Rumberger v. Mailer, 2011 ABQB 518

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rumberger v. Mailer, 2011 ABQB 518 Date: 20110816 Docket: 4810 021688 Registry: Red Deer Between: Sheena Lynn Rumberger Applicant - and - Lewis David James Mailer Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Amongst other relief requested in this application filed in her Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property claim, Ms. Rumberger asks the Court to order her husband, Mr.

Mailer, to account for all cash or other payments he received since separation with respect to the operations of L.L. Waste Removal, which she alleges is a corporation which is matrimonial property. She also asks the Court to direct her husband to continue to operate L.L. Waste Removal in a business-like fashion as he did prior to separation and, in particular, that he continue to provide services to the company and that he continue to provide her with information about what services have been provided to which customers so that she can invoice those customers for the benefit of L.L.

Waste Removal. [ 2 ] The parties have reached agreement about the remainder of the relief requested by Ms. Rumberger.

[3] Mr. Mailer opposes the requests on the grounds that the Court has no jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Property Act tomake the orders requested and such relief could only be sought under corporate legislation. He provides no authority or further argumentin support of that position. [4] Ms. Rumberger's application is allowed: implicitly, Mr. Mailer agrees that the interests in L.L. Waste Removal arematrimonial property. Indeed, the Regulation to the MPA, and the form passed thereunder, make it clear that corporate business interestsare eligible matrimonial property.

The Matrimonial Property Act is very broad, see s. 9(3), and is explicitly concerned with dissipation ofmatrimonial property, see s. 8(l). Specific property, for example entitlement to a pension, may be subject to both the MPA and to otherlegislation such as the Local Authorities Pension Plan. That fact alone raises no problem unless relief under one law is specificallyprohibited under the other. No such prohibition is raised here.

On the contrary, one can see that extensive relief relating to corporateinterests is often granted in matrimonial property proceedings: see, for example, Newton 2008 BCSC 328 , [2008] B.C.J. No.472. Indeed, Ms. Rumberger's requests will not benefit her directly, but will benefit the corporation; Mr. Mailer will, of course, havefurther opportunity of making submissions concerning how the corporation's assets should be distributed. [5] Having determined that nothing restricts the Court's jurisdiction to make the order requested, the Court goes on to concludethat Ms.

Rumberger has satisfied her obligation to prove that a mandatory injunction is fair: there is obviously a serious issue to be tried;the evidence of dissipation establishes that irreparable harm would occur if the relief were not granted - although there appear to bedistributable assets greatly in excess of the $110,000.00 loss alleged to have been suffered since separation, without the requested reliefthere would be no way of determining how much of those other assets should fairly be attributed to Ms. Rumberger; and, the balance ofconvenience favours Ms.

Rumberger since her requests will directly benefit the company in which each of the parties has an interest. [6] If the parties are not agreed on costs, I may be spoken to within 30 days of the release of this decision. Heard on the 15th day of August, 2011. Dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta this 16th day of August, 2011. “J.B. Veit” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mr. R.E. Howarth, Schnell Hardy Jones LLP for Ms. Rumberger Mr. Donald A. Gross for Mr. Mailer