Boyda v. Shaw, 2011 ABQB 632

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Boyda v. Shaw, 2011 ABQB 632 Date: 20111013 Docket: 4801 140698 Registry: Calgary Between: Howie Preston Boyda Plaintiff - and - Marilyn Juel Shaw Defendant _______________________________________________________ Supplementary Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice G.C. Hawco _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On September 22, 2011, I delivered my judgment orally to the parties. On that day, I filed my Reasons for my decisions. On September 30, 2011, I signed the Judgment Roll.

Regretfully, I made an error with respect to monies which I directed to be paid to Ms. Shaw by Mr. Boyda. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Judgment Roll, I said that the monies payable to Ms. Shaw should be paid to her from the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home. The monies related to monies which Ms. Shaw had paid and with respect to which Mr. Boyda should have contributed his appropriate share, which was one-half of the amount. Of course, the monies should, therefore, have been paid by Mr. Boyda from his share of the net proceeds.

They are not payable from the net proceeds before they have been divided equally.

[ 2 ] Let me give an example of what I mean. The amounts which I held in my Reasons for Judgment should be paid to Ms. Shaw by Mr. Boyda amount to $6,295.84. Assuming the net proceeds from the sale of the house amount to $150,000, Ms. Shaw is entitled to the first $65,000, as that is the total of her exemption. The remaining $85,000 would be divided equally between the parties. However, from Mr. Boyda’s share of $42,500, would be deducted the sum of $6,295.84. The net result would be that from $150,000, Ms. Shaw would receive the $65,000, the $42,500, and the $6,295.84 for a total of $113,795.84. Mr.

Boyda should receive the amount of $36,204.16. The Judgment Roll will be amended to provide for this. [ 3 ] Paragraph 8 of the Judgment Roll deals with pension monies owing to Ms. Shaw. Ms. Shaw has indicated that she is having difficulties with being able to communicate with the company or the pension provider. If Ms. Shaw requires information with respect to the value of the pension, she is permitted to deal with the person or persons having the knowledge. [ 4 ] Paragraph 17 of my Judgment Roll is somewhat confusing. I understand that Ms. Bonnie Boyda has returned to school as of early September.

As such, she has once again become a child of the marriage. So long as she remains in school, she remains a child of the marriage. If Bonnie does work, her money will, presumably, go towards her tuition and books. To that extent, Ms. Shaw’s

Section 7 expenses relating to Bonnie’s school will be reduced by the amount of Bonnie’s income in any given year. [ 5 ] Ms. Shaw has taken exception to the wording of paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Judgment Roll. Those are the standard maintenance enforcement clauses and will not be changed. [ 6 ] I regret any concerns or misunderstandings my miscalculations may have made. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 13 th day of October, 2011. G.C. Hawco J.C.Q.B.A.