Koch v Koch, 2017 ABQB 596

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Koch v Koch, 2017 ABQB 596 Date: 20171005 Docket: 4801 142624 Registry: Calgary Between: Claire Anne Koch Plaintiff - and - Alvin Raymond Koch Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice C.L. Kenny _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] This matter involves the division of matrimonial property as well as retroactive and ongoing spousal support. Background [ 2 ] The parties were married in 1978 and separated in July of 2007. They have three adult children. Mr.

Koch (“the husband”) is a plumber by trade and started his own business in 1980, Sundance Plumbing, Gas, and Heating Ltd. (“Sundance”) which he still owns and operates today. Ms. Koch, now Moroney, (“the wife”), was a respiratory therapist until 1984 when the parties first child was born.

She returned to work part-time thereafter until 1994/95 when her position was eliminated due to cut backs. Since the plumbing business was flourishing at that time, the parties decided that the wife would stay at home as a fulltime mother and home-maker. Two of the children had medical issues which required extra attention when they were young and the wife was able to provide this additional attention during their school years. [ 3 ] In July of 2007, the husband moved out of the matrimonial home and into another property that the parties owned.

The relationship between the parties remained cordial and the husband continued to support the wife and children in the lifestyle that they had always had. The business was doing very well and so this included private school, vacations, and a vacation property. The wife had access to the joint credit card as well as funds to pay all of their usual expenses for both the matrimonial home and the vacation property. [ 4 ] This all changed in 2009 when the wife retained legal counsel.

The husband cancelled the wife’s golf membership, cancelled her credit card, and slowly decreased the amount of money that he was providing to her and which was paid sporadically. Since separation, the parties had also continued to split income from Sundance, as they had before the separation, with the husband paying the wife’s income tax. The wife was asked in the spring of 2009 to continue with this arrangement to which she agreed upon the husband’s promise to pay her income tax bill of approximately $43,000.

He did not pay it resulting in the wife’s bank account being garnisheed and the wife being placed on a payment plan with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).She finally retired that debt in November of 2012. [ 5 ] In and around this time, the husband started to pay the wife support of $7500 per month net, pay the mortgage on the matrimonial home (approximately $2400 per month) and pay the lease payment on the wife’s vehicle ( approximately $1300 per month). [ 6 ] On June 23, 2010, a consent order was entered into which provided, among other things, that the husband would pay uncharacterized payments, commencing June 1, 2010, of $7500 per month and that he would continue to pay the mortgage on the matrimonial home. [ 7 ] In April of 2011, the husband stopped making the uncharacterized payments under the consent order.

From April of 2011 to the fall of 2015 when another court order was made, the husband made only two payments of $5000 each in March and September of 2012. [ 8 ] The wife had been working part-time over a number of years earning approximately $12 per hour. She had no ability to support herself whatsoever save and except through the funds and benefits received from her husband. This was not an issue at all until 2009 because all expenses had been covered until that time. From 2009 until April of 2011, the husband paid the monthly uncharacterized payments as well as mortgage payments.

It was when the payments stopped in April of 2011 that the wife was forced to rely, in addition to her part-time income, on her RRSPs and money from family members to meet her expenses. [ 9 ] In September of 2012, the wife obtained a part-time job with WestJet. In 2013 she became a customer service agent with WestJet which paid her $17.10 per hour. In addition to that, she took on a part-time job at a retail clothing store to try and make ends meet. In October of 2016, the wife was diagnosed with a very serious and rare disease which required hospitalization initially.

She is now on disability earning $1000 per month. [ 10 ] Other than the matrimonial home and use of the vacation property, the husband has had the exclusive use and access to all of the other matrimonial property and funds from the sale of some of that property which has been extensive. Issues [ 11 ] The following issues are before the court: (

a) Divorce Judgment (

b) Division of matrimonial property; (

c) Retroactive spousal support; (

d) Ongoing spousal support; Divorce Judgment [ 12 ] The Divorce Judgment is granted as at the date of these Reasons. Counsel may forward a separate Divorce Judgment for signature. Division of Matrimonial Property [ 13 ] The parties agree on what comprises the matrimonial property. They agree on many of the values of that property. Significant issues arose during the trial about what was done with certain matrimonial property after separation. The parties have been separated for a long time and the husband has had the control of most of the matrimonial property during that period of separation.

He has received proceeds from the sale of certain matrimonial property which he has converted to his own use and purchased other property. It is agreed that for that reason, the husband will account, in the property distribution, for the proceeds he has received. What he has done with his share of those proceeds after separation is his issue and not the wife’s issue. The assets acquired after separation from assets owned at the separation will not be traced. [ 14 ]

Schedule “A” attached hereto sets out the valuation and division of matrimonial property as I have found it. I will deal in these

reasons only with those items of matrimonial property which were in dispute either as to valuation or disposition. Those items not mentioned are not in dispute and agreed to by the parties. (Item numbers track the numbers in

Schedule A) 1) Matrimonial home- [ 15 ] Two issues arise here. First of all, the husband paid all of the mortgage payments on the home. He is seeking to be reimbursed for these either as against the property settlement or as against any order for the payment of retroactive spousal support. It is acknowledged that he should be reimbursed for these as he was, at the same time, paying all of the mortgage payments on another piece of property where he was residing. He is not claiming any of those payments as against the wife.

In my view, it is appropriate to deal with these payments in the spousal support calculation rather than to deal with them in a property division. [ 16 ] The second issue deals with a claim by the husband, in argument, for an exemption. I am advised that this issue did not arise over the course of this litigation and the claim was never put forward in any material provided to opposing counsel or to the court prior to or during the trial.

The husband’s proposed distribution of assets at the beginning of the trial did not contain this claim. [ 17 ] There was evidence given by the husband at the trial of this matter that he owned a home prior to the marriage which was sold and that $40,000 from that home went into a jointly owned home which was later sold and the funds therefrom put into the current jointly owned matrimonial home. The wife gave her evidence in this trial first and was not cross examined on the issue of the exemption or funds put into the original matrimonial home.

This engages the rule in Browne and Dunn (1893), 6 R 67 (HL) - the wife had no opportunity to respond to this claim while giving her evidence as it was not put to her. [ 18 ] The second problem is that there is no tracing of the exemption by the husband which is required under our law ( Scheffelmeier v. Krassman 2011 ABCA 64 ). I can appreciate that we are looking at a transaction that took place almost forty years ago however there are no documents whatsoever showing the date of sale, proceeds received, tracing of the money into a new property and then tracing it again into the matrimonial home.

While precision is not required, there must be something to tie the exempt property to the existing property. For the above reasons, I deny the claim for an exemption. 3) Terra Vista [ 19 ] The Husband made monthly mortgage payments on this property from the date of separation. The wife made payments on the property taxes, assessments, and insurance. There is an agreed set-off between the two. This will be dealt with in the spousal support. [ 20 ] The parties also raised the issue of notional capital gains tax on this property and other property where there is no present intention to sell the property.

It was agreed that all such property needed to be treated in the same manner; either a notional capital gains tax imposed on all such properties or no notional capital gains tax imposed. There will be no notional capital gains tax on this property as there is no present intention to sell the same. 8) Mountain View Joint Venture [ 21 ] The parties miscalculated the gain on this asset which affects the tax to be paid at 39% and I have therefore made the required adjustments. 9) Desert Blume Joint Venture [ 22 ] This is an interest in a housing development in Medicine Hat, Alberta.

The interest is held in a corporate entity – Streeter Developments Ltd.(“Streeter”). The parties are equal shareholders in that company. The joint venture had a value in 2007 of approximately $129,409. The parties have no idea of the value at the present time. The husband suggests that he buy out the wife or the wife buy him out at one half of the 2007 value. The wife suggests that they attempt to divide the interest that they each have in this asset at the source of the investment so that they each hold one half of the interest in their own name.

This will eliminate any future issues between them as they will each be paid out their own interest when the investment is sold. I will leave the asset as is. The parties can either leave it as is in Streeter or attempt to divide the asset in half at the source. The remaining interest or proceeds will be divided equally between the parties. 10) Aviemore Joint Venture [ 23 ] The husband received net proceeds, after tax, from this joint venture, in the sum of $521,522. The parties miscalculated the tax to be paid at 39% on the funds received so I have made that adjustment.

From these proceeds, the husband indicates that he paid back the wife’s sister the sum of $150,000 which the parties had borrowed to invest in property in Mexico several years before the separation. There was an issue of whether this debt was paid back before or after separation. The date it was paid back is not clear but it is clear that there were no funds to pay the debt until funds were received from Aviemore which was in 2007 and 2008. The general ledger of Sundance shows interest on this debt being paid on September 7, 2007 therefore the debt likely would have been repaid around the same time.

I am satisfied therefore that this matrimonial debt should be deducted from the net proceeds received. [ 24 ] Personal income taxes owing for both the husband and the wife for the 2007 tax year, on funds taken out in 2006 when they were still together, were also paid at that time from funds received from Aviemore. It was agreed that only one half of those taxes should be recognized since the parties separated in the middle of 2007 and adjusted to reflect an appropriate tax rate and incomes for that year.

For example, part of the husband’s income for that year included dividends from Aviemore which had to be backed out. In the end, it was agreed that the husband also receive credits of $52,000 and $32,000 respectively with respect to personal income taxes paid from the proceeds of Aviemore. This leaves net proceeds from this asset in the sum of $287,522. 11) Rancho Santa Selva [ 25 ] There is no appraisal on this property. There is a letter from someone involved in the investment which indicates the interest may have a value of between $42,000 and $68,000 but the numbers are very uncertain.

The husband suggests that one party buy out the interest of the other party. Apparently $250,000 U.S. was put into this property. Absent a valuation, the parties will simply split the interest in this property equally between them and divide any proceeds received from this property equally. 35) Piano [ 26 ] This piano is listed as a corporate asset in Sundance. It was purchased for $137,000 and has been gifted by the husband to one of their sons. It has a current market value of $40,000 which is reflected in the corporate financial statements.

The wife wants some of the depreciation to be reflected as an asset to the husband since in her view it was a bad investment and had those funds stayed in the company rather than be used to purchase the piano, the company would have a greater value today. As a corporate asset included in the corporate valuation, I am not prepared to attribute a notional number which represents the depreciation of the asset to the husband personally in the property distribution. 38) Sundance Plumbing [ 27 ] The husband is the sole shareholder of this company.

This company is actively engaged in the plumbing business and is the source of the husband’s ongoing income. Two experts gave evidence at the trial as to the value of the company. The company owns the property it operates out of and that is where almost all of the value is. [ 28 ] In order to simplify the differences, Mr. Trischuk, the expert for the wife, set out (Exhibit 19) the major differences between the two expert valuations. They are in three areas:

a) date of valuation,

b) latent tax difference, and

c) difference in goodwill. Mr. Trischuk also showed the differences using his high and low valuations. I elect to use the midpoint of his valuation as a starting point which is 2.36 million dollars. (

a) Date of valuation- Mr. Trischuk used a midyear valuation using midyear statements in order to determine a valuation. This is all of the information he had in order to do his valuation. Mr. Lawritsen, the expert for the husband, had available to him the year end statements for the company when he did his valuation in response. There was a significant dividend declared in the latter half of the year which affected the year end valuation. Mr. Trischuk acknowledges that the year-end statements would give a more accurate picture of the company for that year but it was simply information he did not have.

I accept that the year-end statement is more representative of the valuation of the company for the purposes of these proceedings. (

b) Latent tax difference – This relates to the tax which would be paid by the company on disposition. There is no intention at this time to sell the company or the underlying assets. As Mr. Trischuk indicated, the number can be $0 if the company is never sold or $809,000 if the company were sold today. He elected to use a 50% tax liability indicating that a number of scenarios could play out over many years which would reduce the tax liability from 100% including tax planning. (

c) Mr. Lawritsen used 75% tax as his disposition cost, assuming the company would be sold today and that the full tax would be incurred. He also noted that a large part of the value of the company is the building which is a fixed asset and so tax will definitely have to be paid on disposition. He acknowledged that there are tax planning strategies available and that if the company were not sold for a number of years, the disposition costs could be mitigated. He suggested a 75% discount rather than the 50% used by Mr. Trischuk. He indicated that any purchaser would be acutely aware of tax consequences in valuing the company for purchase. (

d) I accept the 75% tax liability in valuing this asset. (

e) Difference in Goodwill- Mr. Trischuk assessed a moderate value for goodwill for this business indicating that the company had ongoing work in progress which would appropriately be valued as goodwill. Mr. Lawritsen came to a zero value for goodwill by looking at the underlying valuation of two other subsidiary companies. Those companies had a negative value and so he attributed a negative goodwill number to those companies which he set off against the goodwill of Sundance. Mr.

Trischuk took issue with this indicating that a company cannot have a negative goodwill- it either has no goodwill or a positive goodwill. I accept Mr. Trischuk’s position on this matter and would leave the goodwill as he assessed. [ 29 ] I have used Exhibit 19 to make the adjustments I have indicated above. I am assuming they are accurate however the parties may follow up with me in the event that I have made an error in those calculations. [ 30 ] I find therefore that the valuation of Sundance is: BDO mid-point valuation 2,360,000 Valuation date (215,810) Latent tax difference (224,692)

Difference in goodwill

(0) TOTAL 1,919,498 44) CRA – Streeter 2012 T5 [ 31 ] This was a T5 issued by Streeter to the wife. The husband says that this represented funds received by the wife earlier than 2012. The wife had their expert witness provide evidence on the basis for this T5. The expert traced the funds for which the T5s were issued- one for the husband and one for the wife. In fact, the funds on which both T5s were issued were all received by the husband in 2010 and 2011, therefore the tax bill was entirely his. [ 32 ] The husband did not pay any part of this debt.

The wife was required to take out a line of credit to pay the debt to CRA. She did so. The total cost to her was $75,855.70. This will be credited back to her in the final distribution.

Summary – Matrimonial Property [ 33 ] As set out in

Schedule “A” attached hereto, the Husband shall pay to the wife, or transfer assets to the wife, in the sum of $1,525,504.20 in order to equalize the matrimonial property division. Retroactive Spousal Support [ 34 ] The parties cannot agree on when the spousal support should commence. The wife argues that she was adequately supported for about 3 ½ years after separation in the same lifestyle that she had enjoyed during the marriage. She had access to the same bank accounts and credit cards and the husband continued to pay all of the family bills.

This all ended in early 2011 when the husband stopped paying spousal support that had been ordered by the court. [ 35 ] The husband argues that the wife cannot seek retroactive spousal support prior to the date of filing of her Statement of Claim which was filed in 2009. He argues that if the court goes back earlier than 2009, he would be seeking credit for payments made by him on the mortgages on the matrimonial home and on the vacation property.

Those payments have been referred to above in the property section. [ 36 ] In my view, it would be virtually impossible to reconstruct an accurate scenario with respect to spousal support any earlier than 2010. This is because the parties’ finances were completely intertwined until approximately the end of 2009. The wife was receiving support to which she was entitled.

After that time, in 2010 and early 2011, the husband made fixed monthly payments to the wife along with the mortgage payments and the lease payments on the wife’s vehicle. [ 37 ] We have already ensured that property payments which showed up on the husband’s tax returns were backed out for support purposes. This is to make sure that funds received for property are accounted for in the property distribution and then not included again for the purposes of spousal support.

This would be a double dip. [ 38 ] The husband, as is common in small, sole owner companies, used the company bank account and credit cards for both personal and business expenses without distinction. He would then provide the credit card statements to the book-keeper and indicate next to each expense what it was for- either business or personal.

The book-keeper indicated that she booked the expenses as indicated by the husband however she did adjust restaurant meals as she knew that those could not be claimed as expenses in their entirety for tax purposes. [ 39 ] The expenses that were personal were then added to the husband’s shareholders loan and eventually paid out to him as dividends. The husband did acknowledge that some of the expenses which were booked as business expenses were actually personal expenses and were therefore not accounted for properly.

Other expenses were properly booked as business expenses for tax purposes but would not normally be deducted for support purposes such as partial housing expenses, vehicle maintenance and gas, personal components of a business trip etc. [ 40 ] The wife’s expert, Mr. Trischuk, calculated the husband’s income for spousal support purposes. He included in this income, certain expenses claimed by the company which were actually personal expenses. He attributed these personal expenses back to the husband and included them in his income.

The husband’s expert used the same numbers but did not attribute any additional income to the husband for personal expenses paid by the company. [ 41 ] The husband takes issue with the arbitrary manner in which the expert calculated those personal expenses. Mr. Trischuk tried on many occasions to get the husband to sit down with him and explain his business and how he runs it so that he could make a fair determination about what expenses should properly be added back in to income. The husband never did meet with him for this purpose. Eventually, Mr.

Trischuk did a random sampling of business expenses and came up with a benchmark which was 52% of the advertising and promotion budget of the company for each year. He acknowledges that it is very subjective but he had no other information to go on. He tested his formula and benchmark and felt it was a fair representation of personal expenses paid by the company on behalf of the husband. The husband’s expert, Mr. Lawritsen, did not attribute any personal expenses to the husband at all.

This did not accord with the evidence wherein the husband acknowledged that certain expenses had been booked to the company which were in fact personal expenses. The onus is on the husband to explain the expenses deducted by the company and that those expenses are reasonable Cunningham...He did not do so and therefore the approach taken by Mr. Trischuk in the circumstances is more than reasonable. [ 42 ] I accept the calculations made by Mr. Trischuk with respect to the income of the husband for spousal support purposes other

than for 2016 and 2017. I find that the appropriate time to start the calculations for retroactive spousal support is at January 1, 2010. The retroactive spousal support will be calculated at the mid-range of the SSAG.

The arrears of spousal support from 2010 to the end of 2015 ( net of payments made by the husband during this period of time) as calculated by the wife’s counsel are $238,864. [ 43 ] It was acknowledged that the husband paid, to the credit of the wife, mortgage payments on Terra Vista and the matrimonial home, from 2010 to the present of $4,062 for the matrimonial home and $64,439 for Terra Vista for a total of $68,501. This sum will be credited to the above arrears such that the arrears for 2010-2015 are set in the sum of $170,363 . [ 44 ] Mr.

Trischuk assigned an annual income to the husband for spousal support purposes for 2016 and 2017 of $564,000 per annum based on 2016 interim corporate statements. The year-end statements indicated that a dividend was paid out of the company and that the company had a net operating loss that year. I did not have available to me income tax returns in order to assess the appropriate spousal support for 2016 and on a go forward basis .Based on Mr. Trischuk’s calculation, which I have accepted, for prior years, the parties should be able to ascertain the appropriate support for 2016 and 2017 going forward.

Counsel may contact me to set this amount if the parties cannot agree. Lump Sum Future Spousal Support [ 45 ] The wife seeks to have the court order lump sum spousal support on a go forward basis until such time as the husband turns 65 at which point the spousal support would be reviewed.

The basis for this claim is that the husband has failed in the past to obey court orders and the wife is concerned that if she does not receive these funds in a lump sum, the husband may refuse to pay them as he has in the past. [ 46 ] I have a concern with respect to payment and therefore there will be security provided once the property division has been completed to ensure that the wife has security for any future payments.

It would not be appropriate however to calculate a lump sum support based on current income as the history of the company as well as the general economy for the type of work the company does, indicates a very cyclical business with large swings in income. Spousal support should be based on actual income and not an artificial number set years into the future. I would calculate future spousal support awards based on the low range of the SSAG once the wife has received her share of the property distribution as well as the retroactive spousal support payments.

This reflects the capital base which she will be able to draw on with respect to future support. [ 47 ] If the parties cannon agree on the security once the equalization payment has been made they may contact me to determine appropriate security. [ 48 ] It will be a change in circumstances when the husband retires which may be before or after age 65 and therefore that is one factor, among many, which may indicate a change in circumstances such that spousal support should be reviewed.

Prior Cost Awards [ 49 ] There is due and owing by the husband to the wife the sum of $4,516 as set off cost awards in this ongoing litigation.

Summary [ 50 ] There is due and owing to the wife from the husband the following:

a) A property equalization payment of $1,525,504.20;

b) Retroactive spousal support arrears to December 31, 2015 of $170,363;

c) Ongoing spousal support commencing January 1, 2016 to be agreed or set by the Court; and

d) Set-off costs award of $4,516. Heard on the 22 nd day of June, 2017. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 5 th day of October, 2017. C.L. Kenny J.C.Q.B.A.

Apparences: Tamasine I. Davies, Q.C. for the Plaintiff Patrick F. Mahoney for the Defendant Docket: 4801 142624

Schedule “A” Koch v Koch REAL PROPERTY Ms. Moroney Mr. Koch Notes 1 Matrimonial Home 74 Shawnee Crescent SW $655,000.00 2 143 Eagle Ridge Drive, Calgary (proceeds of sale) $577,860.00 3 69 Terra Vista Road, Windermere, B.C. Value Mortgage (purchase price of $120,000 + Renovations of $27,000.00) $462,500.00 $ 65,144.10 $397,356.00 4 #5 3315 Rideau Place SW Calgary $0 Rideau bought by Mr. Koch post-separation with funds from Eagle Ridge Drive. 5 2024 – 21 Avenue SW, Calgary (“Knob Hill”) $0 $0 Knob Hill bought by Mr. Koch post-separation with funds from Aviemore joint venture. 6 1169 Baltac Road, Invermere, BC $0 $0 Baltac Road bought by Mr. Koch with funds from Mountain View joint venture.

7 Saskatchewan Farm $0 Saskatchewan Farm bought by Mr. Koch with funds from Mountain View joint venture JOINT VENTURES Ms. Moroney Mr. Koch Notes 8 Mountain View joint venture (Chestermere) – proceeds of sale Original investment $48,000.00 – gain $1,249,914.00 (39% tax rate) *gain excluded from Mr. Koch’s income for spousal support purposes $1,297.914 ($487,466) $810,448 Net proceeds 9 Desert Blume joint venture – proceeds of sale – held in Streeter Value as of December 31, 2007 - $129,409.00 Remaining interest/proceeds divided equally between the parties. 10 Aviemore joint venture: Total payout received by Mr.

Koch: 2007 $710,000.00 2008 $144,983.00 $854,983.00 (Income Tax (39% rate)) Net proceeds Gain excluded from Mr. Koch’s income for spousal support purposes $854,983 ($333,461) $521,522 (150,000) (52,000) (32,000) $287,522 Paid Debt to Sister. 2007 Taxes 2007 Taxes Mexican properties 11 Rancho Santa Selva Split interest equally between parties

12 Playa del Carmen proceeds of sale - $200,000.00 USD minus accounting from D. Petrin - $50,000 proceeds received by Mr. Koch January 2, 2017 $50,000.00 - Remaining proceeds to be paid $12,200.00 VEHICLES AND PROCEEDS FROM VEHICLES SOLD Ms. Moroney Mr. Koch Notes 13 2010 BMW 335i - Value $31,274 - Loan (0) $0 Ms.

Moroney’s BMW purchased and paid for post-separation. 14 Mini Cooper - Purchase price $45K - Current price $20K - Loan ($8,123.00) $0 15 Boat #1 - Traded in for boat #2 - Trade in value $39K $39,000.00 16 Delete Boat #2 $0 17 2003 Harley Davidson motorcycle - Purchase price $60K - Current $15,000.00 $15,000.00 18 2 skidoos - $2,000.00 $2,000.00 19 Vintage BMW - Purchase price $33,000.00 $33,000.00 20 Lamborghini - Purchase price $187,000 CAD - Sold for $137K CAD 21 Mercedes SUV - Purchase price $120K - Loan $95,000. - Sold for $58,000. 22 2003 Porsche Targa - Purchase price $140K - Sold for $31,000 $31,000.00

23 2007 Hummer - Sale proceeds $24,200 Ms. Moroney received $16,000 and Mr. Koch $18,200. $16,000.00 $18,200.00 24 BMW Motorcycle - Purchase price $35K - Sale price $9,200 $9,200.00 INVESTMENTS: Ms. Moroney Mr. Koch Notes 25 Wellington Trust Investments $47,631.00 $85,348.00 26 National Trust Investment $51,029.00 27 Proceeds from Pienzo $112,250.00 28 Storage facility (purchase price $20,000) Tax 2005 Tax Reassessment (Mr. Koch) $64,077.00 ($8,757.00) ($49,581.00) $5,739.00 29 Rockyview Motorsports Park Loan to Dan Petrin (dealt with in Mexico property) $100,000.00 Investment Mr.

Koch made post-separation using a matrimonial asset (Mexico Land) as security. When Mexico land sold Mr. Petrin received $100,000 as repayment of this loan. 30 Interest from Money Mart $70,000.00 – excluded as included in Mr.

Koch’s income $0 31 Priddis Gold Membership $25,000.00 32 Furniture/jewellery $2,150.00 $0 33 Artwork $18,500.00 $3,600.00 34 Piano – difference between purchase price and current value $0 *Purchased post- separation with Sundance money $137,000 * value in expert report at $40,000.00 approximately 35 RRSP (Discounted 25% tax for her; Discounted 39% tax for him $136,788.00 ($34,197.00) $102,591.00 $121,252.00 ($47,288.00) $73,964.00 36 Uncharacterized payments from Farm income – Order of Justice Dario September 27, November 29, 2016 $26,333.00 CORPORATE ASSETS Ms. Moroney Mr.

Koch Notes 37 Sundance Plumbing Alvin – 100% Shareholder $1,919,498.00

38 Streeter Developments Ltd Claire – 50% shareholder Alvin – 50% shareholder $0 39 105045 Alberta Alvin 100% shareholder $0 40 Sundance Mechanical Inc. Alvin and children 100% shareholders $0 41 Advance from 2011 refinancing of warehouse (mortgage on warehouse increased by $385,621.00 $19,000.00 42 2013 Re-finance of warehouse increased mortgage by $933,010.71 (net of his payment $7,500) $74,422.00 LOC $1,433.70 interest DEBTS 43 CRA (Streeter 2012 T5) ($74,422.00 – LOC $1,433.70 Interest) 44 Ms.

Moroney’s 2007 Income Taxes during marriage $0 Already dealt with TOTAL $1,323,561.00 $4,222,858 Total $5,546,419 divided by 2 = $2,773,209.50 Equalization payment to Ms. Moroney $1,449,648.50 Plus $75,855.70 (Streeter T5) Total $1,525,504.20