and Chevrolet trucks;
6. Mortgage payments on the Balmertown residence; and
7. Scotiabank PCL secured against the Balmertown residence.

[78] Ms. Peters submits that these accounts and debts were the joint responsibility of the parties, that the payments had to be made, that Mr. Peters was not making any payments on these debts, and that the payments she made were to the credit of both her and Mr. Peters. Ms. Peters contends that it is therefore equitable that she be reimbursed for the amount she paid to the credit of Mr. Peters, namely one-half of the total amount. Ms. Peters notes that she has, at the insistence of Mr. Peters and at considerable expense to herself, provided comprehensive documentary disclosure corroborating her payments of all amounts claimed.

[79] Ms. Peters submits that Mr. Peters should be denied the deduction he claims for his credit card debts on the valuation date because he has failed to provide any documentation confirming that he in fact had these debts on the valuation date.

The Respondent

The Colonization Road Home

[80] Mr. Peters submits that the Colonization Rd. home was purchased by him as a rental/investment property well prior to marriage and that the parties did not reside in it as a family residence during the marriage or on the date of separation. Mr. Peters submits that he maintained this residence as an investment property during the marriage.

[81] Mr. Peters acknowledges that he and Ms. Peters periodically used the Colonization Rd. home “as a convenient place to stay” when they travelled to Fort Frances from Balmertown for medical and veterinary appointments, in part because they travelled with dogs. He further acknowledges that this house and its outbuildings were used to store excess furniture and chattels and that he did intermittently reside alone in this residence during “rocky periods” in the marriage.

[82] Mr. Peters denies that he and Ms. Peters ordinarily occupied the Colonization Rd. home as a family residence during the marriage and on the date of separation. Mr. Peters submits that Ms. Peters repeatedly described this home as “a piece of crap” in which she would never live.

[83] Mr. Peters submits that his pay cheques, disability payments, CPP and OAS payments were deposited to a joint Royal Bank account and that all expenses for the Colonization Rd. home were paid from this account.

Valuation Date Value of Miscellaneous Assets

[84] Mr. Peters submits that he had no access to the matrimonial home at the Balmertown residence between the date of separation and the sale of this home three years later. Mr. Peters contends that this residence was a fully furnished, 2,500 square foot, 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home with an attached 24 ft. x 16.5 ft. insulated garage.

[85] Mr. Peters submits that he took only a queen size bed and several small appliances from this home after separation and that Ms. Peters retained all other furnishings and contents, which he suggests had a market value of $10,000.

[86] Mr. Peters submits that he acquired hand and power tools during the marriage worth approximately $5,000 and that they were all retained by Ms. Peters, together with the contents of the Balmertown residence.

[87] Mr. Peters submits that when he assumed possession of the Jayco trailer from Ms. Peters as agreed, it had been stripped of contents worth approximately $1,000. He contends that Ms. Peters should account for this value when calculating her NFP.

[88] Mr. Peters did not provide any submissions on the valuation date value of the Jayco trailer and trailer hitch.

Mr. Peters’ Debts on the Valuation Date

[89] Mr. Peters acknowledges that he has not provided direct documentary evidence confirming the balance of his credit card debts on the valuation date. However, he submits that he has provided the best evidence available to him, that being his testimony together with documents which confirmed payments from his CIBC PCL (#...6935) for “IN-BRANCH BILL PMT” in the total amount of $24,700 between May and October 2019.

Date of Marriage Value of Mr. Peters’ Assets

[90] Mr. Peters submits that he purchased the Victoria Ave. property as a rental/investment property on August 8, 2003, for $35,000. He contends that this property would have maintained its value between the date it was purchased and the date of marriage, December 26, 2007.

[91] Mr. Peters submits that he should be entitled to a date of marriage deduction in the amount of $12,000 for his 1972 Plymouth Duster because he received $12,000 on it as a trade-in value when he purchased a 2011 Dodge Challenger. He did not indicate when this transaction occurred.

[92] Mr. Peters submits that he was the owner/operator of a plumbing and heating business for years prior to the date of marriage. He contends that he necessarily acquired a large number of professional-grade tools while operating his business and that he had these on the date of marriage. He suggests that a $5,000 date of marriage value on these assets is modest.

[93] Mr. Peters purchased a pontoon boat, motor and trailer in June 2006 for $29,690. He submits that because there was no evidence as to the depreciation of this asset, this purchase price should be accepted as the market value of it on the date of marriage 18 months later.

[94] Mr. Peters submits that he owned a trailer hitch for the 5th wheel trailer on the date of marriage, which was sold during the marriage. He contends that it was replaced with a $2,000 trailer hitch during the marriage and that his deduction for the one he owned at marriage should therefore be $2,000.

Ms. Peters’ Payment of Joint Debts Post-Separation

[95] It is not in dispute that Ms. Peters paid a total of $70,034.58 between 2019 and 2023 on what she refers to as joint debts. Mr. Peters disputes that he should be found responsible for one-half of this amount.

[96] First, Mr. Peters submits that Ms. Peters should be solely responsible for all expenses and costs related to the Balmertown residence post-separation, including property taxes, home insurance and mortgage payments.

[97] Mr. Peters submits that he vacated the Balmertown residence at the time of separation (October 2018) and that Ms. Peters had exclusive possession of it pursuant to court order until it was sold on August 30, 2021. Mr. Peters contends that Ms. Peters alone should be responsible for all costs associated with the Balmertown residence during her period of exclusive possession.

[98] Mr. Peters further submits that there were unpaid taxes in the amount of $2,877.90 on the Balmertown property when it was sold in August 2021 which were paid out of joint proceeds of sale at the time of sale. Given that all taxes up to the time of sale were the responsibility of Ms. Peters, Mr. Peters submits that Ms. Peters is required to reimburse him one-half of the amount paid from joint proceeds ($1,438.95) as an adjustment to any equalization payment found owing by him to Ms. Peters.

[99] The joint Scotiabank Line of Credit was secured by a collateral mortgage on the Balmertown residence and therefore it was paid out and discharged when the home was sold. The payout figure was $38,525.51. Mr. Peters submits that $34,386.32 was owing on this debt on the valuation date and that he did not draw on it after separation. Mr. Peters suggests that Ms. Peters acknowledged having “maxed” out this line of credit post-separation.

[100] Mr. Peters submits that Ms. Peters should be required to reimburse him for the post-separation increase on this debt ($4,139) less one-half of the interest charges on it between the valuation date to the date it was paid out, namely one-half of $2,055.04, being $1,027.52. Mr. Peters submits that Ms. Peters therefore owes him $3,111.49 in relation to this debt.

[101] The joint CIBC Line of Credit was taken out in July 2011, primarily to finance the construction of the Balmertown residence. It was secured by a collateral mortgage on the Colonization Rd. Home. In July 2022, this debt was paid out from the remaining joint proceeds of sale of the Balmertown residence in the amount of $80,284.29. Mr. Peters contends a Temporary Order dated June 11, 2021, required that this debt be paid from joint proceeds of sale of the Balmertown residence when it was sold in August 2021, but that Ms. Peters prevented this from happening.

[102] Mr. Peters submits that this debt increased from $76,361.62 on the date of separation to $80,284.29 when it was paid out in July 2022, an increase of $3,922.67. Mr. Peters contends that he did not draw on this credit line post-separation and that this increase is therefore Ms. Peters responsibility alone.

[103] Mr. Peters submits that he should be responsible for one-half of the interest charges incurred on this debt (1/2 of $7,408.49 or $3,704.25) between the date of separation and the date of sale of the Balmertown residence, during the period when the court order stated that it was to be paid from joint proceeds. Mr. Peters suggests that Ms. Peters should be responsible for all costs associated with this debt after the Balmertown residence date of sale, which should have resulted in the payment of this debt but for the inaction of Ms. Peters. Mr. Peters further submits that he paid $3,000 towards this debt on April 22, 2019.

[104] Mr. Peters submits that he has in fact exceeded his obligation for the joint CIBC Line of Credit post-separation, which he calculates as follows:

1. Credit him for the post-separation increase in this debt incurred by Ms. Peters $3,922.67
2. Credit him for the entire payment he made April 22, 2019 $3,000.00
3. Debit him for one-half of the interest charges on this debt between the date of separation and the date of sale of the Balmertown residence $3,704.25

[105] Mr. Peters submits that he should therefore be credited $3,218.42 for this joint debt.

[106] Mr. Peters acknowledges that he owes Ms. Peters in relation to various post-separation payments she made, in the following amounts:

1. Home insurance for the Colonization Rd. home $2,577.00
2. Insurance for the pontoon boat $2,148.67
3. Insurance for the Chev truck $5,020.00
4. Property taxes for the Colonization Rd. home $3,883.43 TOTAL $13,629.10

[107] According to Mr. Peters submissions, the net result of the above calculations is that he owes Ms. Peters $5,860.24 on account of post-separation payments made by her.

Discussion

Is the Colonization Rd. Home a Matrimonial Home?

[108] Section 18 of the FLA provides as follows:

Every property in which a person has an interest and that is or, if the parties have separated, was at the time of separation ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their family residence is their matrimonial home.

[109] The definition of matrimonial home in s. 18 of the FLA indicates that four conditions must exist for a property to qualify as a matrimonial home:

1. One of the spouses must have an interest in the property;
2. The property was ordinarily occupied by both spouses;
3. The joint occupation existed at the time of separation; and
4. The property was occupied as a family residence.

[110] Section 18 of the FLA clearly contemplates that spouses can have more than one matrimonial home at the same time. Deciding whether a property qualifies as a matrimonial home within the definition of s. 18 of the FLA is a fact specific analysis focused on determining whether the parties ordinarily occupied the property as a family residence at the time of separation.

[111] Mr. Peters is claiming that the Colonization Rd. home is not a matrimonial home such that he would be allowed to deduct its date of marriage value when calculating his “net family property”, as defined in s. 4(1) of the FLA. Pursuant to s. 4(3) of the FLA, the onus of proving a deduction under the definition of “net family property” is on the person claiming it.

[112] The Colonization Rd. home was owned by Mr. Peters on the date of marriage and was transferred into the joint names of the parties shortly prior to separation. Regardless of whether this residence is a matrimonial home, because of the parties’ joint ownership of it on the valuation date, each of the parties must account for one-half of its valuation date value when calculating their NFP’s. However, if the Colonization Rd. home is not a matrimonial home, Mr. Peters is entitled to deduct the date of marriage value of this property when calculating his NFP.

[113] The parties were married on December 6, 2007, at which time Ms. Peters resided and was employed in Fort Frances and Mr. Peters resided and was employed in Balmertown. When Mr. Peters came to Fort Frances, he stayed with Ms. Peters in her McKenzie Ave. home.

[114] Mr. Peters’ Colonization Rd. home was rented to tenants on the date of marriage. The tenants were evicted in 2009 and significant repairs were completed by the parties. Ms. Peters’ McKenzie Ave. home was sold in July 2011, and she then moved to Balmertown and resided with Mr. Peters in an apartment. The Colonization Rd. home was furnished with Ms. Peters’ furniture and appliances, presumably after the 2011 sale of her McKenzie Ave. home.

[115] In 2011, the parties began construction of the Balmertown residence on Detta Rd. Mr. Peters placed a collateral $80,000 mortgage on the Colonization Rd. home to assist in financing the construction of the Balmertown residence. Apparently, the CIBC required Ms. Peters to guarantee this debt for the financing to be approved. She did so, partially because of Mr. Peters promising to add her as a registered owner of the property.

[116] The parties moved into the Balmertown residence in 2012 and this became their primary residence. However, the Colonization Rd. home was not rented out again after the repairs had been completed. Between either 2011 or 2012 and the date of separation in October 2018, the parties used the Colonization Rd. home as a secondary residence, residing there, and only there, on all occasions when they were in Fort Frances.

[117] The frequency of the parties’ time in Fort Frances and their periods of occupation of the Colonization Rd. home between 2011/2012 and the fall of 2018 is in issue. As might be expected, Ms. Peters suggested it was more often than did Mr. Peters. What is clear in my view is that they travelled from Balmertown to Fort Frances on a regular basis for a period of approximately six years prior to separation and always stayed in the Colonization Rd. home when in Fort Frances.

[118] While the frequency of the parties’ occupation of the Colonization Rd. home during this period is in issue, the nature or manner of their occupation is not. In my view, it is the manner of the parties’ regular occupation of the Colonization Rd. home that illustrates their intentions in regard to this secondary home.

[119] The Colonization Rd. home was used as the parties’ family residence on all occasions when they were in Fort Frances. The parties did not have children, but they did have dogs who travelled with them between Balmertown and Fort Frances. According to Mr. Peters, one of the reasons they resided in the Colonization Rd. home when in Fort Frances was the fact that they had their dogs with them. Ms. Peters testified that they entertained modestly at this residence when in Fort Frances and that they shared in the yard work and light maintenance as required. Her evidence on this point was not challenged or contradicted by Mr. Peters.

[120] Mr. Peters testified that he retained the Colonization Rd. home as an “investment/rental property” after the parties moved into their Balmertown home. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever attempted or intended to either rent out or sell this home at any point between 2012 and 2018. It was in fact maintained as their Fort Frances residence for six years prior to and at the time of separation. Mr. Peters transferred ownership of the Colonization Rd. home into the parties’ joint names in August 2018 for nominal consideration. He then moved into the Colonization Rd. home following separation and has assumed it as his residence to date.

[121] To determine if a property is “ordinarily occupied”, the court in Farnsworth v. Chang, 2014 ONSC 1871, noted the following:

[55] In Oliver Estate v. Oliver, 2012 ONSC 718, at paras. 47-49, the court recognized the flexible and even minimal occupation requirement of the designation of a matrimonial home:

…the jurisprudence also makes clear that the court must engage in flexible and contextual analysis of ordinary occupation…In Goodyear v. Goodyear, [1999] O.J. No. 29 (C.J.) at para. 46, Perkins J. noted that “to occupy something does not require constant or continual occupancy, nor does it require occupancy of every square metre”. In MacFarland v. MacFarland, [2009] O.J. No. 2149 (S.C.), Mackinnon J. found that the parties need not be physically together when occupying the family home; they simply must both treat it as a family home.

Where usage is minimal or sporadic, the courts have focused on the intent of the parties. In LeCouter, H.A. Vogelsang J. held that, despite spending only five days at the property in dispute, ordinary occupation was found because the family’s “clear intent and purpose was to live there as a family”.

[122] I find that the preponderance of evidence in this case establishes that the Colonization Rd. home is a matrimonial home within the meaning of s. 18 of the FLA. The word “ordinarily” is synonymous with “normally”, “commonly” and “regularly”. In my view, this residence was “regularly” occupied by the parties between 2012 and 2018 and was “regularly” occupied by them at the time of separation.

[123] The parties jointly contributed to the repairs and renovations of this home after the tenants were evicted in 2011, Ms. Peters’ belongings were used to furnish the residence for occupation, and the parties exclusively used this property as their “family base” when in Fort Frances. The fact that Mr. Peters did not sell or rent the Colonization Rd. home after 2011, and in fact used the property as security to finance the construction of their Balmertown residence, leads me to conclude that it was the intent of the parties to maintain this residence as their family home for their exclusive use and occupation when they regularly travelled from Balmertown to Fort Frances over a period of six years.

[124] As the Colonization Rd. home has been found to be a matrimonial home, the date of marriage value of this property will not be deducted in the calculation of Mr. Peters’ NFP. The parties agree that the valuation date value of this property was $85,000. It is understood that Mr. Peters, who has occupied this residence since the date of separation, intends to purchase Ms. Peters joint interest in the property. The parties have not obtained an appraisal of the current fair market value of this property.

The Valuation Date Value of Miscellaneous Assets

Household Goods

[125] Mr. Peters’ evidence was that Ms. Peters retained virtually all the contents of the Balmertown matrimonial home after separation. Ms. Peters testified that she retained only a few items of household contents with no appreciable value.

[126] The Balmertown residence was a newly constructed, large, fully furnished home that Ms. Peters maintained occupation of post-separation. Mr. Peters moved to the Colonization Rd. home after separation, and it was also furnished. It is consistent with common sense that Ms. Peters would retain most of the contents of the Balmertown residence and I so find. Mr. Peters values these contents at $10,000 without explaining why. I place a value of $5,000 on the household contents retained by Ms. Peters on the valuation date.

Jayco 5th Wheel Trailer and Hitch

[127] Both items were retained by Mr. Peters after separation. There is no independent evidence as to their value. In the absence of such evidence, I accept Ms. Peters suggestion that I “split the value down the middle”. This results in a value of $5,500 being placed on Mr. Peters’ Jayco trailer. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever as to the valuation date value of the trailer hitch I place no value on it.

Chattels Removed from Trailer by Ms. Peters

[128] Mr. Peters alleged that Ms. Peters removed and retained numerous chattels from the Jayco trailer prior to him assuming possession of it. In evidence, he simply referenced his NFP Statement without elaborating on how he arrived at a total value of $1,000 for these items. The items listed in Mr. Peters’ NFP Statement are a small generator, battery, propane tank, dining tent, small barbeque, pots, pans and other camping equipment. Ms. Peters did not provide evidence or submissions on this issue.

[129] I accept Mr. Peters’ evidence that Ms. Peters assumed possession of the contents of the Jayco trailer prior to Mr. Peters receiving possession of it post-separation. However, in the absence of any evidence as to the value of these contents, I will assume, except for the generator, they had only “garage sale” value. I place a value of $250 on the contents of the Jayco trailer retained by Ms. Peters.

Hand and Power Tools of Mr. Peters

[130] Mr. Peters alleges that Ms. Peters retained and/or disposed of tools he owned which he claims were worth $5,000 on the valuation date, and which he left in the Balmertown residence. He suggests that Ms. Peters should account for this value in her NFP. Ms. Peters denies this assertion and claims that Mr. Peters retained his own tools post-separation, worth $4,000, some of which he advertised for sale.

[131] First, I find both values to be self-servingly inflated. Used tools have little market value. If Mr. Peters had newer, valuable tools or equipment on the valuation date, I suspect that he would have been able to itemize them for the court. He failed to do so.

[132] In the absence of any evidence with any probative value, I decline to find that either of the parties retained any tools of any appreciable value on the valuation date.

Mr. Peters’ Valuation Date Credit Card Debts

[133] I accept Mr. Peters’ evidence that he had significant credit card debts on the valuation date that he paid down from his CIBC line of credit. He has provided documentary evidence confirming payments of $24,700 toward an alleged $30,000 credit card debt on the valuation date. These documents and Mr. Peters’ evidence are the best evidence he is able to provide as to this debt.

[134] I find that Mr. Peters has proven that he had credit card debt in the total amount of $24,700 on the valuation date.

The Date of Marriage Value of Mr. Peters’ Assets

935 Victoria Ave.

[135] This property was not appraised for this litigation. Mr. Peters contends it was worth $35,000 on the date of marriage; Ms. Peters suggests a value of $30,000. In the absence of any other evidence, I find that 935 Victoria Ave. had a value of $32,500 on the date of marriage.

1972 Plymouth Duster

[136] I take judicial notice of the fact that a 1972 Plymouth Duster is a classic “muscle car” with a potentially significant value. Mr. Peters values this car at $12,000 as of the date of marriage. He arrived at this value based on the Duster being given a “trade-in value” of $12,000 at the time when he traded for a 2011 Dodge Challenger. Mr. Peters did not advise the court when this transaction occurred. However, it was obviously after 2011.

[137] Based on Mr. Peters’ evidence, I accept that his 1972 Plymouth Duster had a value of $12,000 on the date of marriage.

Tools

[138] Mr. Peters valued the tools he owned on the date of marriage at $5,000. Ms. Peters suggests that he should be denied this deduction because he has provided no evidence as to their date of marriage value. She did not suggest that he did not own the tools required to carry on his trades.

[139] Mr. Peters was in the plumbing and heating business his entire adult life. His evidence as to the value of the tools he owned in 2007 is most likely the best, and possibly the only, evidence available. I find that Mr. Peters owned tools worth $5,000 on the date of marriage.

Pontoon Boat, Motor and Trailer

[140] It is not in dispute that Mr. Peters purchased this unit for $29,690 in June 2006. Assets of this type are notorious for their rapid depreciation. Mr. Peters’ suggestion that this unit had a market value equal to its purchase price on the date of separation 18 months later is simply not credible.

[141] The onus was on Mr. Peters to have obtained a valuation, or even an opinion of value, for this unit. In the absence of that evidence, I accept Ms. Peters’ suggestion that 27% would be a reasonable rate of depreciation for the unit 18 months following its purchase. This asset will be valued at $21,600 as of the date of marriage.

Trailer Hitch

[142] Mr. Peters values this item on the date of marriage at $2,000. Ms. Peters testified that Mr. Peters sold this hitch to her brother after marriage for $150. I find that this item had a value of $150 on the date of marriage.

Miscellaneous Valuation Issues

Bank Accounts on Valuation Date

[143] The parties had the following joint accounts/balances on the valuation date as:

1. RBC Chequing/Savings **0959 $1,513.39
2. Scotiabank Chequing **1784 $95.86
3. CIBC Waive Account **6635 $1,346.21

[144] Mr. Peters alleges that Ms. Peters retained the entire balance from each of these accounts following separation. Ms. Peters did not dispute this evidence.

[145] I recognize that these accounts were joint assets on the valuation date. However, given that it is not seriously in issue that Ms. Peters retained all balances after separation, for the sake of simplicity, when calculating the parties’ NFP’s, I have entered the entire balances of all accounts as assets owned by Ms. Peters on the valuation date.

Ms. Peters’ Sears Club Credit Card Account on Date of Marriage

[146] Mr. Peters alleges that Ms. Peters owed $361.94 on this account of the date of marriage. Ms. Peters alleges that she had a credit of $31.35 on this account on the date of marriage.

[147] The parties were married on December 26, 2007. Exhibit #3, tab 44(c) confirms a payment of $361.94 on this account on December 14, 2007, resulting in a credit balance of $31.35 on the date of marriage. In my calculation of the parties’ NFP’s, this will be reflected as an asset owned by Ms. Peters on the date of marriage.

[148] In accordance with the findings contained herein and my Net Equalization Payment Calculation attached as “Schedule A” to these Reasons, I conclude that Mr. Peters owes Ms. Peters an equalization payment in the amount of $33,740.78.

[149] The Balmertown residence has been sold and net proceeds of sale in the amount of $117,620.98 remain in trust. The value of this jointly owned home as of the valuation date has not been included in this calculation. The equalization payment owing from Mr. Peters to Ms. Peters shall be paid to her from Mr. Peters’ one-half share of the net proceeds from the sale of the Balmertown residence remaining in trust.

Ms. Peters’ Payment of Joint Debts Post-Separation

[150] It is agreed that Ms. Peters paid $70,034.58 toward “joint debts” post-separation. She seeks an order requiring Mr. Peters to reimburse her one-half of this amount, or $35,017.29, from his share of the balance of proceeds from the sale of the Balmertown residence.

[151] Mr. Peters acknowledges that Ms. Peters is entitled to be reimbursed for the following payments she made post-separation:

1. Home insurance for the Colonization Rd. home $2,577.00
2. Insurance for the pontoon boat $2,148.67
3. Insurance for the Chev truck $5,020.00
4. Property taxes for the Colonization Rd. home $3,883.43 TOTAL $13,629.10

Expenses relating to the Balmertown Residence

[152] The Balmertown residence was registered to the parties as joint tenants. As I understand the evidence, Mr. Peters vacated the property on or shortly after October 10, 2018, the date of separation. Ms. Peters remained in possession until the home was sold in August 2021.

[153] On May 28, 2020, at a Case Conference at which both parties were represented by counsel, the parties consented to a temporary order which granted Ms. Peters exclusive possession of the Balmertown residence and which granted Mr. Peters temporary possession of the Colonization Rd. home. This order is silent as to which party is responsible for the carrying costs of either property. Neither party has made a claim against the other for occupation rent regarding the parties’ exclusive occupation of these homes.

[154] In 2019, 2020 and 2021, Ms. Peters made the following payments for the Balmertown residence as they came due:

2019 Property taxes $4,767.23

2020 Property taxes $4,873.70 Home insurance on the Balmertown residence (calculated as ½ of total amount paid in 2020 for insurance for this property and the Colonization Rd. home). $1,113.33

2021 Property taxes $2,436.85 Home insurance on the Balmertown residence (calculated as ½ of the total amount paid in 2021 for insurance for this property and the Colonization Rd. home) $999 Mortgage on the Balmertown residence $10,094.31 Scotiabank PCL secured the Balmertown residence $757.81

TOTAL $25,042.23

[155] Ms. Peters claims reimbursement for 50% of these payments from Mr. Peters. Joint owners are equally responsible for the carrying costs related to a property, in the absence of a court order or agreement specifying otherwise. I note that Ms. Peters is claiming reimbursement for only one-half of the post-separation payments she made for the Colonization Rd. home, a jointly owned residence which Mr. Peters had exclusive possession of post-separation.

[156] I find that Ms. Peters is therefore entitled to reimbursement from Mr. Peters for one-half of the above payments made by her for the Balmertown residence between the date of separation and the date of sale. That amount is $12,521.12.

[157] It follows that I reject Mr. Peters’ submissions that Ms. Peters should be required to reimburse him for one-half of the amount paid from joint sale proceeds for unpaid property taxes for the Balmertown residence.

Home insurance on the Colonization Rd. Home

[158] Ms. Peters paid the home insurance for the Colonization Rd. home in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 and seeks reimbursement from Mr. Peters. Ms. Peters became a joint owner of this residence in August 2018 and was therefore a joint owner, and was jointly responsible for expenses during the period for which she claims reimbursement for these payments.

[159] Mr. Peters has acknowledged his indebtedness in the amount of $2,577 to Ms. Peters for the home insurance on the Colonization Rd. home, as set out in paras. 106 and 151 above. I find that this amount reasonably reflects the shared responsibility of the parties for this expense.

Auto Insurance for Chevrolet Truck in Mr. Peters’ Possession

[160] Again, Mr. Peters acknowledges his obligation to reimburse Ms. Peters for payments she made in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 for the insurance on the Chevrolet truck in his possession. Mr. Peters submits that the appropriate amount is $5,020, as set out in paras. 106 and 151 above. I find that this meets or exceeds the amount claimed by Ms. Peters for this expense.

Property Taxes for the Colonization Rd. Home

[161] Ms. Peters seeks reimbursement for 50% of the amounts she paid for the property taxes for the Colonization Rd. home in the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. She has supplied the court with proof of payment of the following amounts for these years:

2019 $829.44 2020 $1,737.31 2021 $1,316.68 TOTAL $3,883.43

[162] Mr. Peters concedes his obligation to reimburse Ms. Peters for payments she made for the property taxes on the Colonization Rd. home following separation. As set out in paras. 106 and 151 above, he submits that the proper amount is $3,883.43, consistent with the claim made by Ms. Peters.

CIBC PCL (#...1136) Secured Against the Colonization Rd. Home

[163] Mr. Peters placed this $80,0000 collateral mortgage on the Colonization Rd. home in July 2011, when he was the sole registered owner, to finance the construction of the Balmertown residence. Ms. Peters guaranteed this debt. The October 11, 2018, CIBC statement for this debt confirms that the balance of the debt on the date of separation was $76,361.62.

[164] A Temporary Order dated June 11, 2021, ordered that the Balmertown matrimonial home was to be sold and that “as much of the CIBC joint line of credit as possible” was to be paid from proceeds. The Balmertown matrimonial home was sold on August 30, 2021, but this debt was not paid from proceeds until July 21, 2022. The payout figure at that time was $80,284.29. The difference between these two figures is $3,922.67.

[165] Ms. Peters has established payments totaling $10,600.87 on this joint debt between 2019 and 2022. As I understand his evidence, Mr. Peters concedes that Ms. Peters made payments on this debt post-separation for which he is 50% responsible. However, he contends that Ms. Peters should account for the $3,922.67 increase in the balance of this debt between the date of separation and the date of payout and that he should receive full credit for a $3,000 payment he made towards the debt on April 22, 2019, all of which would result in a credit to him.

[166] I accept Mr. Peters’ evidence that he did not draw on the CIBC PCL post-separation. I therefore accept his submission that Ms. Peters should account for the $3,922.67 post-separation increase in this debt because it was paid out from joint funds. I further accept Mr. Peters’ evidence that he paid $3,000 on this debt on April 22, 2019. He is entitled to a credit of 50% of this amount. I accept the evidence of Ms. Peters that she made payments on this debt between the date of separation and the payout date totaling $10,600.87 for which I find Mr. Peters’ 50% responsible.

[167] The net result of these findings is that Mr. Peters shall reimburse Ms. Peters in the amount of $122.23 on account of the joint CIBC PCL.

Scotiabank PCL Registered Against the Balmertown Residence

[168] Mr. Peters does not dispute that Ms. Peters paid a total of $2,055.04 on the joint Scotiabank PCL in the years 2021. It follows that he is required to reimburse her for 50% of this amount, being $1,027.52. However, as submitted by Mr. Peters, Ms. Peters increased the balance of this debt by $4,139 post-separation and it was then paid off out of the joint proceeds of sale from the sale of the Balmertown residence. I therefore accept Mr. Peters’ submission that Ms. Peters should be required to reimburse him for the post-separation increase in this debt. The net result is that Ms. Peters is required to reimburse Mr. Peters $3,111.49 in relation to this debt.

Miscellaneous Adjustments

[169] Pursuant to a Temporary Order dated May 28, 2020, Mr. Peters was ordered to pay for the appraisal of the Colonization Rd. home. It is not clear from the evidence if he has done so. In any event, this is Mr. Peters’ sole responsibility. This “debt” has not been included in the calculation of Mr. Peters’ NFP.

[170] Pursuant to my findings in paras. 151, 156, 167 and 168, Mr. Peters shall reimburse Ms. Peters the total amount of $23,160.96 on account of post-separation expenses paid by her. This shall be paid to Ms. Peters from Mr. Peters’ remaining one-half share of the net proceeds of sale of the Balmertown residence, together with the equalization payment owing to her as set out in para. 148 ($33,740.78).

[171] This is a Divorce action, and a Divorce Order shall issue. Any costs incurred in obtaining the Divorce Order shall be paid by the party seeking the divorce.

[172] Each of the parties have filed a draft final order. The parties are ad idem as to what should occur with the Colonization Rd. home. Consistent with the terms of the draft orders filed, I order that Ms. Peters transfer her interest in the Colonization Rd. property to Mr. Peters within 30 days for the sum of $42,500. Mr. Peters shall be responsible for all associated conveyancing costs and fees.

[173] I further order that within 30 days of the release of this Judgment, Ms. Peters shall attend at the Colonization Rd. home with a third party, on a date and at a time mutually agreed upon by the parties, to remove any of her personal property remaining at this residence.

[174] If the parties cannot agree on the balance of the terms of a final order, I may be spoken to by way of an appointment scheduled through the Regional Trial Coordinator.

Costs

[175] In my view, success has been divided in this litigation. I therefore encourage the parties to resolve the issue of costs. Should the parties be unable to do so, they shall file written Costs Submissions (not to exceed 3 pages) together with their Bills of Cost. Ms. Peters’ Costs Submissions shall be filed within 21 days of the release of this Judgment; Mr. Peters’ within 7 days thereafter. If Costs Submissions are not filed within this timeframe, costs shall be deemed to have been settled.

Released: March 13, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-100-00 DATE: 2024-03-13

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N: Pamela Joan Peters Applicant

• and – Robert Ernest Colin Peters Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Fregeau J.

Released: March 13, 2024

Schedule “A” – Net Family Property Calculation and Net Equalization Payment

VALUATION DATE: October 10, 2018 MARRIAGE DATE: December 26, 2007

A = Value agreed upon by parties J = Value as per Reasons for Judgement

Value of Assets Owned on Valuation Date

PROPERTY	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
1 Colonization Rd. Home (Joint)	A	$42,500.00
2 Household Contents	J	$5,000.00
3 Vehicles	A	$38,500.00
4 Pontoon Boat, Motor, Trailer	A
5 Jayco Trailer	J
6 Trailer Hitch	J
7 Jewellery	A	$1,500.00
8 Larger Generator	A
9 Snow Blower	A
10 Haulmark Trailer	A
11 Items from Jayco Trailer	J	$250.00
12 Lawn Tractor	A	$1,200.00
13 Roto Tiller	A
14 Safe	A
15 Tools	J	$0.00
16 RBC Joint Chequing Account	J	$1,513.39
17 Scotiabank Joint Chq Acct	J	$95.86
18 CIBC Waive Account	J	$1,346.21
19 LIF	A
20 RRIF	A
21 RRSP	A
22 Sun Life	A
TOTAL		$277,019.59

Value of Debts & Other Liabilities on Valuation Date

PROPERTY	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
1 Credit Card Debt	J
2 RBC VISA	A	$1,264.53
3 West Jet VISA	A	$5,979.48
4 Canadian Tire	A	$3,742.02
5 Vehicle Loan	A	$14,536.55
TOTAL		$14,536.55

Value of Assets Owned on Date of Marriage

PROPERTY	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
1 Colonization Rd. Home	J
2 935 Victoria Ave.	J
3 931 McKenzie Ave.	A	$50,000.00
4 Pontoon Boat, Motor, Trailer	J
5 1972 Plymouth Duster	J
6 Jayco Trailer	A
7 Tools	J
8 Trailer Hitch	J
9 Safe	A
10 RRSP	A	$2,501.33
11 RRSP	A
12 Gold Corp Shares	A
13 RRSP	A
14 CIBC Waive Account	A	$52,038.02
15 Sears Club Credit Card	J	$31.35
TOTAL		$157,664.35

Value of Debts & Liabilities on Date of Marriage

PROPERTY	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
1 Pontoon Boat Debt	A
2 Canadian Tire	A
3 RBC VISA	A
4 RBC Line of Credit	A
5 RBC Line of Credit	A
6 Sears Mastercard	A
7 GMAC Lease	A
TOTAL		$3,636.27

Net Value of Property on Date of Marriage

	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Assets	$157,664.35	$215,596.72
Debts	-$3,636.27	-$82,346.84
NET TOTAL	$154,028.08	$133,249.88

Net Equalization Payment (NEP) Calculation

MS. PETERS NFP
Valuation Date Assets Net	$277,019.59
Less Valuation Date Debts and Liabilities	-$14,536.55
Less Date of Marriage Value	-$154,028.08
TOTAL	$108,454.96

MR. PETERS NFP
Valuation Date Assets Net	$393,732.58
Less Valuation Date Debts and Liabilities	-$84,546.18
Less Date of Marriage Value	-$133,249.88
TOTAL	$175,936.52

NEP – MR. PETERS TO MS. PETERS
Mr. Peters NFP	$175,936.52
Ms. Peters NFP	-$108,454.96
	$67,481.56
$67,481.56 ÷ 2
TOTAL	$33,740.78

Released: March 13, 2024