Aldewood v. Aldewood

2024 BCSC 1568 Aldewood v. Aldewood

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Aldewood v. Aldewood, 2024 BCSC 1568 Date: 20240827 Docket: E211084 Registry: Vancouver Between: Mehnaz Aldewood Claimant And Seyed Reza Aldewood and Best Tech Auto Repair Ltd. Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice W.A. Baker Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Claimant: C. Drake J. Chohan The Respondent, appearing in person and for Best Tech Auto Repair Ltd.: R. Aldewood Place and Date of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. October 23-27, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 27, 2024 Table of Contents Introduction.. 3 Background facts. 3 Issues. 4 Are the parties entitled to a divorce?. 4 What assets are family assets, and how should they be divided?. 5 Family home. 5 Household contents. 6 Jewelry and contents of safety deposit box. 7 Bank Accounts. 8 Vehicles. 9 Musical Instruments. 10 Pension / RSP. 11 Exclusion claim.. 12 Best Tech Auto Repair 12 Penalties and liabilities arising from the operation of Best Tech. 14 Capital gains on the sale of the Kennard Property. 15 Rental income from Kennard Property. 15 Assets of Best Tech. 15 Severance Pay. 16 Shareholder loan. 16 What debts are family debts, and how should they be divided?. 17 Is either party entitled to spousal support?. 18 Ms. Aldewood's present financial and employment status. 18 Mr. Aldewood's present financial and employment status. 20 Relevant Law..

21 Disposition.. 23 Introduction [1] In this family law case, Ms. Aldewood seeks a divorce, spousal support, and division of family assets and debts. Mr. Aldewood seeks a division of family assets and debt, and spousal support. [2] Following the trial, in February 2024 Ms. Aldewood made an application for the release of funds held in trust. On February 16, 2024 I ordered the release of $250,000 to each party, out of funds held in trust following the sale of family property. [3] On March 4, 2024, Ms. Aldewood sought to appear before me to introduce new evidence. That application was set for a one day hearing on May 31, 2024. I denied Ms. Aldewood's application to introduce new evidence. Background facts [4] Mr. Aldewood and Ms. Aldewood were both born in Iran, but met in Calgary in March, 1992. They were married shortly thereafter, on July 31, 1992. At trial, Ms. Aldewood was 58 years old, and Mr. Aldewood was 57 years old. They separated on or about February 20, 2021. [5] The parties have two adult children, Sean and Nina. [6] Ms. Aldewood alleges that Mr. Aldewood was physically abusive to her over the years. She says that between 2000 and 2001 the police became involved when Mr. Aldewood was violent towards her. In 2001 Mr. Aldewood was charged with assaulting her. [7] When Nina was 16 years old, the Ministry of Children and Family Development became involved, and Nina was

placed in care under a youth agreement. Sean lived in a shelter at times, and Ms. Aldewood says that the Ministry told her that he would be placed in care if Mr. Aldewood did not move out of the home. Mr. Aldewood moved out of the family home for six months in 2010. [8] In April 2020 Ms. Aldewood says that Mr. Aldewood assaulted her again but she asked for no charges to be laid because Mr. Aldewood agreed to go to counselling with her. [9] In February 2021, there was another incident between the couple. Ms. Aldewood says Mr. Aldewood was abusive towards her, and threw 10 photos to floor, breaking all of them. Mr. Aldewood alleges that Ms. Aldewood was abusive to him. Mr. Aldewood reported Ms. Aldewood to the police, alleging that Ms. Aldewood scratched him and injured his eye. No steps were taken by the police against Ms. Aldewood, although Mr. Aldewood was warned to not return to the family home. Eventually Ms. Aldewood obtained a protection order against Mr. Aldewood. [10] The allegations of violence are relevant in the case because of restrictions placed on Mr. Aldewood with respect to access to the family home. I am not required to make any finding regarding the violence reported by Ms. Aldewood or Mr. Aldewood, as they have no bearing on the issues before me in this trial. Issues [11] This litigation raises the following issues: a) Are the parties entitled to a divorce? b)

What assets are family assets, and how should they be divided? c) What debts are family debts, and how should they be divided? d) Is either party entitled to spousal support? Are the parties entitled to a divorce? [12] I am satisfied that the requirement for divorce pursuant to the Divorce Act have been met. Subject to s. 12 of the Divorce Act, the parties, who were married in North Vancouver, BC, on July 31, 1992, are divorced from each other. The divorce is to take effect on the 31st day after the date of these Reasons for Judgment. [13] What assets are family assets, and how should they be divided? Family home [14] At the date of separation, the parties owned their family home located at 317 East 27th Street, North Vancouver, BC. The sale of the family home completed on December 8, 2022. The net sale proceeds were $1,716,841.43, which were placed in trust. There is no dispute that the family home is a family asset, to be divided equally. [15] Mr. Aldewood claims that Ms. Aldewood interfered in the conduct of sale of the home, which resulted in a loss in value of $100,000. He says $100,000 ought to be deducted from her share of the family home as a result. Mr. Aldewood has established no basis for this claim. He produced some evidence of an offer at a higher value, but that offer was subject to certain conditions. I do not accept that, but for any actions of Ms. Aldewood, the

home would have sold at a higher value than it did, and that Ms. Aldewood's share of the proceeds should be reduced by $100,000. [16] Mr. Aldewood claims that Ms. Aldewood charged their son $1,200/month to live in the house. Ms. Aldewood testified that she did set rent for their son, but that he only paid it for two months, and she ended up transferring the money back to him as he needed it for various expenses. There was no evidence at trial to contradict Ms. Aldewood's evidence, and I find that she did not receive rent from their son during the period she lived in the family home without Mr. Aldewood. [17] Mr. Aldewood claims Ms. Aldewood must pay him occupational rent in the amount of approximately $50,000 to reflect the fact that she lived in the family home for 17 months after separation. This reflects 50% of a notional rent of $1,900/month for the house. [18] Occupational rent is an exceptional, discretionary remedy: Piderman v Piderman, 2015 BCSC 475 at paras. 50-53; Hofmann v. Miller, 2022 BCSC 678 at para 204. In this case, Ms. Aldewood was responsible for paying all the household expenses after separation, their son lived in the home with Ms. Aldewood and was supported by Ms. Aldewood, and Mr. Aldewood provided no evidence that he experienced financial difficulty as a result of Ms. Aldewood living in the family home. I am not satisfied that an award of occupational

rent is required to obtain justice between the parties in this case. [19] On February 16, 2024, I ordered the release of $250,000 to each party, from the funds held in trust. [20] Subject to any adjustments to reflect my findings herein, the proceeds held in trust will be shared equally by the parties. Household contents [21] I heard very general evidence about the household contents, and how the contents were dealt with after separation. Ms. Aldewood testified that in 2018, they had sold most of their furniture as they were downsizing from their prior home to a one bedroom rental, prior to purchasing the family home they owned at the time of separation. [22] Ms. Aldewood testified that after separation she sold a few minor items for modest amounts, such as their son's old desk and side tables, a sofa, and a few shelves. The total value she received was less than $500. [23] Ms. Aldewood retained 3 carpets, one queen mattress, two Ikea chairs, a TV, and a coffee table. Two of the carpets were not authentic Persian carpets, and were purchased for $150 each. One carpet was an authentic Persian carpet. Ms. Aldewood testified that Mr. Aldewood purchased it in 2011 in Iran, and paid $2,000 for it. Ms. Aldewood testified that the family had two additional carpets - one was given to their daughter, and one was left in the garage for Mr. Aldewood to take when the house was sold. [24]

Ms. Aldewood testified that the appliances in the house were divided between Ms. Aldewood, their son Sean, and Mr. Aldewood. [25] Ms. Aldewood testified that all the remaining household items were left in the garage for Mr. Aldewood to sort through and take what he wanted. She testified that Mr. Aldewood attended the garage and took items out, including a motorcycle and exercise equipment. She produced photographs which corroborate this evidence. [26] Mr. Aldewood produced a photograph of the items left in the garage for him to pick up, and this photograph appears to generally coincide with the evidence of Ms. Aldewood. [27] While Mr. Aldewood disagreed with the value of the household goods itemized by Ms. Aldewood, and said that the household goods were worth at least $100,000, he produced no evidence to support this claim. I am satisfied that the values testified to by Ms. Aldewood are accurate. [28] I make no orders with respect to the household contents. Each party will retain the contents in their possession at the time of trial, and no orders for equalization will be made. Jewelry and contents of safety deposit box [29] Mr. Aldewood asserts that the family owned a safety deposit box which contained gold worth $50,000 and $70,000 in cash, all of which were removed by Ms. Aldewood. Mr. Aldewood testified that the missing items included a ring which could be worth $50,000, a

gold chain worth $70,00, and $70,000 in cash. Mr. Aldewood produced no evidence to support his claim that such items existed at any point, or were missing from the safety deposit box. [30] Ms. Aldewood denied she had $70,000 in her safety deposit box at the date of separation. She testified that she returned Mr. Aldewood's passports and his gold chain to him. Ms. Aldewood produced photographs of the contents of the safety deposit box, and identified which items were returned to Mr. Aldewood. [31] Mr. Aldewood disputes the values attributed by Ms. Aldewood, and disputes the photographs. [32] I find that Mr. Aldewood has not established on a balance of probabilities that the contents of the safety deposit box were different from the contents shown in the photographs produced by Ms. Aldewood. I accept the evidence of Ms. Aldewood that Mr. Aldewood's gold chain was returned to him, and no other gold items belonging to Mr. Aldewood were left in the box. I also accept her evidence that she did not hold $70,000 in cash in the safety deposit box. [33] I make no orders with respect to the contents of the safety deposit box. No orders for equalization relating to the contents of the safety deposit box will be made. Bank Accounts [34] At the time of separation, Ms. Aldewood had a bank account (TD #0803) holding approximately $50,550. By October 2021, this account was reduced to

approximately $10,000. As of the date of trial, her balance was reduced to approximately $6,000. This account is a family asset, with its value at the date of separation to be divided equally. [35] Mr. Aldewood submitted that at the time of separation he had a bank account (TD #6248) holding approximately $117,000. As of the date of trial, this account was reduced to approximately $5,000. This account is a family asset, with its value at the date of separation to be divided equally. [36] Mr. Aldewood testified that he had been maintaining a bank account for his son, which in early 2022 held just over $10,000. He testified that his son paid him $700/month into this account, which was being maintained for the son's benefit. In July 2022 Mr. Aldewood withdrew $10,000 from this account. No corroborating evidence was called with respect to any payments made into the account by their son or anyone else, or to establish the fact that these funds in fact belonged to their son and not Mr. Aldewood. While Mr. Aldewood claims that he owes this money back to their son, I do not accept his evidence. I find that the $10,000 was a family asset which Mr. Aldewood took for his own benefit after separation. The value of this account at the date of separation will be divided equally. [37] The parties own an investment account with Blue Shore, worth $226,468 at the date of trial. This account is a

family asset and will be divided equally. Vehicles [38] Ms. Aldewood owns a 2011 Lexus, worth $5,000, which is a family asset and its value will be divided equally. [39] At the date of trial, Mr. Aldewood owned a 2017 Lexus, which he purchased after separation for $41,000, a 1983 Mustang which he values at $13,000, and a 2019 Honda motorcycle. Ms. Aldewood testified that she was with Mr. Aldewood when he purchased the motorcycle in 2020, and that he paid $22,000 for it. Mr. Aldewood valued the motorcycle at $12,000 in 2023. [40] The 2017 Lexus was purchased with funds withdrawn from Mr. Aldewood's TD account #6248 after separation; as such, the division of Mr. Aldewood's account at the date of separation addresses the 2017 Lexus and I will make no further division of the value of this asset. [41] I accept the values attributed by Mr. Aldewood to the 1983 Mustang and the 2019 motorcycle. I find that these vehicles currently owned by Mr. Aldewood are family assets with a total value of $25,000, which value is to be shared equally. [42] Mr. Aldewood agreed that after separation he also sold an Infinity G35 for $2,000 in 2021, and a Toyota Yaris for $2,000. These vehicles were family assets, and Mr. Aldewood must account to Ms. Aldewood for half their value. [43] Mr. Aldewood agreed that he also owned a 1997 Honda motorcycle in 2021, but says it was stolen. I accept this evidence

and make no orders with respect to the 1997 Honda motorcycle. [44] Ms. Aldewood testified that Mr. Aldewood repurchased a white 1965 Mercedes for $10,000 just before separation, which she photographed at the Kennard Property. Mr. Aldewood denied he owned the Mercedes. He testified that the Mercedes was in the shop having work done on when she took the photograph, but he did not own it. I accept the evidence of Mr. Aldewood and find that the 1965 Mercedes was not owned by Mr. Aldewood, and is not a family asset. Musical Instruments [45] Mr. Aldewood is a musician, and owned numerous valuable instruments during the marriage. Many were traditional instruments from Iran. Mr. Aldewood testified that many were fragile and valuable. [46] Mr. Aldewood alleged that Ms. Aldewood removed the instruments from the home, or disposed of them in some way. [47] Ms. Aldewood testified that Mr. Aldewood kept most of his instruments at his office at the Kennard Property, and kept only a small number in the home. She alleged that Mr. Aldewood came into the family home after February 2021, and removed many of the instruments. Ultimately, she delivered all that were left in the house, to Mr. Aldewood's lawyer. She produced a listing of the items she returned to him through her lawyer. [48] There was quite a bit of controversy over the number of instruments owned by Mr. Aldewood, the value of the

instruments, and whether any were damaged, retained or sold by Ms. Aldewood or Mr. Aldewood. [49] Ms. Aldewood produced a number of Facebook marketplace ads which appear to show Mr. Aldewood selling a number of the instruments, including posted as recently as several weeks before trial. Mr. Aldewood agreed that some of the photos showed ads he placed for instruments, but said they were sold before separation, or were purchased after separation, or were not sold at any time prior to the trial. [50] Ms. Aldewood also produced photographs taken from Facebook which appear to show Mr. Aldewood playing certain instruments after separation, at the time Mr. Aldewood was alleging she was refusing to return the instruments to him. [51] Mr. Aldewood has produced a list of instruments and equipment he says were left in the family home, and he has attached a value to each. Mr. Aldewood produced a number of images from Facebook marketplace allegedly placed by the couple's son, purporting to sell various musical instruments and equipment after the date of separation. [52] The evidence led by both parties is simply insufficient for me to determine, on the balance of probabilities, what instruments and what equipment were actually sold at any point in time. I am not able to look at images taken from the internet and, without more, determine with the degree of precision required in this lawsuit,

what instrument is being sold, whether it was in fact sold, who posted the ad, when the ad was posted, and whether such instrument or equipment in fact correlates with a listing of instruments produced by Mr. Aldewood. [53] On the evidence before me, I am simply unable to determine what instruments and equipment were owned by the family at the time of separation, what the actual value of such instruments and equipment were at the time of separation, and what instruments remain in the possession of either Mr. Aldewood or Ms. Aldewood at the date of trial. As a result, I make no orders with respect the values of the instruments, and no orders with respect to any claim for equalization in relation to the instruments. Pension / RSP [54] The evidence at trial established that Ms. Aldewood held an RSP account with a value of $35,192 in September 2021. In September 2021, Ms. Aldewood began making withdrawals from this account to support herself, and had fully depleted the account by the end of 2021. This was a family asset and Mr. Aldewood is entitled to one half the value of this account. [55] Both parties agree that Ms. Aldewood's pension will be shared equally in accordance with the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. Exclusion claim [56] Mr. Aldewood claims an exclusion of $280,000, which he testified was his inheritance from his father. Mr. Aldewood produced a number of

receipts from the United Royal Currency Exchange Ltd., which show the transfer of funds totalling just under $100,000, in amounts of approximately $9,000 over a period of four years - from 2009 to 2013. [57] Mr. Aldewood could not recall what he spent the money on, but agreed that some of the money went into his bank accounts and some was used to purchase things for the family. Ms. Aldewood testified that some of the receipts presented by Mr. Aldewood were in fact transactions between her mother and Mr. Aldewood, and her brother and Mr. Aldewood. [58] A party must establish an entitlement to excluded property with clear and cogent evidence: Shih v Shih, 2017 BCCA 37. Mr. Aldewood has not met that burden. I am not satisfied that Mr. Aldewood has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the funds transferred from Iran over four years could be properly construed as an inheritance. Further, Mr. Aldewood was not able to trace these funds into any current assets and I find that he cannot claim an exclusion as a result: Asselin v. Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681. [59] I am not satisfied that Mr. Aldewood has established an entitlement to any exclusion pursuant to s. 85 of the FLA. Best Tech Auto Repair [60] Best Tech Auto Repair Ltd. was incorporated on November 2, 2010. Mr. Aldewood and Ms. Aldewood are equal shareholders in Best Tech, and Mr. Aldewood operated Best Tech throughout the

marriage. [61] Best Tech owned commercial property located at 308 Kennard Avenue, North Vancouver (the "Kennard Property"). The purchase of the Kennard Property was secured against the family home. The Kennard Property was sold in October 2021. [62] In 2018 Ms. Aldewood became a director of Best Tech. Ms. Aldewood testified that she only became a director of Best Tech because she was concerned that Mr. Aldewood may sell the Kennard Property and not properly account for the proceeds of sale. [63] Best Tech effectively wound up operations in 2021, following the sale of the Kennard Property [64] The shares of Best Tech are family assets, to be divided equally. However, the issues with Best Tech are complicated by the actions taken by Mr. Aldewood throughout the operation of the business. [65] Ms. Aldewood had no signing authority over Best Tech's bank account. She testified that she approached the bank to be added as a signing authority in August 2021, but the bank refused to do so without the consent of Mr. Aldewood. Mr. Aldewood refused to give his consent. At that time, the parties were separated. In August 2021, Mr. Aldewood withdrew almost all the funds from Best Tech's bank account. Mr. Aldewood testified that he used the funds to pay vendors, but no supporting documents were admitted at trial to corroborate his use of the funds. [66] At various points in time, Mr. Aldewood

considered selling Best Tech. In early 2021, his attempts began in earnest. Ms. Aldewood was aware of his efforts to sell the business. [67] Based on an email received from their real estate agent, Ms. Aldewood understood that a prospective purchaser was concerned about improper bookkeeping over the years by Mr. Aldewood and the risk of a significant resulting tax liability, possibly as high as $500,000. Ultimately, Ms. Aldewood understood that the potential liabilities arising out of the business were significant enough that the buyers were only interested in purchasing the Kennard Property. [68] At trial, Mr. Aldewood denied producing any accounting documents for the business to the proposed purchaser, notwithstanding the fact he agreed he received an email from the proposed purchaser raising numerous concerns with the accounting records of the business. Mr. Aldewood was simply not credible in his evidence as it relates to the accounting and business operations of Best Tech. I find that he was solely responsible for the operation of the business, and the accounting of the business. [69] The Kennard Property sold in October 2021, and approximately $1,585,126.07 was placed in trust pending the outcome of this litigation. Penalties and liabilities arising from the operation of Best Tech [70] In October 2021 the parties consented to an order that, on or before November 15, 2021

the parties retain an accountant and tax lawyer, to be paid out of the funds held in trust from the sale of the Kennard Property. The intention was that the accountant and lawyer would determine any tax liabilities flowing from the operation of Best Tech, and the sale of the Kennard Property. The concern appeared to be that Best Tech was paying rent to Mr. Aldewood for the Kennard Property, even though the Kennard Property was owned by Best Tech. Mr. Aldewood did not send the required records to the accountant until May 2022. Ultimately, the accountant determined he was not qualified to the do the work requested. [71] Mr. Aldewood has not agreed to the retainer of a new accountant to address all outstanding accounting issues within the company. Instead, Mr. Aldewood retained Mr. Kim Ho, an accountant, to prepare a trust agreement, which he stated would resolve the tax issues for Best Tech. Ms. Aldewood refused to sign the agreement because she did not believe it would address the outstanding accounting issues, and only dealt with the capital gains on the Kennard Property. [72] I find that Mr. Aldewood has failed to cooperate in retaining an appropriate accounting professional to address the accounting issues and the outstanding potential tax liability issues with CRA. [73] To the extent that Mr. Aldewood or Best Tech has or will suffer any penalties resulting from his failure

to address the accounting issues with CRA in a timely way, or from improper accounting practices undertaken by Mr. Aldewood within Best Tech, I find that such penalties will borne solely by Mr. Aldewood and are not family debts. Capital gains on the sale of the Kennard Property [74] To the extent a capital gain must be paid by Best Tech in relation to the sale of the Kennard Property, I find that such capital gain is a liability of the company. To the extent Mr. Aldewood and Ms. Aldewood may be found personally liable for this debt of the company, the capital gain is a family debt. Rental income from Kennard Property [75] Ms. Aldewood testified that she learned from her real estate agent that Mr. Aldewood rented out the Kennard Property to the movie industry, prior to the transfer to the new owners. This was denied by Mr. Aldewood, and no corroborating evidence was led by Ms. Aldewood to establish that the property was rented prior to completion of the sale. I do not accept Ms. Aldewood has proven that Best Tech or Mr. Aldewood received any rental income from third parties prior to the sale of the property. Assets of Best Tech [76] Ms. Aldewood says that Mr. Aldewood did not disclose the value of the assets of Best Tech. Mr. Aldewood produced a list of assets, but Ms. Aldewood says it is not accurate. Mr. Aldewood testified he sold the equipment in the shop for $6,025, and

spend $350 in costs related to such sales. He says he received some of the proceeds in cash, and some proceeds were transferred to him. Some of the equipment in the shop belonged to his employee, who took his own tools when the shop closed. [77] Ms. Aldewood produced images taken from Facebook marketplace which she says show Mr. Aldewood's attempts to sell tools and items she says are associated with Best Tech, which are not listed on the asset list produced by Mr. Aldewood in this litigation. These ads describe the items for sale as "automotive tools and equipment" with a list price of $12,345, and a list price of $1,234; and "toolbox with mechanic tools" with a list price of $5,000. Mr. Aldewood denied that he was able to sell the tools for the prices listed. He stated that whatever he sold was listed and produced in the litigation. The remainder was given away or taken to the recycling depot. Some items remain in his storage locker because he has been unable to sell them. He plans to give them away as he can't afford to pay the storage costs any longer. [78] I am not able to determine, on the basis of these ads, that the equipment was sold for the list price, or what equipment actually sold as a result of these ads. I am not able to determine, on the basis of these ads, that Mr. Aldewood's evidence with respect to the sale of the shop equipment is not accurate. I find that

Mr. Aldewood personally received $5,675 from the sale of assets owned by Best Tech, and such proceeds are family assets to be divided equally. Severance Pay [79] When Best Tech closed, Mr. Aldewood paid his employee $25,000 in severance pay. This was disputed by Ms. Aldewood, who stated that the employee had known since 2018 that the business was being sold. I am not satisfied the Ms. Aldewood has proven that the employee did not receive $25,000 in severance pay, or that such a payment was made in bad faith or improperly. I make no orders with respect to the severance pay. Shareholder loan [80] As at December 31, 2018, the Best Tech balance sheet showed that Mr. Aldewood held a shareholder loan to Best Tech in the amount of $62,836. This loan does not appear on a comparative balance sheet for the years 2017 to 2018, which was printed in 2019. In August 2021, Mr. Aldewood withdrew $35,000 from the Best Tech account and transferred these funds to his personal account. Mr. Aldewood testified on discovery that this transfer was made because the company owed him money. At trial, Mr. Aldewood confirmed that the company owed him $70,000, which was why he withdrew the $35,000, plus two withdrawals of $5,000 each. [81] At trial, Mr. Aldewood stated that he used the funds that he had transferred to his personal account to pay vendors who were owed money from Best Tech. No evidence was

produced to verify this assertion by Mr. Aldewood, and I find his explanation is not credible. [82] I find that Mr. Aldewood withdrew for his own personal use $45,000 from the accounts of Best Tech, after separation, and that such funds were a partial repayment of the shareholder loan in favour of Mr. Aldewood. These funds are family assets and will be divided equally. What debts are family debts, and how should they be divided? [83] After separation, Ms. Aldewood continued to live in the family home, and pay expenses relating to home including house insurance, property taxes, water, and sewer. These expenses total $9,907.90. [84] In addition, Ms. Aldewood paid the following expenses: a) Helpin Brothers for plumbing repairs and problems with the boiler in the house, in the amount of $210 and $995.40 b) Aurora Plumbing invoice in the amount of $199.50 for plumbing required in the house. c) Gardener invoice in the amount of $800 for trimming the bushes and trees along the side of the house before the open house held for the sale of the house. [85] I am satisfied that all expenses incurred by Ms. Aldewood, totalling $11,902.80, are family debts incurred in maintaining and selling the family home. These expenses must be shared equally by the parties. Is either party entitled to spousal support? Ms. Aldewood's present financial and employment status [86] Beginning in 1999, Ms.

Aldewood was employed as a medical laboratory technologist with Lions Gate hospital. Her work was in the area of blood analysis, and she was in charge of transfusion medicine at the trauma centre. She found the job to be demanding and stressful. [87] In late 2018, Ms. Aldewood testified that she was unable to work because she was suffering from a heart problem, where her heart races and she has to have it reset, and she can lose consciousness. She says that her cognition is affected and, given the potential for patient harm if she had an episode at work, she had to stop work and started receiving disability benefits. Ms. Aldewood was on disability in 2019 and 2020. [88] While waiting for disability benefits, Ms. Aldewood had to cash in her RSP, borrow money from her brother and draw from her line of credit. [89] In September 2021, Ms. Aldewood withdrew $15,000 from her RSP, of which she received $12,000 net of tax. In October 2021, Ms. Aldewood withdrew another $10,000 from her RSP, netting $8,000 after tax. In November 2021, Ms. Aldewood withdrew the last of her RSP in the amount of $10,192.36, netting $8,153.89 after tax. [90] In 2022 she attempted to go back to work in a new department, as a form of accommodation. She worked between June and August, 2022, but then got sick again. After she was unable to work in 2022, she was denied disability benefits for a period of time.

After a successful appeal, in February 2023 her disability benefits were reinstated effective August 19, 2022. In March 2023, she received back payments for the period August 19, 2022 to December 31, 2022 in the total amount of $11,177. [91] In March 2023, Ms. Aldewood applied for CPP benefits, in addition to her insurance disability benefits. She was advised by her insurer that she was required to apply for such benefits, and they would be deducted from her insurance benefits. As at the date of trial, Ms. Aldewood had not received a response from CPP. [92] Since March 2023, Ms. Aldewood has received $2,521.30 monthly in long term disability benefits. She understands her medical condition is permanent, and she testified that she is currently not capable of working. Ms. Aldewood currently receives $29,995 yearly from insurance benefits, net of union dues. [93] In October 2021, Ms. Aldewood did take a course in aesthetics, in particular microblading. Mr. Aldewood submits that she is practicing this skill and either earning money, or is capable of earning money from this skill. Ms. Aldewood testified that she has never earned money from this skill, and simply took the course to learn about it, and to understand what was involved so she encourage her daughter who was interested in it. I accept the evidence of Ms. Aldewood, and do not agree that Ms. Aldewood has every earned income

from aesthetics. [94] Ms. Aldewood testified that Mr. Aldewood paid her spousal support in the amount of $2,000 for two months only. Mr. Aldewood denies that these amounts were spousal support payments of any kind. [95] In tax year 2020, Ms. Aldewood reported net income of $50,598, comprised of employment income of $23,284, disability benefits of $24,818, and investment income of $2,496. [96] In tax year 2021, Ms. Aldewood reported net income of $56,864, comprised of employment income of $8,209, benefits of $13,350, interest of $113, and RRSP income of $35,192. [97] In tax year 2022, Ms. Aldewood reported income of $35,527, comprised of $14,093 in employment income, $21,208 in benefits, and $226 in interest. [98] In her F8 Financial statement sworn September 21, 2023, Ms. Aldewood claimed her anticipated net income for 2023 would be $29,995, comprised of her benefit payments. Mr. Aldewood's present financial and employment status [99] Mr. Aldewood is an automobile mechanic. He began working with a licenced mechanic in 1994, after he finished his training. In approximately 1997, Mr. Aldewood and his partner sold the business, and Mr. Aldewood began working for the new owner. In 1998 he left that business, and began working on cars out of the family home. [100] In 2002 Mr. Aldewood purchased a commercial lot where he could operate his mechanic shop. This property was purchased

for $120,500, financed with a mortgage on the family home. Mr. Aldewood continued to work out this property until approximately 2011. In 2012, the property was sold. [101] In November 2010, Mr. Aldewood incorporated Best Tech. [102] In 2018 Mr. Aldewood was in a car accident where he injured his back. He had to have surgery in 2019 to repair his spine, which was successful. Although the surgery was successful, Mr. Aldewood continued to experience pain. After a number of months he was able to go back to work, but he did not have the strength he used to have. In May 2021 Mr. Aldewood had another workplace accident which injured his back. He has had some treatments for it, but continues to be in pain and is contemplating further medical interventions. At trial, he was continuing to suffer from back pain. [103] In September 2021, Mr. Aldewood began receiving WCB benefits as a result of his injuries. In September 2023 WCB accepted his disability as permanent, and referred him to a vocational rehabilitation specialist. As of the date of trial, Mr. Aldewood had not pursued any alternative forms of employment. He produced no medical evidence regarding his current abilities, although stated he was waiting to have further surgeries following the trial. [104] He currently receives $432 per week from WCB. [105] While he operated Best Tech, Mr. Aldewood personally received rent from the

business each year. The amount varied, but was in the range of approximately $30,000 each year. For example, in 2019 Mr. Aldewood received rent of $26,968 from Best Tech, and in 2020 Mr. Aldewood received rent of $34,085 from Best Tech. It does not appear that Mr. Aldewood declared this rental income on his income taxes. This income must be factored into an assessment of Mr. Aldewood's income until October 2021, when the business was sold. [106] In tax year 2019 Mr. Aldewood reported employment income of $30,000, and interest and investment income of $10,069, for a total income of $40,069. Together with a notional $30,000 in rental income, his total income for the purposes of spousal support is $70,069. [107] In tax year 2020 Mr. Aldewood reported employment income of $30,000, and interest and investment income of $2,496.70, for a total income of $32,496.70. Together with a notional $30,000 in rental income, his total income for the purposes of spousal support is $62,496. [108] In tax year 2021 Mr. Aldewood reported employment income of $17,500 and WCB benefits of $8,772, for a total income of $26,272. Together with a notional $22,500 representing 9 months of rental income, his total income for the purposes of spousal support is $48,772. [109] In tax year 2022 Mr. Aldewood reported income of $22,464, from WCB benefits. [110] In his Form F8 Financial Statement sworn September

27, 2023, Mr. Aldewood claimed his income for 2023 would be $24,008, all from WCB benefits Relevant Law [111] Spousal support is addressed in Division 4 of Part 7 of the FLA. Entitlement to spousal support is determined pursuant to s. 161, and the amount and duration of spousal support is determined pursuant to s. 162. [112] Section 161 of the FLA provides: 161 In determining entitlement to spousal support, the parties to an agreement or the court must consider the following objectives: (a) to recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the relationship between the spouses or the breakdown of that relationship; (b) to apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of their child, beyond the duty to provide support for the child; (c) to relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the relationship between the spouses; (d) as far as practicable, to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. [113] Section 161 mirrors s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). The case law developed in relation to the Divorce Act is clear that while the first two subsections address compensatory support, and the latter two address non-compensatory support, the court must consider all objectives: Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at

850-853, Chutter v. Chutter, 2008 BCCA 507 at para. 49. [114] Ms. Aldewood submits that she is entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory support. She points to the parties' long term marriage and the fact that she took on the primary household tasks, as well as earning a living herself during the marriage. She submits that she is no longer able to work, and is entitled to support as she is not able to become self sufficient. [115] Mr. Aldewood submitted that he is also seeking spousal support, although he did not articulate the basis for his claim. [116] I am not satisfied that either party has established a basis for spousal support. While Ms. Aldewood may have taken on more household chores during the marriage, she was employed in a full time remunerative position until she became disabled. She has not established that the marriage prevented her from reaching her goals in the job market, nor has she established that she sacrificed her earning potential in order to allow Mr. Aldewood to reach his financial goals. I cannot find that the breakdown of the marriage conferred an economic benefit on Mr. Aldewood, and a corresponding economic disadvantage on Ms. Aldewood. [117] By the same token, I cannot find that Mr. Aldewood has suffered an economic disadvantage as a result of the marriage. [118] There is no doubt that the parties are suffering financially since the

breakdown of the marriage. However, I find that their finances are compromised due to the fact that they both are suffering from disabilities which interfere with their ability to earn a living. Mr. Aldewood no longer receives rent from a commercial property, and no longer is able to continue his automotive business. [119] Mr. Aldewood submits that his current income is approximately $17,000 annually. However, his claim to an ongoing disability was not supported by any medical evidence, and the WCB assessment suggests that he will be able to work again. I find that is reasonable to impute an annual income in the range of his historical earnings, i.e. in the range of $30,000 annually. I do not agree that it is probable that he will be in a position to receive passive rental income of $30,000 annually, as he did when he owned Best Tech. [120] Ms. Aldewood has not established that Mr. Aldewood is in a position to earn more than his historical earnings, reported in the range of $30,000 annually. Ms. Aldewood's disability benefits provide her with an amount in the same range as Mr. Aldewood's historical earnings. [121] I find no basis to order spousal support to either party. Disposition [122] The parties are divorced from each other. [123] The proceeds of sale of the family home, which are presently held in trust, will be shared equally, subject to a transfer of $68,414.50 from Mr.

Aldewood's share to Ms. Aldewood's share. [124] The transfer in favour of Ms. Aldewood is based on the following adjustments: Mr. Aldewood Ms. Aldewood Best Tech Tools disposed of by Mr. Aldewood -2,837.50 + 2,837.50 $45,000 withdrawn by Mr. Aldewood from Best Tech in August 2021 and received by him personally -27,500 + 27,500 Ms. Aldewood bank account (TD #0803) + 25,275 -25,275 Mr. Aldewood bank account (TD #3507) -58,500 +58,500 Mr. Aldewood bank account (TD #7513) -5,000 +5,000 Mr. Aldewood value of vehicles owned at trial -12,000 +12,000 Ms. Aldewood value of vehicles owned at trial +2,500 -2,500 Mr. Aldewood value of vehicles disposed of after separation -2,000 +2,000 Costs incurred by Ms. Aldewood to maintain and sell family home -5,951 +5951 Ms. Aldewood RSP cashed in after separation +17,596 -17,596

TOTAL -68,414.50 +68,414.50 [125] The Blueshore investment account will be shared equally. [126] Ms. Aldewood's pension will be shared equally in accordance with Part 6 of the FLA. [127] The proceeds of sale of the Kennard Property represent the remaining assets of Best Tech. These are subject to outstanding potential tax liabilities, and penalties arising from the operation of Best Tech. Of the proceeds of sale held in trust from the sale of the Kennard Property, $900,000 will be released to the parties - $450,000 to each. The remaining funds will remain in trust pending the conclusion of any accounting required for the company, and final reporting to CRA. [128] Once all final payments have been made with respect to any required accounting and legal advice, and any required payments to CRA, any funds remaining will be shared equally by Mr. Aldewood and Ms. Aldewood, subject to an adjustment in favour of Ms. Aldewood to compensate her for any penalties payable by the company as a result of Mr. Aldewood's improper accounting during the operation of the company, or delays in reporting to CRA since October 2021. [129] The parties have leave to make submissions on costs. "W.A. Baker J."