Daniel v. Daniel, 2011 ABQB 208

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Daniel v. Daniel, 2011 ABQB 208 Date: 20110328 Docket: 4814 001586 Registry: St. Paul Between: Margaret Catherine Daniel Plaintiff - and - Stanley Charles Edgar Daniel Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice B.E. Romaine _______________________________________________________ [1] In my judgment of July 16, 2010, I directed that the proposal to divide matrimonial property presented by Ms.

Daniel’s counsel during the trial (the “MDP”) be revised in accordance with directions set out in my judgment. The parties are unable to agree on how that is to be done, and I therefore direct the following for clarification: Property Division 1 . Pre-Trial Distribution: No amendment to the MDP submitted at trial by counsel for Ms. Daniel with respect to Mr. Daniel’s pre- trial distribution is required arising from paragraphs 23 to 27 of my judgment. 2 . Sears Pension: No amendment to the value of Ms. Daniel’s Sears pension as set out in the MDP is necessary.

3 . Miscellaneous Furniture: The MDP should be amended to reduce the value of Mr. Daniel’s miscellaneous property to $25, 650, given my findings in paragraph 27, item 2 of the judgment. I agree that I made a mathematical error that led me to conclude that the miscellaneous property listed in the

schedule should be distributed in a roughly equal manner. 4 . Joint Debt: No amendment to the MDP as presented at trial is necessary. 5 . Florida Condominium: No amendment to the MDP is necessary. Mr. Daniel is to receive title to the Florida condominium. 6 . L714 Issue: No amendment to the MDP is necessary. 7 . Mr. Daniel’s RRSPs: I accept Ms. Daniel’s proposal to update the value of Mr. Daniel’s RRSPs in the MDP as of March 31, 2010 to match the date of statements with respect to Ms. Daniel’s RRSPs as presented in evidence at trial. As noted by Ms. Daniel, this avoids the issue of Mr.

Daniel’s withdrawal of RRSP funds in June, 2010. While there may have been a decrease in value of the RRSPs due to the downturn in financial markets between March 31, 2010 and the date of judgment, this would affect the values of both parties’ RRSPs, subject to specific portfolio variances. For clarity, I thus find that Mr. Daniel’s RRSP value for the purpose of the MDP is $326,257.20. [2] In

summary, I accept Ms. Daniel’s proposed and amended MDP as forwarded to me on September 3, 2010 and attached as

Schedule A to this decision. Costs [3] The parties have likewise been unable to agree on costs. [4] This has been acrimonious litigation with little agreement between the parties on any issue. Mr. Daniel was successful on the hard-fought pension division issue, but not entirely successful. Ms. Daniel was largely successful on all other issues. There is little utility in comparing the offers made to the eventual outcome, given that the pension issue. (which was important to both parties) is very difficulty to quantify in monetary terms.

In the circumstances of this case, it is equitable that both parties should bear their own costs and disbursements and I so direct. This includes the costs of calling Mr. Thiessen. Dated at the City of St. Paul, Alberta this 28 th day of March, 2011. B.E. Romaine J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Mr. D. F. Revering Hall Revering & DeMong for the Plaintiff Mr. Greg Heinrichs, Q.C. Davis & Company for the Defendant