Gloor-Cox v Cox, 2019 ABQB 975

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Gloor-Cox v Cox, 2019 ABQB 975 Date: 20191218 Docket: FL01 26480 Registry: Calgary Between: Linda Gloor-Cox Plaintiff/Applicant - and - James Cox Defendant/Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The parties appeared before me, as Case Management Justice, on November 5, 2019. As they prepare for trial, a question has arisen regarding the efficacy of completing the expert report commissioned by a previous court order.

Specifically, the parties disagreed on whether the report should be completed and if so, with what temporal parameters and at whose expense. [ 2 ] The Order of Justice Campbell dated July 4, 2017 provided that The Edge Group of Companies, which are the subject of the parties’ competing matrimonial property claims, would engage a business valuator to provide a valuation of those companies.

While it is not entirely clear whether the intention was simply to direct that the valuator begin the valuation by September 1, 2017 at latest or to direct that September 1, 2017 was to be the valuation date, the Order required the proposed valuator to “commit to commencing the valuation as of 01 September 2017”. [ 3 ] The parties retained Ms. Bailey Rivard, now of MNP. Justice LoVecchio’s Order of June 14, 2017 obligated the parties to sign a joint retainer letter, which was done on August 10, 2017.

That engagement letter contains the following description of her retainer: “Counsel has jointly requested an Estimate Valuation Report (the “Report”) to establish the Fair Market Value of all the issued and

outstanding shares of The Edge Group of Companies (the “Edge Group” or the “Company”) as at the Company’s most recent fiscal year-end in 2017 (the “Valuation Date”) (the “Services”).” The company’s fiscal year end is August, making the valuation date as defined in that letter September 1, 2017. [ 4 ] Although it has been punctuated by many stops and starts, which I take to be the result of ongoing disputes between these parties about financial disclosure, use of financial information, etc, Ms. Rivard’s report is near completion. She estimates it will cost a further $2,500 to complete. [ 5 ] Ms.

Gloor-Cox has now applied for the completion of this report and in fact, for the original mandate to be expanded to provide for a current valuation as well, at an increased cost. Mr. Gloor says that the report is too stale-dated and ought to be abandoned. [ 6 ] I direct as follows: (

a) Ms. Rivard will complete the report, using September 1, 2017 as the valuation date. This is without prejudice to the parties’ positions at trial regarding the proper date for division of matrimonial property or for an unequal division thereof; and (

b) The remaining cost, to a maximum of $2,500 will be paid by The Edge Group of Companies. [ 7 ] Ms. Gloor-Cox has an outstanding portion of that application for advance litigation costs that will be dealt with separately. She is to file any further brief on that costs application by November 22, 2019 and Mr. Gloor’s response to be filed by December 6, 2019. Also, Ms. McLean indicated that she would re-send her client’s draft litigation plan so that, in the new year, we can finalize the parties’ preparations for trial. Heard on the 5 th day of November, 2019.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 18 th day of December, 2019. M.H. Hollins J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mr. Max Blitt for the Plaintiff/Applicant, Ms. Gloor-Cox Ms. Fiona McLean for the Defendant/Respondent, Mr. Gloor Mr. Michael Loberg for The Edge Group of Companies