Bidulock v. Bidulock, 2010 ABQB 300

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Bidulock v. Bidulock, 2010 ABQB 300 Date: 20100506 Docket: 4803 143347 Registry: Edmonton Between: Geraldine Ann Bidulock Plaintiff - and - Jerry Stephen Bidulock Defendant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms.

Bidulock applies for the settlement of the minutes of the order arising out of my decision of February 1, 2010. [ 2 ] First, as the very wording of R. 317 emphasizes, this type of motion does not authorize a re-hearing of the matter. Therefore, the court will not comment upon arguments advanced by Mr. Bidulock on this motion relating, for example, to whether he can afford to make the payments ordered by the court, or whether the court made the correct or fair decision. [ 3 ] Second, para. 25 of the decision required an accounting between the parties. I am satisfied from the evidence presented by Ms.

Bidulock that Power Merchants Ltd. paid $38,203.58 to Mr. Bidulock’s family law advisers; that is the amount that must be equalized.

[ 4 ] The parties agree that, from that total, the payment of $10,000.00 pursuant to Ross J’s order should be deducted. [ 5 ] Mr. Bidulock argues that there is some “double dipping” problem with Ms. Bidulock’s further reduction of the amount due to her by the total of $5,000.00 which Mr. Bidulock paid to her from his personal assets. I cannot agree. The objective of the decision, in part, was to ensure that there should be no dissipation of corporate matrimonial property. [ 6 ] Ms. Bidlock lost $38,203.58 worth of assets; she should be compensated for that. Indeed, the court has said that Mr.

Bidulock must make up the interim equalization payment from his personal assets, not from matrimonial property. Mr. Bidulock has already started to repay Ms. Bidulock from his own assets; that is exactly what the court intended. That is in no way double dipping. In the result, the payment made by Mr. Bidulock to Ms. Bidulock of $5,000.00 should also be deducted from the equalization payment. [ 7 ] At the hearing, Ms. Bidulock agreed that a further $1,800.00 should also be deducted from the outstanding amount payable. [ 8 ] As to costs, although there were some issues on which Ms.

Bidulock was unsuccessful, as reflected in the form of order, those matters were not the subject of the main dispute between the parties at the hearing. The main contest was over the payment of legal fees. [ 9 ] On that issue, Ms. Bidulock was successful. Therefore, overall, she was substantially successful. She is entitled to costs of the original hearing which the court sets at $750.00; she was also successful on this hearing for which she is entitled to $500.00. Heard on the 4 th day of May, 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of May, 2010. “J.B. Veit” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Marie L. Gordon, Q.C., Gordon Zwaenepoel for the Ms. Bidulock Dale E. Tumbach for the Mr. Bidulock