Jakob v. Jakob

2007 BCCA 332 Jakob v. Jakob COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Jakob v. Jakob, 2007 BCCA 332 Date: 20070614 Docket: CA035064 Between: Marguerite Jakob also known as Marguerite Ann Jakob Respondent (Plaintiff) And Paul Jakob Appellant (Defendant) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Chiasson (In Chambers) Appearing on own behalf Appellant Appearing on own behalf Respondent Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia 1 June 2007 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia 14 June 2007 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Chiasson: [1] Mr. Jakob applies for indigent status in this long, protracted and bitter matrimonial dispute. [2] There are two criteria to be considered on this application: the likelihood of success of the appeal and the financial position of the applicant (M.J.D. V. J.P.D., 2001 BCCA 155 (Chambers) at para. 3). Indigent status will be refused if there were no reasonable prospect of success (S.B. v. Holmgren, 2002 BCCA 553 (Chambers) at para. 16). [3] There are three issues on this appeal, which is from an April 24, 2007 Chambers hearing: an award of $4,025 to Mrs. Jakob, being half the value of certain chattels; an award to Mrs. Jakob of $385.90 per month being a portion of a pension of Mr. Jakob; an award of $10,038.71 to Mrs. Jakob being her entitlement to a portion of pension benefits previously received by Mr. Jakob. [4] In para. 7 of her reasons, the Chambers judge noted that there had been a trial that dealt with certain chattels and their values and that the values were disputed. She disposed of the issue concerning chattels in paras. 14 and 15 as follows: This court ordered on April 24, 2007 that the defendant deliver the following chattels to the plaintiff before noon on May 2, 2007 to Maple Leaf Storage, 7705 Griffiths Drive, Burnaby, B.C. The chattels are: corduroy beige couch, living room wooden coffee table, queen size bed with mattress and box spring, one night table, and the canoe. Failure to deliver these chattels was to result in a citation from this court for contempt of court with the potential for a fine or imprisonment. Because of the defendant's refusal to list the other chattels for sale and divide the proceeds as ordered and because he has maintained possession and control of those chattels, I conclude that the plaintiff shall have judgment for half of the value of those chattels, being $4,025. [5] Mr. Jakob does not agree with the valuation determined by the judge. In my view, it is unlikely that a division of this Court would interfere with this factual determination of the judge. [6] In para. 19 the judge calculated a factor to be used to determine the value of Mrs. Jakob's interest in her former husband's pension. She explains the calculation. Mr. Jakob does not disagree with it. He also does not disagree with the determination that the calculation yields a monthly pension payable to Mrs. Jakob of $385.90. This disposes of the second issue on appeal. [7] Mr. Jakob asserts that the award of $10,038.71 is in error because it is derived from total pension payments received in the amount of $28,879.43. He says this is approximately $6,000 too high because the judge used his income tax T4 slips and these included a $6,000 severance allowance. Mrs. Jakob says that the judge did not use T4 slips. As the judge stated in para. 21 she used "payroll slips". Mr. Jakob left work in September 2005. The records examined were for 2006 and to date in 2007. The pension began January 2006. The judge stated that the $28,879.43 amount "includes a retroactive payment for 2005". On the face of her reasons she appears to have been aware of the severance issue. [8] No order has been entered in this matter. It may be that the judge could consider the severance pay issue if she were not to have done so already, but it was not raised previously with her by Mr. Jakob. I do not think a division of this Court would interfere with the amount calculated by the judge. [9] In summary, it is my view that Mr. Jakob's appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. On this ground alone, his application for indigent status cannot succeed. [10] The financial information that Mr. Jakob provided does not satisfy me that he qualifies for indigent status. He has a reasonable income from various pensions and he has some assets. [11] Mr. Jakob pressed me concerning the transfer to him of an interest in a condominium. That matter is not before this Court and apparently remains to be resolved in the Supreme Court. [12] The order under appeal requires Mr. Jakob to pay $16,152.84 into court for the benefit of Mrs. Jakob by June 11, 2007. The judge advised Mr. Jakob that if he were to fail to do so, he might face contempt proceedings based on a history of failing to obey court order. Mr. Jakob says that he has arranged funding and will make the payment. I emphasize that it is important that he do so. [13] I also advised the parties that an order of the April 24, 2007 proceedings should be prepared and entered if this appeal were to be carried forward. [14] The application for indigent status is dismissed. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Chiasson"