Goddard v Goddard, 2024 ABKB 099

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Goddard v Goddard, 2024 ABKB 099 Date: 20240221 Docket: 4803 176656 Registry: Edmonton Between: James Ryan Goddard Applicant - and - Joelle Kelley Goddard Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Justice C.L. Arcand-Kootenay _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] These parties appeared before me on the 24 th of October 2022 to the 28 th day of October 2022. I gave a decision on all issues but for matrimonial property, on the 22 nd day of November 2022.

I reserved my decision on matrimonial property pending receipt of further evidence, as directed in my decision, Goddard v Goddard , 2022 ABKB 770 . The parties appeared before me on the 18 th day of August 2023 to cross examine the other on their Affidavits, filed.

[ 2 ] My decision regarding matrimonial property follows below. [ 3 ] The parties are seeking a final distribution of matrimonial assets and debts. [ 4 ] This matter was originally set for trial in June 2020 but could not proceed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Issue [ 5 ] The issue before me is the determination, valuation, and final distribution of matrimonial property, including assets and debts. Analysis of Facts and the Law: [ 6 ] The specific facts in this matter can be found in my decision noted above. [ 7 ] The parties began cohabitation in September 2006.

The parties ceased co-habitation and began living separate and apart in May 2016. The Family Property Act, R.S.A 2000, c F-4.7 came into force on January 1, 2020. Given that the parties separated in 2016, the applicable legislation is the Matrimonial Property Act , R.S.A. 2000, c M-8 (“ MPA ”). [ 8 ] The husband filed a Statement of Claim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property on July 4, 2016. The Plaintiff did not claim any exemptions at that time, and claimed an equal division of the matrimonial property The remedy sought was as follows: a.

An Order for equal distribution of all the property acquired by the Plaintiff and Defendant, either jointly or separately; b. Occupation rent; c. Costs of this action. [ 9 ] The wife filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property on August 2, 2016. In her Statement of Defence she agreed to an Order for equal distribution of all the property acquired, either jointly or separately. But contested the occupation rent and costs.

Her reason for contesting was “this is not an appropriate case for occupational rent or costs to be awarded.” [ 10 ] Sections 7 and 8 of the MPA govern the distribution of property upon marriage breakdown. [ 11 ] Under s 7, the Court is required to determine what property was owned by the spouses at the date of trial and whether any property is exempt from distribution. Then considering the factors in

section 8, the Court must determine a just and equitable distribution of the matrimonial property. [ 12 ] The presumption under the MPA is that matrimonial property is divided as of the date of trial, Mazurenko v Mazurenko , 1981 ABCA 104 . I. ASSETS A. Syncrude and Ironworkers Pensions (the LIRA’s) [ 13 ] The husband gave evidence that the Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund, Exhibit #54, had been paid out in 2014. prior to the marriage breakdown. [ 14 ] Attached as Exhibit “A” to the husband’s Affidavit sworn on November 28, 2022, is a letter from Coughlin Employee Benefits Specialists dated November 2014.

This letter is dated prior to the marriage breakdown, May 2016. In this letter, it states as follows: “We are pleased to inform you that your application has been approved…., you are entitled to a lump sum cash refund…Your total refund payable is $6,669.97 of which $1,333.99 withholding tax has been remitted to the Canada Revenue Agency.” This pension no longer exists. [ 15 ] I find that the Syncrude Pension 504584S2, LIRA, Exhibit #23, “Gold Investment Portfolio Manager”, is matrimonial property subject to equal distribution.

There are no applicable exemptions under s 7 of the MPA and it is neither unjust nor inequitable to divide the pension equally. [ 16 ] I also find that the Pension 504584S3, LIRA, Exhibit #24, “Gold Investment Portfolio Manager”, is also matrimonial property subject to equal distribution. There are no applicable exemptions under s 7 of the MPA and it is neither unjust nor inequitable to divide the pension equally. [ 17 ] I find the husband’s ability to accrue a pension is directly related to the contributions the wife made to the household and family.

The wife’s contribution to the family allowed the husband to focus on his career. Although a period of accrual occurred after the separation, the parties remained married throughout this time, and I find no basis to rebut the presumption of an equal division of the pension. [ 18 ] The joint period of accrual will be from the date the husband became a plan member in the LIRA to the date of the first trial, June 15, 2020.

[ 19 ] I take judicial notice of the Order for Trial, pronounced on January 5, 2022, that states in the

preamble, “And upon the Court noting that this matter was previously set for trial for June 15, 2020, to June 27, 2020, but did not proceed because of the Covid-19 pandemic”. I understand that the parties were prepared to proceed to trial on that date, but the trial was adjourned and postponed due to Covid-19. [ 20 ] The pension shall be divided equally between the parties with the value of the pension to be determined by the Gold Investment Administrator. The wife’s share of the pension to be rolled over into a locked in retirement account (LIRA) in her name. B.

Canada Pension Plan Credits [ 21 ] There was no evidence before me that either party had any substantial assets or savings other than pension plans. [ 22 ] There was no evidence before me regarding either party’s Canada Pension Plan credits. [ 23 ] However, both the husband and wife’s Canada Pension Plan credits acquired from either party’s employment for the period September 1, 2016, until June 15, 2020 will be divided equally. C. Vehicles, Quads and Boats [ 24 ] The parties had listed various vehicles as assets in Exhibit #51,

Schedule A to Form FL-17. [ 25 ] Regarding these vehicles, the husband has provided Bills of Sale for the following items, in Exhibit #30, 1999 Dodge Ram 2500, sold on Feb 16 th , 2021, $3000 2002 Polaris Sportsman 500 Quad, sold on Sept 10 th , 2017, $800 1994 Campion Allante Bowrider, sold on August 1 st , 2017, $3200 TOTAL: $7000 [ 26 ] The wife provided evidence as to what she believed the reasonable value was for the above items in Exhibit #51,

Schedule A to Form FL-17, undated and unsworn. [ 27 ] The husband declared his assets in Exhibit #51, Form FL-17, on August 29, 2016 and provided what he believed the reasonable value was for the above items. Mr. Goddard Ms. Goddard Truck $10,000 $15,000 Quad $2000 $2000 Boat $5000 $8000 [ 28 ] I am uncertain whether these items, as described by the husband in Exhibit #51, capture the items listed by the wife but will assume that they are the same assets.

I am also uncertain as to the date the wife declared these as assets, as there is no date provided in her form. [ 29 ] I accept the values provided by the husband based upon his declaration having been properly dated and sworn. [ 30 ] I find the above items to be marital assets and their sale value to be shared equally between the parties. Although, the husband may have sold the truck below what he determined reasonable value was in August 2016, and this was not an arm’s length transaction. He sold the items to his father. The husband’s equalization payment to the wife would be $3500. II. DEBT A.

Matrimonial Debt [ 31 ] The evidence provided by the husband and wife in this trial regarding matrimonial assets and debts was unclear at times. The parties provided many documents, without being able to provide explanations for the information contained in their documents. [ 32 ] I find that there was a document dump during the trial by both parties. There were 63 documents filed as exhibits.

This could have been higher had I not excluded some documents being entered as exhibits as the parties were present and under oath and could provide viva voce evidence. [ 33 ] As well, in one of the wife’s documents, Exhibit #52, the first page is difficult to read. This is information regarding the RBC Credit Line. [ 34 ] In my decision noted above, in paragraph 142, I directed the wife to provide proof of the amount owing on the RBC Credit Line. In her Affidavit sworn on November 29, 2022 she simply attached the first page of Exhibit #52 to her Affidavit, which was already

an Exhibit and as I have noted, difficult to read. [ 35 ] The wife is claiming the following as matrimonial debts: 1. RBC, Visa Infinite Avion credit card, May 11 th , 2016 $18,718.82 2. RBC, Credit Line, August 2016 $25,000.00 3. Servus Credit Union, Overdraft, August, 2016 $15,000.00 [ 36 ] The husband testified that he filed for bankruptcy on December 28, 2018. In Exhibit #20, Claims Register, Insolvency Trustee, Bromwich & Smith Inc., date of report: 05/04/2021, I accept that the Servus Credit Union Debt was included in the husband’s bankruptcy.

Noted on the Claims Register is: Servus Credit Union Ltd., Ref No 1535723 1, which mirrors the exact account noted on the wife’s Exhibit B, attached to her Affidavit sworn on November 29, 2022. Thus, this debt in the amount of $14,474.89 has been accepted and settled through the husband’s bankruptcy in 2021. [ 37 ] Regarding the RBC Credit Line, I also note in Exhibit #20, RBC Royal Bank, Ref No RBCBK1016932, with an amount admitted of $25,021.03, which mirrors the amount the wife is claiming. In his Affidavit sworn on November 29, 2022, the husband deposes that the RBC liability was a joint debt.

I accept the evidence of the husband and find that the RBC Line of Credit has been accepted and settled through the husband’s bankruptcy in 2021. [ 38 ] I accept the RBC, Visa Infinite Avion Account ending in “6322”, Exhibit #52, which was provided a second time as Exhibit A, page 1 to the wife’s Affidavit sworn on November 29, 2022, is a debt of the marriage. The husband would be responsible for half of this debt, for a total of $9,359.41 . B. Debt to Nora Jean Paradis [ 39 ] It is not my role to determine whether NJ Paradis has a valid debt against the matrimonial assets.

However, based on the evidence before me, the money that was provided to both the wife and husband was a total of $150,000 (Exhibits 35, 39 and 40). The evidence was that one of the matrimonial properties sold and realized a profit of $42,702.34. From this profit the husband’s share was directed to be paid in part to NJ Paradis. The wife received her share of this profit directly in the amount of $21,351.17.

The wife stated that she paid part of the debt to NJ Paradis from her share, but she did not indicate how much she paid. [ 40 ] NJ Paradis made a claim against the husband in the bankruptcy proceedings for an amount of $185,000 on or about 2019 despite the fact the parties separated in 2016 and even though she was in fact paid at least $12,000 on the original $150,000 amount. [ 41 ] I find NJ Paradis does not seem to be seeking relief from the wife, her daughter, she is only seeking relief from the husband based on her claim noted above.

NJ Paradis initiated her claim at least three years after the money in trust was paid and over a year after the parties had separated. [ 42 ] My role is to determine what are valid matrimonial assets and debts. [ 43 ] Based on the evidence before me, I do not find the money that may be owed to NJ Paradis to be a valid matrimonial debt. This is not the proper forum for NJ Paradis to pursue her claim. III.

CONCLUSION [ 44 ] I have found that the husband should have an equalization payment to the wife for the sale of matrimonial assets in the amount of $3500. [ 45 ] I have also found that the husband should be responsible for his share of matrimonial debt in the amount of $9,359.41. [ 46 ] However, in determining the husband’s matrimonial financial obligations above, I must consider s 8(

d) and (

m) of the MPA in my decision. 8 The matters to be taken into consideration in making a distribution under s 7 are the following: … (

d) the income, earning capacity, liabilities, obligations, property, and other financial resources … (ii) that each spouse has at the time of the trial … (

m) any fact or circumstance that is relevant. [ 47 ] Based on my earlier decision in this matter noted above, and the husband’s liabilities and obligations pursuant to that earlier decision arising from this trial continuation, specifically the payment of ongoing and retroactive child support and spousal support, I find it is just and equitable for the husband to pay nothing to the wife for the sale of the truck, quad and boat, and nothing towards his share of the RBC, Visa Infinite Avion credit card debt.

[ 48 ] I have found that the Syncrude Pension 504584S2 (LIRA), the Pension 504584S3 (LIRA), are matrimonial property subject to equal distribution as of June 15, 2020. The joint period of accrual will be from the date the father became a plan member in the LIRAs to the date of the first trial, June 15, 2020. These will be divided by the administrator of the Pension Plan upon being served with a copy of an Order. [ 49 ] I have also found the Canada Pension Plan benefits are subject to equal distribution for the period September 1, 2006, to June 15, 2020. IV. COSTS [ 50 ] Each party shall bear their own costs .

Heard on the 24 th to 28 th day of October, 2022 Continued on the 18 th day of August, 2023 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21st day of February, 2024. C.L. Arcand-Kootenay J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: James Goddard (Self Represented Litigant) for the Applicant Joelle Goddard (Self Represented Litigant) for the Respondent