Sharma v Sharma, 2021 ABQB 365

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Sharma v Sharma, 2021 ABQB 365 Date: 20210507 Docket: 4813 005930 Registry: Ft. McMurray Between: Karan Sharma Plaintiff - and - Poonampreet Sharma Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on May 7, 2021; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice S.E. Richardson _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] The parties were married in India on March 7, 2011.

They have one child, born August 12, 2012. They separated in early January 2015. [ 2 ] A three-day trial was held where both parties testified. Mr. Devinder Vashishat, Ms. Sharma’s (Poonampreet) father, also testified. [ 3 ] Child support was awarded in July 2015 and ever since, Mr. Sharma (Karan) has faithfully maintained his financial

obligation to the child. No spousal support payments have been ordered or made by Karan since the date of separation. [ 4 ] During the trial, the parties consented to a divorce and that was granted. [ 5 ] At the conclusion of the trial, counsel suggested written argument. The day after Karan’s written argument was submitted, the Court received a request for a hearing under Rule 9.13 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 to admit new evidence. The evidence related to documents regarding a safety deposit box located at an RBC branch in Fort McMurray.

This request was consented to by counsel and on November 9, 2020, the documents were provided to the court. [ 6 ] At the beginning of the trial, counsel for Poonampreet asked that the twin parenting disputes of a passport for the child and the mechanism for Karan to affect his parenting time with the child given that he had lived in British Columbia for a time, be added to the issues for trial. Karan’s counsel opposed this request, saying that each of these disputes would require the collection and presentation of evidence in support of his position.

I declined to expand the issues at trial to include these two discrete parenting disputes. [ 7 ] During the written argument stage, Poonampreet withdrew her complaint of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the only issues that remain are spousal support: entitlement, quantum and duration, and the division of matrimonial property. Background facts [ 8 ] In 2010 Poonampreet was a Canadian citizen living with her parents in Fort McMurray. She was 17 years old, had graduated high school and was working in a local jewelry store. Her parents had immigrated to Canada from India many years earlier.

They maintained a home that was steeped in their cultural traditions. As a result, shortly after Poonampreet graduated from high school, her parents arranged a marriage for her to a young man in India. That marriage was very brief as it appears the groom used the marriage as a ruse to use Poonampreet’s Canadian citizenship, and her ability to sponsor him to come to Canada. [ 9 ] In 2011, her parents arranged another marriage. She was 19 years old when she returned to India and married Karan. He was 22 years old and had been living with an uncle in the UK, and working as a pizza delivery driver there.

He also returned to India for the wedding. [ 10 ] Given the ages of the parties and their cultural traditions, both sets of parents have been deeply involved in the married life of this couple. The parties never lived on their own. While in Canada they always lived with Poonampreet’s parents. During their extensive time in India, they always lived with Karan’s parents. [ 11 ] Two days before the marriage, Poonampreet and her parents discovered the Karan did not have a degree in computer engineering, as they had been led to believe.

Despite this discovery, the wedding went ahead as planned, and the parties were married in India on March 7, 2011. [ 12 ] Two months later, in May 2011, Poonampreet returned to Canada to start the process of sponsoring Karan to come to Canada. Once this paperwork was completed, she returned to India and lived with Karan in his parent’s home. During this time, neither party was employed. [ 13 ] In December 2011, they discovered Poonampreet was pregnant and in January 2012 she returned to Canada to receive prenatal medical care and to ensure the child was born in Canada.

She returned to her parent’s home in Fort McMurray and to her previous employment in a jewelry store. She continued this employment until July 2012, when she went on maternity leave. The child was born in August 2012. During the time Poonampreet was in Canada, Karan continued to live in India at his parent’s home and he remained unemployed. [ 14 ] In October 2012, Poonampreet, while on maternity leave, returned to India with the child. She remained there, living in Karan’s parental home, until April 2013 when the couple received permission from Canadian immigration authorities for Karan to immigrate to Canada.

The couple and their infant child left India and settled in Fort McMurray, living with Poonampreet’s parent’s in their home. [ 15 ] Within a month, Karan obtained two part-time jobs, both in grocery stores as a clerk. Poonampreet remained on maternity leave caring for their infant child. In May 2013, Karan got a job as an industrial radiograph trainee. He had no previous education or experience in this field.

He secured this entry level position through the recommendation of Poonampreet’s father, who was a Quality Manager in the oil field industry. [ 16 ] Karan took courses sponsored by his employer, was an industrious worker and quickly obtained his certification credentials to be a full-fledged industrial radiograph technician. Much of his training was provided in Calgary and he was required to leave home to complete course work. Much of his work duties were in remote areas that required him to be away from the family for weeks at a time.

During his course work and employment, Poonampreet remained living in the home of her parents, caring for the infant child. [ 17 ] In October 2013, Karan’s mother was diagnosed with cancer and the parties and their infant son travelled to India and helped her for approximately 4 months while she underwent treatment. They returned to Fort McMurray in February 2014, Karan returned to his job and Poonampreet started part-time work as a receptionist in a medical clinic as her 18-month maternity leave had ended. [ 18 ] In December 2014, the couple with their son returned to India for a month-long holiday.

It was during this holiday that a dispute took place between the parties. Poonampreet retuned to Canada with the child earlier than anticipated. She arrived in Canada January 5, 2015. Karan returned to Canada as planned on January 25, 2015. [ 19 ] When he landed, he was promptly arrested and held in custody on criminal charges that arose from a complaint that Poonampreet made to the RCMP and the Canadian Boarder Services Agency upon her return to Canada earlier in the month. He was held in custody for several days before his release.

[ 20 ] Post separation, Karan has continued in his employment full time. This necessitated long periods of time working on site in remote areas, as well as moving to BC for a period of time. He now lives in Edmonton and in May 2020 purchased a home in this city. [ 21 ] The child has always lived full time with Poonampreet. After the separation she continued living with her parents, upgraded her marks at Keyano College and in September 2015, was accepted to the University of Alberta. As a result, she and her parents relocated to Edmonton. She attended the University of Alberta (U of

A) full time for two years, while also working part time, first at a jewelry store and later at a medical clinic and in a restaurant as a server. Her mother provided child care. [ 22 ] In the summer of 2017, the workload became a struggle for Poonampreet so she quit her university studies and instead enrolled in a 9-month esthetics training program, graduating in 2018. She initially attempted to launch her own business providing these services in a mobile format. In the late fall of 2018 she obtained full-time employment with Air Canada as a flight attendant. She was assigned the Canada-India route.

She maintains this employment, which has been interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

While working as a flight attendant, she was away from home 10-12 days a month and her mother continued to provide child care to the child. [ 23 ] The following chart contains the parties’ line 150 incomes: YEAR Karan Poonampreet 2019 $131,055 $24,439 2018 $184,731 $ 6,671 2017 $169,589 $16,056 2016 $177,813 $13,722 2015 not provided not provided 2014 $129,215 $ 7,758 2013 $ 41,519 $12,366 2012 $0 $17,642 Other claims and allegations [ 24 ] As an indication of the high conflict nature of the relationship between the parties, this trial is not the only outstanding complaint, litigation and/or allegation made by Poonampreet against Karan.

In December 2014, when the parties were in India on holiday, something happened that precipitated their separation. Poonampreet retuned to Canada on January 5, 2015 with their son. Upon her return, she made a complaint to the local police about an incident of alleged violence at the hands of Karan. Karan claims to have been taken completely off guard with his arrest upon his return to Canada on January 25, 2015.

While he was arrested as a result of this complaint, the charges did not proceed to trial, either being withdrawn or stayed by the Crown. [ 25 ] Poonampreet also made a complaint to the Canadian Border Services Agency that Karan tricked her into a marriage of convenience. This complaint does not appear to have proceeded to an investigation. [ 26 ] In addition, she made a complaint to Child and Family Services about injuries she observed on their son after a stay in Karan’s care. This was investigated and the file was promptly closed. [ 27 ] Some of the criminal incident alleged by Poonampreet occurred in India.

She has also made a criminal complaint in India about Karan’s actions in December 2014. That investigation remains outstanding and Karan is subject to arrest if he returns to that country. [ 28 ] Poonampreet also made a formal claim in India that her marriage was the subject of a dowry demand from Karan’s family. Dowry is criminalized in India. That claim by Poonampreet includes a request that the jewelry she received from her wedding ceremony be returned to her. This is also a claim in the present trial.

She advised that in the event she is successful in the present action, she would let the Indian authorities know that her jewelry is the subject of a court order in Canada. Her dowry complaint also includes the return or compensation for the jewelry given by her family to Karan’s family. This jewelry is not the subject of the present action. Credibility [ 29 ] As a civil matter, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed credibility and the burden of proof in F.H. v McDougall , 2008 SCC 53 where the court made the following comment (at para 86): However, in civil cases in which there is conflicting testimony, the judge is deciding whether a fact occurred on a balance of probabilities. In such cases, provided the judge has not ignored the evidence, finding the evidence of one party credible may well be conclusive of the result because the evidence is inconsistent with that of the other party.

In such cases, believing one party will mean explicitly or implicitly that the other party was not believed on the important issues in the case. [ 30 ] On the degree of proof within the 'balance of probabilities' burden, Rothstein J. noted that, " ... evidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test." ( F.H. at para 46 ).

[ 31 ] The breakdown of any marriage is difficult. In assessing the credibility of witnesses in cases involving the dissolution of a marriage, it is important to keep in mind that the emotional disruption of the relationship can compromise each party’s ability to be objective and can heighten negative memories. The Court gives some latitude to witnesses testifying about difficult, personal and emotional events. [ 32 ] While there are significant factual disputes, much of them are irrelevant to the issues of spousal support and division of matrimonial property.

It is irrelevant whether Poonampreet and her parents were led to believe, falsely, that Karan had a computer engineering degree/diploma before the wedding, or whether they were told (also falsely) that Karan had permanent residence status in the UK. It is also irrelevant whether Poonampreet secured Karan’s agreement to finish her education before they started a family, and whether she was forced or tricked by her mother-in-law to become pregnant. Much of the trial time was occupied by this type of emotional and legally irrelevant testimony. [ 33 ] As well, Poonampreet presented as an aggrieved spouse.

She had been married, briefly, as a 17-year-old, to a man whom she says, used her status as a Canadian citizen to gain entry to this country. She now feels that Karan had the same dishonest intention in marrying her. [ 34 ] Her credibility is compromised by her outbursts and unresponsive diatribes setting out all the ways she was mistreated by Karan and his family.

She also led a great deal of irrelevant evidence that was aimed at demonstrating how she was tricked into the marriage and how this deceit was compounded by their generosity toward Karan and his family. [ 35 ] In examination-in-chief she would often embark on lengthy answers that were unresponsive to the question posed.

Her approach in cross-examination changed and she became hostile and argumentative with counsel, frequently interrupting his questions and explaining with vigour and exasperation that “this marriage was an injustice for me and my family!”. [ 36 ] Poonampreet’s testimony was compromised by her unsubstantiated and fluid testimony about the amount of money she advanced to Karan’s family, primarily for his mother’s medical care. Both spouses (and Mr. Vashishat) testified that shortly after the family as a whole came to Canada in April 2013, Karan’s mother was diagnosed with cancer.

Poonampreet had deposed that she sent his family $10,000, or $2,000, and later $20,000 for medical treatment for her mother-in-law and/or her father-in-law, all funds that she borrowed from either her father, or from her father’s account in India, or borrowed from her uncles in India. There is nothing to corroborate any of these claims, despite the fact that there are receipts for 14 Western Union transactions over a 3-year period to Karan and his parents. The claims themselves are too confusing to parse into any factual finding.

And during the explanation of some of this testimony, she advised that she is not even “claiming” these amounts. [ 37 ] Karan argued that the Court should import and apply an earlier Court conclusion that Poonampreet lacked credibility. The specific finding was from a special chambers decision on parenting where the Court found that “mom exaggerated” in relation to parts of her evidence. I am not prepared to do this.

First, absent a criminal conviction for perjury, swearing a false affidavit or obstruction of justice in relation to a court proceeding, the Court is not bound by a credibility finding from a prior matter. Second, the finding in question related to an application where viva voce testimony was not received, only affidavit evidence was presented.

By its very nature, viva voce testimony, when accompanied by cross-examination, presents the most fulsome avenue for credibility findings. [ 38 ] Finally, Poonampreet’s credibility is framed by the proven lie that she maintained throughout her testimony that she never had a joint safety deposit box with Karan in Canada. Karan testified that they did have a joint safety deposit box. He testified that this safety deposit box held Poonampreet’s wedding jewelry which is the subject of her claim for a $28,155 adjustment.

In contrast, Poonampreet testified that this jewelry was kept by Karan in a safety deposit box in India that he shared with his mother and brother. He agreed that initially this jewelry was kept in the Indian safety deposit but that on each of her three return trips to Canada she brought a portion of these items home and when he arrived in Canada, they opened a joint safety deposit box in Fort McMurray where her jewelry was kept. [ 39 ] Poonampreet denied that she brought any of this jewelry to Canada as she would have had to pay customs duties on it given it comprised approximately half a kilogram of gold.

In response to the cross-examination question “Isn’t it true that you had or have a safety deposit box in Canada with Karan?” she replied clearly “No, I don’t”. Later she was asked whether she had a joint safety deposit account (sic) with Karan and she replied “Never. I did not”. [ 40 ] Karan testified that the safety deposit box was closed when he returned to Canada in January 2015 after the separation, and that he recalled that Poonampreet had accessed the box when she returned while he was still in India.

He had asked the bank for documentation supporting the existence of this safety deposit box several years ago and he was awaiting a reply. [ 41 ] After the conclusion of the trial and the written argument, the documents had been received and an application was made under Rule 9.13 to enter the safety deposit box documents into evidence. This request was consented to by counsel for Poonampreet and no issue was taken with the authenticity of the documents. [ 42 ] The documents prove conclusively that on February 22, 2014, the parties opened a joint safety deposit box at an RBC branch in Fort McMurray.

Access required only one spouse. The copy of the signature/access card shows that the only person to have ever accessed the box was Poonampreet, and she accessed the box on January 8, 2015 after having separated from Karan, and while he remained in India. [ 43 ] Karan’s memory was reliable. Poonampreet lied to the Court when she testified that she never had a safety deposit box with Karan in Canada. Her deceit is dispositive of a finding that her wedding jewelry did not remain in India as she claimed. I find that she brought the jewelry back to Canada and kept it in their joint safety deposit box.

She removed the jewelry on January 8, 2015 when she accessed the box. [ 44 ] This proven lie, in combination with the other aspects of her testimony noted above, makes her testimony generally unreliable and the Court must treat her claims with caution, especially where they are not corroborated.

[ 45 ] Karan’s credibility is also compromised. His testimony is replete with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. He repeatedly said he always worked all the time and never stayed home saying “I can’t sit home and do nothing”.

Yet this is contradicted by his testimony that after the marriage in March 2011, he was not employed in any capacity until his arrival in Canada in April 2013, instead he stayed with his parents and “lived off his savings” from his UK delivery job. [ 46 ] He also denied that he entered into the marriage for the sole intention of acquiring Canadian citizenship saying “I wanted to live in India”.

However, this evidence is contradicted by his testimony that he wanted to relocate back to the UK after the marriage, as well as his evidence that in remaining in India for over two years after the wedding, including long stretches of time with his spouse and infant child, he took no steps to establish himself through any type of employment there and the fact that he immigrated to Canada at the first legal opportunity. [ 47 ] A final example of internally inconsistent evidence from Karan involves his testimony about whether he knew Poonampreet had been married before.

He testified at trial that he only discovered her prior marriage after their wedding when they went to register the event with Indian authorities. However, in Questioning on June 2, 2015, in response to a question “were you aware that…she’s divorced before she married you?” he deposed “Yeah” and continued that she “clarified herself, I believed her, so I didn’t have any problem with that”. In trial testimony he agreed that this exchange was in the context of what he knew before his actual wedding, yet in trial, he testified that he was not aware Poonampreet had previously been married.

At trial he suggested that this inconsistency was because “maybe I misheard the question or maybe I misunderstood before or after”. I do not accept this explanation. I find that in trying to suggest that he was tricked into marriage with a woman who was previously married, he is playing from the same playbook as Poonampreet, who suggested that she was tricked into marriage by not knowing the educational background of Karan.

It is inconceivable given the evidence in this trial about the nature of this arranged marriage and the parental involvement by the families of both spouses, that Karan did not know that Poonampreet had previously been married. [ 48 ] Karan’s testimony is also informed by his clear animus toward Poonampreet and her family.

He explained that even though he had no training, skills or experience as an industrial radiograph technician, and despite the fact that he agreed that Poonampreet’s father knew the owner of Metal Care where he was first employed as a trainee, his father-in-law “didn’t help me at all” in getting him that job. Yet Karan had not worked for the previous two years, he had by his own admission, part of an arts degree and part of a computer degree and he was not trained in that field. [ 49 ] Karan testified that he supported himself in India with his savings from his pizza delivery work from the UK.

He also said Poonampreet never sent him any money in India. While that may be technically correct, her family certainly sent him money. From March to October 2012, while Poonampreet was in Canada awaiting the birth of their child, his mother-in-law and father-in-law sent 6 separate Western Union bank transfers totaling over $6,500. Likewise, from September to December 2011, while both Karan and Poonampreet were living in India, Poonampreet’s parents made an additional four separate Western Union transactions to Karan, totalling almost $7,000.

Karan testified that any funds received from his father-in-law before Karan immigrated to Canada were to pay invoices for a house that was being built for the parents of his father-in-law. In support of this claim he provided numerous self-described “invoices” for work on the house that Karan said he arranged and was seeking reimbursement/payment from Mr. Vashishat. He was never asked to examine or comment specifically on any of these documents. A careful review of this documentation contradicts Karan’s testimony that they are invoices.

Some documents are simply pictures of building material, some are pictures of business cards, some are simply a list of numbers, some are a list of numbers with “balance” and “total” notes without other explanation. One is a bill for “6150” dated December 13, 2012. There is no concurrent Western Union transfer for this date, although there is a transfer dated December 10, 2012 for $734.18 CND. However, there is no evidence of how, if at all, that amount could correlate to the unexplained currency of “6150” in the December 13, 2012 bill. Finally, Karan testified that the reason Mr.

Vashishat was giving him funds to pay building expenses for the home in India, instead of sending the money to Mr. Vashishat’s brother who lived in India was that “his brother was a drug abuser” and therefore Mr. Vashishat didn’t want to send money to his brother. This proposition was never put to Mr. Vashishat in his testimony. Mr.

Vashishat denied that he was advancing funds to Karan to pay house building invoices and testified instead that he was sending money to Karan for living expenses as Karan was unemployed. [ 50 ] I find that the Western Union funds were not sent to Karan to pay building expenses for the home Mr. Vashishat was constructing in India. The Western Union transfers were funds paid by Poonampreet, and her parents, to Karan and his family in India for living expenses. These transfers were frequent, regular and predate by a full year any of the documents Karan described as invoices for construction.

Likewise, some of the transfers post date the building “invoices” by almost 2 years. The transfers included time that Poonampreet lived in India with her in-laws (in 2011) as well as time Poonampreet was back in Canada while Karan remained in India (in 2013). They also include time when both spouses were in Canada and Poonampreet sent funds to her in-laws (in 2013 and 2014). Finally, Karan also submitted several pictures of his joint bank account in India with Poonampreet. Again, there were no questions on this evidence, and no explanation about the substance of the bank records.

I note, however, that after a careful review of these documents, that there is one Western Union transfer that can be reconciled with the bank documents: $988 CND was transferred to Karan, and the joint bank account shows a Western Union deposit of the same day, for 51343 (currency not noted). The debits from the joint bank account after this transfer are small amounts that are equivalent to the other account debits. There are no obvious payments to construction/building suppliers.

The inference then is that the Western Union funds were advanced and used to support the daily living expenses of Karan, and while Poonampreet was in India, for both of them as neither worked while they were together in India. I do not accept Karan’s testimony in relation to the Western Union transfers. [ 51 ] Karan was unyielding in his characterization of Poonampreet and her family as offering nothing of any value to him.

For example, when he was cross-examined on the issue of Poonampreet’s wedding jewelry he demurred when asked to articulate the number and type of pieces of wedding jewelry gifted to her by her parents, and when presented with a photograph of him and his mother offering a Diwali blessing over a plate of gold jewelry he began by pointing out the limited number of the items that did not belong to Poonampreet.

Later he conceding that most of the jewelry was hers and commenting: “There was jewelry, I don’t know the authenticity I never tested it and I don’t know the carats”. [ 52 ] Finally, Karan repeatedly characterized Poonampreet as mentally unstable. He used her previous marriage to imply she was unstable. He testified to her rages and her depression that occurred while they were living in India with his parents. His counsel cross- examined her father about whether they ever hired a priest in India to “deal with [Poonampreet’s] anger issues”. Poonampreet and Mr.

Vashishat denied she had any anger or depression issues. Like the testimony of Poonampreet about being tricked into marriage, thisevidence by Karan is without any effect to the issues of spousal support and division of matrimonial property. [53] In equal measure the testimony of both Poonampreet and Karan must be treated cautiously. Their anger toward each other, andtheir inability to disengage from that anger and focus on the issues to be determined in this trial compromises their truthfulness. [54] Devinder Vashishat is the father of Poonampreet and he testified in support of his daughter’s case.

He presented as anarticulate, thoughtful witness. He disputed much of the circumstances around the events that immediately predated the wedding providedby Karan, but these circumstances are irrelevant to the issues of spousal support and division of matrimonial property. Mr. Vashishat’stestimony was framed by his love for his daughter. However, that inherent bias was overcome by his fulsome explanations for hisactions.

As expected for the patriarch of a multigenerational family whose employment income supported all levels of his family, he alsohad a reliable memory about the flows of money between him and his family members. [55] Mr. Vashishat was questioned at length by both counsel on irrelevant matters. Whether he provided a wedding dowry toKaran’s family, whether he lent or gave money to Karan’s mother’s cancer treatment, whether he gave or loaned Karan money to passalong to Karan’s family in India, and whether any of these sums have been repaid.

None of this evidence is relevant to the issues ofspousal support and the division of matrimonial property. [56] Overall, Mr. Vashishat presented as a credible witness. Spousal support [57] Poonampreet argues an entitlement to spousal support under the compensatory and non-compensatory grounds. She seeks 3years of spousal support at $2,000 per month. Karan opposes any finding of entitlement arguing that after the separation she chose towork in many non-paying positions in the hope of a higher paying job in the future.

In the event that entitlement is found, he argues thatsupport should be limited to 6 months at $1,694 per month, the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). [58] The Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c # (2nd Supp) provides: 15.2(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration thecondition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including (

a) the length of time the spouses cohabited; (

b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and (

c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should: (

a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (

b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above anyobligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (

c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (

d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. [59] Determining spousal support involves the exercise of judicial discretion: Corbeil v Corbeil, 2001 ABCA 220 at para 47. [60] The Divorce Act recognizes separate avenues for entitlement to spousal support. Compensatory spousal support is the primarybasis for support. It is a statutory principle that accounts for the economic consequences to each spouse as a result of the roles eachadopted during the marriage, Moge v Moge, (SCC).

It compensates a spouse for the economic disadvantages andadvantages that result from these roles. The primary source of these disadvantages is the disproportionate obligation of child careundertaken by a spouse: Moge at para 81. More broadly, “[a]ny economic disadvantage to [a] spouse flowing from [a] shared decision inthe interest of the family should be regarded as compensable”: Moge at para 83. These disadvantages persist past marriage breakdown:Moge at para 80.

Compensatory entitlement can also arise even in the absence of economic disadvantage, so long as an economicadvantage has been conferred on the other spouse: Bentley v Bentley, 2017 ABQB 53 at para 182. [61] Non-compensatory entitlement arises from unmet need persisting after a marriage relationship has ended, whether or not itwas caused by the marriage or its breakup. The concept of need is relative to the marital standard of living.

Embedded in the concept ofnon-compensatory spousal support is the truism that ex-spouses can rarely enjoy exactly the same standard of living they enjoyed as amarital and economic unit. [62] In Moge at para 53, the SCC clarified that “[N]o single objective is paramount … All four objectives defined in [s. 15.2(6)Divorce Act] must be taken into account when spousal support is claimed”. Marriage alone does not automatically entitle a spouse tosupport: Bracklow (SCC) at para 44.

Fault, or marital misconduct, is “off the table as a relevant consideration” indetermining spousal support entitlement: Leskun v Leskun, 2006 SCC 25 at para 20 [63] In the Department of Justice’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: 2016) [“SSAG

Revised User’s Guide ”], Professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson identify the following common markers of compensatory spousal support entitlement that are relevant in the present case: • Being home with children full-time or part-time; • Being a “secondary earner” • Having primary care of children after separation; • Supporting the payor’s education or training. [ 64 ] While in Moge , at paragraph 85 , the Court held that “the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution”, the opposite is also correct.

That is to say, shorter relationships generally attract weaker presumptive claims for equal standards of living after separation. [ 65 ] The spouses were married 46 months before the January 2015 separation. Karan argues that the period of the marriage should be limited to 21 months as that is the total amount of time the spouses lived together. Twenty-one months is the time the spouses lived together in Canada. The parties also lived together as an integrated family unit, off and on, in India for a total of 16 months between May 2011 and April 2013.

I am not prepared to declare that this “marriage” includes only the time the spouses lived together in Canada. [ 66 ] For the purpose of spousal support, this marriage lasted 46 months and included the birth of a child of the marriage. [ 67 ] Both spouses have demonstrated themselves to be ambitious, industrious and hard working throughout their time in Canada.

Despite both being married at very young ages, and the early arrival of a child, they each continued to undertake education and employment to put them in a good position of self-sufficiency. [ 68 ] Each spouse claims that they have been disadvantaged by the marriage and that the other party received an advantage from the marriage. [ 69 ] Poonampreet testified that she was forced to have a child before her education was complete. Since the child has always lived with her (by agreement of both spouses), her education and employment prospects were affected by her child rearing responsibilities.

She also argued that the dissolution of the marriage has resulted in her continuing to live with her parents long past the time when she should be independent.

In addition, she testified that Karan benefited from the marriage through his immigration to Canada, his well-paid employment in a field he had no education or experience in as a result of a recommendation from her father, and his ability to work away from home, which enabled him to earn a significant salary. [ 70 ] Karan argues that he was disadvantaged in the marriage by Poonampreet’s unstable mental state to which he attributes the unfounded and spurious claims of physical violence and fraudulent marriage which she made to the authorities in India, and the police and immigration authorities in Canada.

He testified that he spent many thousands of dollars resisting all these claims, and the claims in India are still outstanding and prevent him from returning to his homeland.

He argues that Poonampreet will unfairly benefit from the marriage if any spousal support order is made because she has been receiving unclaimed income, from her business and her parents’ business, and as she continues to live with her parents, their support has allowed her to work for no income in her attempt to establish herself as a social media presence. [ 71 ] There is no evidence to support a finding that Poonampreet is receiving any income from her business or her parents’ business.

She testified that after completing her aesthetician course, she had begun the process of establishing a mobile aesthetics business however, that was put on hold before the plan was fully executed as a result of her full-time employment with Air Canada. Likewise, there is no evidence to support a finding that her parents’ clothing business, which was all but shuttered as a result of the pandemic, provided her with any income. I accept the testimony of Mr.

Vashishat that his intermittent transfer of funds to Poonampreet were to reimburse her for the charges that he put on the supplementary credit card she obtained for him, through which he was helping her to re- establish a good credit history. As well, her unpaid social media/modelling work was undertaken on her days off from her full-time employment with Air Canada and will not be considered as a basis to limit any spousal support claim. [ 72 ] There is no question that Poonampreet has been disadvantaged as a result of the breakdown of the marriage. The child has remained in her full-time care.

While she has continued to enjoy the support of her parents, by providing her and the child with a place to live, and providing full-time child care when she was away for her Air Canada employment, her earning potential has been and will continue to be limited as a result of having full-time care of the child. [ 73 ] Poonampreet’s employment during the marriage was restricted by her child care responsibilities. She too is hard working and industrious. However, the early arrival of the child necessitated employment opportunities for her that were entry level, some part time only, and regular hours.

While her family provided and still provides child care, in the early years of his life, Poonampreet was tied to the home. As the child grew, Poonampreet was able to advance her education and eventually, in 2018, obtain full-time employment with Air Canada. However, her late start and her deferred university education means that she will always be encumbered by the fact of the early birth of the child. [ 74 ] As a result of the marriage and the early arrival of the child, Poonampreet also lost the opportunity to advance her education.

At the time of the marriage she indicated an intention to obtain a university education before she had children. As a result of the marriage, her plans were postponed. The fact that immediately upon separation from Karan, she started upgrading which led to her acceptance in university allows me to draw the conclusion that this was an existing desire of hers that was postponed as a result of the marriage.

The family unit preferred to advance Karan’s earning capacity during the marriage. [ 75 ] Unlike Poonampreet’s situation, the disadvantage suffered by Karan as a result of the breakdown of the marriage was transitory. He was already well established in his career, having undertaken the training during the marriage, and unencumbered by any household or child care responsibilities at the time. His earning potential, established during the marriage, has continued unabated. The

major disadvantages to Karan from the end of the marriage involved payment of lawyer’s fees to defend the police and immigration claims made by Poonampreet as well as the fact that he lost the opportunity to continue to live for free with his in-laws. However, it was never expected that he, Poonampreet and their child would remain in her parents’ home indefinitely. They had been saving money to move out in the near future when the marriage ended. [ 76 ] The advantages that accrued to Karan as a result of the marriage are significant.

He obtained the ability to immigrate to Canada and this opened economic opportunities for him that he did not otherwise enjoy. While in the UK on a working holiday he worked in food delivery service. While in India for 2 years after the marriage he remained unemployed, awaiting his ability to come to Canada. Within a month of his arrival in Canada, he obtained a trainee position through the assistance and intervention of his father-in- law, in a field that Karan had no education, training or experience in.

Karan enjoyed the support of his in laws who provided an expense free residence and hands on support to the family. This support allowed Karan to send money home to his family in India and to save a high proportion of his earnings.

This support, along with the local full and part-time regular hour employment secured by Poonampreet, also allowed him to dedicate himself to his new position which required frequent and lengthy stretches of time away from home. [ 77 ] While I acknowledge that Karan is hard working and industrious, that does not detract from the fact that his ability to obtain his present, well paying position, is directly tied to the fact of his marriage to Poonampreet.

His first full year of employment in this field he earned a line 150 income of $129,215, and he has earned well over $100,000 every year since. [ 78 ] Poonampreet has a moderate claim under the compensatory and non-compensatory categories. The short length of the marriage mitigates toward a shorter duration of spousal support. The particular circumstances of this family, and the specific and ongoing advantages of the marriage enjoyed by Karan favour an award in the mid range of support suggested by the SSAGs.

The fact that Karan is paying child support requires the application of the “with child support” formula. [ 79 ] The parties’ line 150 incomes, as declared in their respective 2019 Income Tax Return, will be their incomes for assessing spousal support. [ 80 ] The quantum of spousal support will be fixed below the mid range, based on the parties’ 2019 line 150 income amounts of: $131,055 for Karan and $24,439 for Poonampreet. Spousal support is set at $2,000 per month.

This amount acknowledges the disadvantages of the marriage to Poonampreet and the successful steps she has taken toward self-sufficiency in the 5 years since the parties’ separation. It also takes into account that she has continuing family support, support which is culturally expected, so her need is less than would otherwise be the case. [ 81 ] The duration of spousal support will be for 2 years.

This acknowledges the length of the marriage, the enduring economic advantages that Karan has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy as a result of the marriage and the joint decisions taken by the spouses to advance his career opportunities over hers. [ 82 ] Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, I have elected to award a monthly amount of spousal support sought by Poonampreet, but for a shorter duration. [ 83 ] Spousal support will be paid on an ongoing basis, starting June 1, 2021 for 24 consecutive months.

Division of matrimonial property [ 84 ] Poonampreet seeks a division of matrimonial property that captures her wedding jewelry gifted to her by her parents, the $9,000 expense she incurred for the wedding ceremony and the equal division of two debts she incurred after the date of separation. Karan opposes the inclusion of any wedding jewelry and the wedding expense in the property division and argues that all post-separation debt should be borne by the spouse who incurred the debt. [ 85 ] The Matrimonial Property Act , RSA 2000, c M-8 , ( MPA ) governs the division of the parties’ matrimonial property.

They did not suggest the application of the new Family Property Act , which came into force on January 1, 2020. [ 86 ] Section 7(1) of the MPA authorizes the Court to distribute between the spouses all of the property owned by both spouses together and by each of them individually. [ 87 ] In this case, given the young ages at which the spouses married, neither entered the marriage with any appreciable assets or liabilities.

Although Poonampreet testified that she had $5,000 in savings when they married, and Karan testified that he lived off his delivery driver savings for the two years after the wedding while he was in India awaiting permission to come to Canada, neither spouse is advancing an exemption for property acquired before the marriage. Therefore, there is no property that could be captured by s 7(2) MPA . [ 88 ] The presumptive date of valuation for the purposes of matrimonial division is the date of trial: Hodgson v Hodgson , 2005 ABCA 13 at para 10 .

Karan argues that since each spouse maintained an equivalent amount of matrimonial debt on the date of separation, that no post-separation debt should be included in the matrimonial property division. [ 89 ] Poonampreet argues that an adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that Karan’s financial disclosure is only updated to November 2019, and hers was updated to August 2020. I decline to draw any inference as a result of the date of Karan’s disclosure. The February 24, 2020 Order setting the matter for trial did not contain a term that updated financial disclosure was required.

Regardless, Karan did provide his 2019 line 150 income as required by the Child Support Order, and he did update the change to his financial position as a result of his purchase of a home in Edmonton in May 2020, with the associated financial documents and explanation of how he accessed the down payment funds. [ 90 ] Any difficulties resulting from delays between separation and trial can be resolved using the s 8 factors: Kazmierczak v

Kazmierczak , 2001 ABQB 610 , aff’d 2003 ABCA 227 . [ 91 ] Section 7(4) of the MPA presumes an equal division of non-exempt matrimonial property unless that presumption can be rebutted by demonstrating the existence of one or more of the factors in s 8. [ 92 ] The s 8 factors include the following: (

a) the contribution made by each spouse to the marriage and to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made as a homemaker or parent; … (

d) the income, earning capacity, liabilities, obligations, property and other financial resources (

i) that each spouse had at the time of marriage, and (ii) that each spouse has at the time of the trial; (

e) the duration of the marriage; (

f) whether the property was acquired when the spouses were living separate and apart;… (

h) that a spouse has made a (

i) substantial gift of property to a third party… (

l) that a spouse has dissipated property to the detriment of the other spouse; (

m) any fact or circumstance that is relevant. [ 93 ] Given the young age of the parties at marriage and the relatively brief period of time they were married, there are more liabilities than assets to divide. [ 94 ] The marriage lasted 46 months during which time the spouses had a child. At the time of the marriage Poonampreet was 19 and Karan was 22 years old. Although each had finished high school and entered the workforce by the time of the marriage, they were each employed in low wage, entry level jobs.

Both spouses were still living with their respective parents and neither had any significant pre-marital assets. [ 95 ] By the trial date (October 2020), Poonampreet had almost completed an aesthetician diploma and completed two years of a Bachelor of Arts degree, and she had obtained full-time employment with Air Canada in a career track position. While her employment has been interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, her language skills and cultural knowledge resulted in her being assigned to an international Canada – India route and she expects that assignment to continue when travel restrictions are lifted.

By the time of the trial, Karan had been consistently employed in a high paying field since shortly after his arrival in Canada. He earns a salary that varies each year, but has been well above $100,000 every calendar year since 2014. He expects to continue to be employed at this level for the future. [ 96 ] Poonampreet has not acquired any property since the spouses have been living separate and apart, owing to her continued post-secondary education, her responsibility for care of the child of the marriage and the ongoing debt payments for matrimonial debt that she assumed upon separation.

Since the date of separation Karan has acquired property which includes an RRSP that he used to access the Home Buyers’ Plan to purchase a house in Edmonton in May 2020 ($5,040), as well as an additional $4,065 in RRSP funds. He also has $13,361 in a savings account. [ 97 ] During the marriage, both parties contributed to the welfare of the family by working full or part time after they came to Canada. Poonampreet also contributed to the welfare of the family by working full time after she returned to Canada in 2012 awaiting the birth of their child, while Karan was not employed at all during this time.

During this period of living apart in 2012, Poonampreet’s parents also transferred $6,000 to Karan for his living expenses while he remained in India.

The spouses equally benefited from the cultural tradition of living with their parents (in both Canada and India) allowing them to save funds before establishing themselves in their own home. [ 98 ] Poonampreet made a disproportionate contribution to the welfare of the family given her role as a homemaker and parent, owing to her choices to postpone her post-secondary education and remain in entry level employment, in favor of supporting Karan’s out of town employment opportunities. The evidence [ 99 ] The evidence on the nature and amount of assets and liabilities was incomplete and confusing.

The fact that neither spouse was credible posed a challenge to the fact-finding process. The matrimonial property division schedules prepared by both counsel to accompany their written arguments, contained significant numeric differences for the same category of asset or liability. Finally, the proposed matrimonial property division sheets from each counsel also contained both assets and liabilities that, in evidence or in argument, counsel advised were not being claimed.

As well, there were debts discussed in testimony (notably Poonampreet’s student loan to attend the University of Alberta), that were not referenced at all in the written argument or the proposed property division. [ 100 ] Also complicating the task of determining the division of matrimonial property is the fact that during the marriage and after separation, each spouse acquired and used multiple credit cards, had credit accounts closed but still maintained balances, and operated new credit accounts.

[ 101 ] Despite the fact that Poonampreet’s parents provided housing and child care without any cost to the family, and despite the fact that Karan had a well-paying job and Poonampreet was also employed, this family was consistently in debt to multiple lenders: credit cards and lines of credit. [ 102 ] Karan argued that each spouse assumed a similar level of marital debt upon separation such that there should be no adjustments and there should be no credit for any debt accumulated after the date of separation.

This suggestion ignores the facts that Karan has always enjoyed a high salary for a position that he trained for and began working at during the currency of the marriage, and that after the separation, the child has always lived with Poonampreet. It also ignores that she had to take on student loans to pursue her university education. I acknowledge that Karan has paid off a greater proportion of the matrimonial debt since the date of separation.

However, he enjoyed a far greater salary and the freedom to take jobs out of town and even move to BC for work for a time, freedoms that were not available to Poonampreet as the mother of an infant. Marital debts retained by each spouse at the date of separation [ 103 ] At the date of separation each spouse had considerable debt in their own names, which they individually maintained after the separation.

They both agree that these debts were all acquired during the marriage. [ 104 ] Poonampreet began the separation with the following marital debts: RBC line of credit, $19,098, which had increased to $19,566 by the date of trial with only minimum payments being applied in the interim; a RBC VISA, with an outstanding balance of $9,050, which had increased to $9,648 by the date of trial with only minimum payments applied; an MBNA MasterCard debt of $10,977 which had decreased to $7,313 by the date of trial; and a Scotia Bank MasterCard debt of $713, which remains outstanding.

She argues that she left the marriage with $39,838 in matrimonial debt, which had decreased to $37,240 on the date of trial. [ 105 ] Karan began the separation with the following marital debts: RBC VISA with a balance of $5,000 which he had paid off by the date of trial; an MBNA MasterCard outstanding balance of $8,800, which he had reduced to $3,000 by the date of trial; a RBC line of credit of $14,250, which he had reduced to $11,250 by the time of trial; and a Scotia Bank line of credit of $7,000, which he had paid off by the date of trial.

In total he argues that he left the marriage with $35,050 in matrimonial debt which has decreased to $14,250 as of the date of trial. [ 106 ] I do not agree that the presumption of division of property as at the date of trial should be deviated from in this matter. While it may be correct to say that each spouse left the marriage with equivalent debt levels, Poonampreet left the marriage with over 10% more of the accumulated debt than Karan. In 2014, her line 150 income was $7,758 compared to $129,215 for him. I do not have their respective incomes for 2015.

At the time of their separation, she was working part time as the spouses had a two-year-old child and she was primarily responsible for his care. In the time between the separation and the trial, she continued to work part time, spent three years in full time post-secondary studies on student loans, and was the primary care giving parent to the child. In contrast, Karan was able to continue his well-paying job without interruption.

Given the disparities in their respective incomes, and the child care responsibilities, it is obvious why Karan was able to retire more matrimonial debt than Poonampreet. [ 107 ] It would be manifestly unfair to assess the assets and liabilities as at the date of separation. The matrimonial debt will be set as at the date of trial. Pre-separation withdrawals from the joint bank accounts [ 108 ] Shortly after the spouses arrived together in Canada, they opened two joint bank accounts in Fort McMurray: one at Scotia Bank and one at RBC.

Both these accounts received family funds and were used for joint expenses. [ 109 ] In September 2014, Karan withdrew $16,463.86 from the RBC account and transferred that money to his brother who was in university in New Zealand, allegedly to cover his brother’s expenses. In early December 2014, Karan withdrew $9,000 from the Scotia Bank account. It is agreed that both accounts were exclusively populated by joint family earnings.

By the date of separation, in early 2015, both accounts were depleted and closed. [ 110 ] Poonampreet seeks an adjustment to the division of matrimonial property for half of both these amounts. She testified that she vigorously opposed the September withdrawal telling Karan that those funds were to “make our own future” outside of her parents’ home. Karan testified that Poonampreet agreed to give this money to his brother for post-secondary expenses.

Poonampreet also testified that she was completely unaware of the December 2014 withdrawal and has no idea why it was made or what the funds were used for, explaining that this account was intended to be savings for the family’s future. Karan testified that she knew about the December withdrawal and the funds were used for expenses related to their month-long holiday in India later that same month. [ 111 ] The Scotia Bank and RBC accounts both include regular email and wire transfers.

Given the evidence of both spouses, as well as the Western Union evidence of transfers from Poonampreet and both of her parents to Karan and his parents in India over a three-year time period, it is clear that Karan was sending money to his family in India on a regular basis. Poonampreet’s family was all in Canada, so none of the wire or email transfers from the spouses’ joint accounts went to her family. Despite these remittances, both savings accounts had high balances, until the withdrawals in question.

It is inconceivable that Poonampreet would have agreed to almost empty out the RBC account and give the funds to her brother-in-law in New Zealand, when she continued to live at home with her parents, and her spouse and newborn child. [ 112 ] Despite my concerns with her overall credibility, I accept Poonampreet’s testimony that she was unaware of the $9,000 withdrawal in December 2014 and I reject Karan’s explanation that this money was for the family trip to India.

The family made a similar trip, though for three months, in 2013, and while there was less money in their joint accounts in 2013, there was no large withdrawal before the 2013 holiday.

[ 113 ] Karan testified that he and his parents had a safety deposit box in India where the family’s jewelry was secured because it was unsafe to keep valuables in their family home. This testimony is inconsistent with his explanation that he took $9,000 in cash to India, as it follows that if it was unsafe to keep jewelry in the home it would have been unsafe to have that amount of cash in the home in India.

As well, there was no need for the family to travel with large amounts of cash as the spouses had for years been transferring money between Canada and India via electronic means and both spouses had multiple credit cards. [ 114 ] In testifying about sending this money to his brother, Karan said that Poonampreet would often withdraw money from this joint account to give to her father as he had a $50,000 outstanding income tax liability. This suggestion was not put to Mr.

Vashishat or to Poonampreet, and appeared contrived in an attempt to leave the Court with the impression that she also took money from their joint account to devote to her family. I do not accept Karan’s testimony in this regard. [ 115 ] I do not believe Karan’s testimony in regard to each of these withdrawals. Poonampreet is entitled to the adjustment she seeks for both amounts.

Debts acquired after the date of separation [ 116 ] Poonampreet opened two new credit accounts after separation and by the date of trial had accumulated $4,642 in debt on a TD VISA card that was opened in 2019, and $4,662 in debt on a TD line of credit that was opened in 2020. [ 117 ] She argued that this debt was necessary to fund her “lifestyle” because her earnings were required to pay her parents room and board and to pay legal fees. She seeks to include this debt in the division of property. [ 118 ] The division of matrimonial property (including liabilities) requires the application of s 8 MPA .

In Stuve v Stuve , 2019 ABCA 142 at para 34 , [ Stuve ] the Court stated that after applying the s 8 factors, “the onus is on the party incurring debt after separation to demonstrate that the debt was used for the benefit of the family unit and not solely for the debtor’s own purposes.” [ 119 ] I am not persuaded that this debt was not for her “own purposes” as contemplated by Stuve . [ 120 ] The documentary evidence for each of these credit accounts does not contain any itemized charges, and only contains the “amount owing” and “minimum payment required” page.

There is no direct evidence of the nature of the charges on these two accounts. [ 121 ] By the time each of these credit accounts was opened, Poonampreet was already employed with Air Canada and earning a full- time income. She remained living with her parents, as was customary for an unmarried daughter in their culture. Her parents provided child care for the parties’ son. I do not accept that she was paying her parents room and board, as she testified. Mr. Vashishat’s testimony was unambiguous that it was his responsibility to provide for his daughters until they were married.

He took pride in the fact that he was able to help both his daughters in this respect. Poonampreet’s evidence cannot be relied upon to support her uncorroborated assertion that she paid room and board to her parents.

Assets at the date of trial [ 122 ] Poonampreet deposed to the following assets at the date of trial: $5,000 in gold that she received the same day her sworn statement of income assets and liabilities was completed, as well as $1,118 across 3 bank accounts and one Tax Free Savings Account. [ 123 ] Karan’s statement of income asset and liabilities was sworn in November 15, 2019, ten months before the trial. As set out above, I decline to ascribe any adverse inference to the timing of this document.

After considering this document and his updated disclosure and trial testimony, Karan had the following assets at the date of trial: $9,206 equity in the home he purchased in Edmonton in May 2020, having converted $5,040 from his RRSP for the down payment, this conversion would have left $4,065 in his RRSP based upon the balance he deposed to on November 15, 2019, and a savings account balance of $13,361. Vehicles [ 124 ] Neither spouse argued for the inclusion of their vehicles, either at the date of separation or the date of trial, in the division of matrimonial property.

In his testimony, Karan expressly testified that he was not seeking the inclusion of the vehicle Poonampreet was left with at the date of separation. Poonampreet was silent on the issue of including Karan’s vehicle in the property statement. The vehicles will not be included. Poonampreet’s wedding jewelry [ 125 ] As discussed above in the credibility section, I do not accept Poonampreet’s claim that her gifted wedding jewelry is in India in a safety deposit box controlled by Karan, his mother and younger brother.

While there is no dispute about the value of this jewelry ($28,155 which value includes gold gifted to their son), I do not accept Poonampreet’s assertion that she did not bring these items back to Canada. As well, her $28,155 claim includes the $1,652 in gold that was gifted to their son by his grandparents. A gift to their child is not matrimonial property. [ 126 ] There was no argument that Poonampreet’s wedding jewelry had increased in value, if at all, and there was no argument that any increase in value should be divided as matrimonial property.

This, in spite of the fact that Karan’s position all along has been that Poonampreet has possession of her wedding jewelry gifted to her by her parents. As a result, the wedding jewelry will not be the subject of any division.

Funds paid by Poonampreet for the wedding celebration [ 127 ] Poonampreet testified that she paid just over $9,000 of her savings toward the expenses for the wedding ceremony, using funds she saved from her work in a jewelry store. She argues that this amount should be included in the division of matrimonial property. There is no documentary evidence to support her claim that she paid this amount. The evidence of her father contradicts her testimony as he testified that he paid for the wedding.

The credibility finding in relation to Poonampreet leads me to conclude that she has not proven that she actually contributed any amount to her wedding celebration. [ 128 ] In any event, there is no authority for the proposition that personal funds voluntarily employed by a spouse to pay for the wedding ceremony are subject to consideration in the division of matrimonial property. This payment is also not incorporated into any of the s 7 or s 8 MPA considerations. This claim is denied. [ 129 ] The division of matrimonial property calculations are set out in the spreadsheet Appendix A.

The net result of the division is that Karan will make an equalization payment to Poonampreet in the amount of $33,874.18. In the event counsel cannot agree on how this is to be paid, they may, within 30 days, contact the Court for a determination on payment terms. Costs [ 130 ] If the parties cannot come to terms on costs within 60 days they may each provide written submission, maximum 5 pages, following which I will provide a written endorsement.

Heard on the 30 th day of September, 2020 to the 2 nd day of October, 2020 Written Argument received the 16 th day of October, 2020, the 23 rd day of October, 2020 and November 18, 2020 Additional Evidence received November 9, 2020 Additional Argument Materials received February 11, 2021 Dated at the City of Ft. McMurray, Alberta this 7 th day of May, 2021. S.E. Richardson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Zukhraf Baig for the Plaintiff Mahendra Pillay for the Defendant Appendix A

The appendix is omitted from the unofficial electronic version of the judgment. It is included with the official filed version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Decision of The Honourable Madam Justice S.E. Richardson _______________________________________________________ Para 82 originally read: Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, I have elected to award a monthly amount of spousal support slightly higher than the amount sought by Poonampreet, but for a shorter duration.

Para 82 has been changed to read: Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, I have elected to award a monthly amount of spousal support sought by Poonampreet, but for a shorter duration.