Bressers v. Bressers

2024 BCSC 2184 Bressers v. Bressers

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Bressers v. Bressers, 2024 BCSC 2184 Date: 20241203 Docket: E18170 Registry: Quesnel Between: Layton Anthony Bressers Claimant And Maike Maria Bressers, also known as Maike Maria Cornelia Bressers Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Stephens Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: P. Schmit, K.C. Counsel for the Respondent: R. Gibbs, K.C. (July 19-20, 2022 only) Appearing on own behalf (September 3 - 5, 2024) Place and Dates of Trial: Quesnel, B.C. July 19-20, 2022 and September 3‑6, 2024 Place and Date of Judgment: Quesnel, B.C. December 3, 2024 Table of Contents Overview.. 4 Background.. 5 Work in Mackenzie, BC.. 6 Restaurant Business. 6 Hudson's Hope, BC.. 6 Red Rock, BC.. 7 Horse Training and Selling. 7 2019 Events. 8 June 2020 and Post-Separation Events. 8 Mrs. Bressers' Evidence at Trial. 9 Judicial Management Conference - October 21, 2024. 10 Issues. 11 Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses. 12 Claimant's Position at Trial. 12 Issues Not in Dispute. 13 Mrs. Bressers' Assertions of Family Violence. 13 Mrs. Bressers' Assertion of Below Market Value Sale of Hudson's Hope Former Family Home. 14 Issue 1: What is the Separation Date?. 14 Issue 2: Should Family Property and Debts be Divided Equally or Unequally?. 14 Legal Principles - Equal or Unequal Property Division. 15 Findings regarding Mrs. Bressers' Claim

for Unequal Property and Debt Division. 17 Issue 3: What Order of Family Property and Debt should be Made?. 17 Issue 4: What Order should be made regarding the Saskatchewan Property?. 17 Issue 5: Should Mr. Bressers pay Mrs. Bressers Spousal Support, and if so in what amount?. 18 Issue 6: Should a Divorce Order be Granted?. 22 Issue 7: What Order of Costs is Appropriate?. 23 Conclusion and Order Granted.. 23 Appendix A: Claimant's Scott Schedule. 25 Appendix B: Order Sought by Claimant. 31 Appendix C: Claimant's Statement of Adjustments. 35 Overview [1] The claimant, Layton Bressers, and respondent, Maike Bressers, were married for 35 years until they separated in 2020. They have two grown children. [2] Mr. Bressers applies for a divorce and an equal division of family assets and debts (with some adjustments) and submits he should not have to pay any spousal support to Mrs. Bressers. [3] Mrs. Bressers consents to the divorce but seeks spousal support and an unequal division of assets. [4] This trial started in July 2022, and then adjourned on application by the respondent, who was then represented by counsel. It continued in September 2024 with Mrs. Bressers appearing self-represented. [5] At the trial continuation in September 2024, Mr. Bressers provided updated tax return information up to 2023; however, there is no tax return information in evidence for Mrs. Bressers after

2019. [6] Initially, Mrs. Bressers disputed the valuation of some family asset values, including some of the chattels and horses that have been sold, but provided no objective appraisal or valuation evidence to dispute the evidence of value. At the closing arguments of this trial, she did not dispute the values in Mr. Bressers' Scott Schedule, attached as Appendix A to these Reasons. [7] For the following reasons, I grant a divorce and make other orders, including: dividing the parties' family property and debt in a form substantially sought by Mr. Bressers; a nominal order of $1 for monthly spousal support to Mrs. Bressers, with a review of spousal support after 12 months; and an order with respect to the Saskatchewan property, with liberty for the parties to return to court for further orders and directions about that property. Background [8] Mr. Bressers is 62, was born in 1962 in Saskatchewan, and worked early in his life on his parents' farm and in their hotel business. [9] Mr. Bressers retired in around 2016, and his evidence is that he is now living on his modest pension which has been divided with Mrs. Bressers by agreement of the parties. [10] Throughout his working life, Mr. Bressers' employment has chiefly if not exclusively been jobs requiring physical labour, as described further in these Reasons. During his career, he also received a fourth class power engineering

ticket. [11] Mr. Bressers has had knee surgery twice (including knee replacement surgery earlier this year), and back surgery. His evidence is that back pain sometimes keeps him up at night. [12] Mrs. Bressers was born in 1964 and is currently 59. She speaks French, German, English and Dutch. [13] The parties have two adult children. Neither are dependants of the parties or children of the marriage for the purposes of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). [14] The two met when Mr. Bressers was on a trip to Holland. He later returned to Holland and asked her to marry him. [15] They married in the municipality of Boxtel, Netherlands on June 19, 1985, and then moved to Saskatchewan. [16] In 1987, they moved to British Columbia when they remained resident until these proceedings commenced. [17] In December 2021, the claimant Mr. Bressers moved to Alberta. Work in Mackenzie, BC [18] After the parties married, they moved to BC and Mr. Bressers was later employed in a sawmill in Mackenzie. He described an event when working at the sawmill when he injured his back. [19] He later got work at a pulp mill. He worked off and on in a pulp mill for many years. [20] In around 1996 or 1997, Mr. Bressers left work at a pulp mill to start a restaurant with Mrs. Bressers in Mackenzie. Restaurant Business [21] In 1996 or 1997, the parties started the restaurant business. Mr. Bressers

worked in the kitchen, and Mrs. Bressers worked as hostess and did the books for some of the time. Both were heavily involved in the business. [22] The business encountered financial difficulty in 1999. [23] In 1999, they ceased the restaurant business, and both filed for bankruptcy. Hudson's Hope, BC [24] In around 2000, the parties moved to Hudson's Hope. Mrs. Bresser worked as a caregiver, cooking and cleaning. She later worked at a dam as a tour guide with BC Hydro. [25] During this time in Hudson's Hope, Mr. Bressers for a time worked in Dawson Creek . He also worked at a pulp mill in Mackenzie in about 2001, and after 5 years he stopped working at the pulp mill and then later obtained a full-time job at Hudson's Hope municipality in around 2007. [26] At the municipality of Hudson's Hope, Mr. Bressers cut lawns and grass, helped with sewer breaks or line breaks, and worked in a hockey arena. [27] Mrs. Bressers obtained a job in a liquor store for several years. [28] Mr. Bressers retired from the Hudson's Hope municipality in approximately 2016, before the parties' separated, and started collecting his pension amounts from Hudson's Hope and his pulp mill pension commencing in 2018. In her closing submissions, Mrs. Bressers said she supported his retirement at the time, for his mental health. Red Rock, BC [29] About 18 years after being in Hudson's Hope the parties moved to

Red Rock, which is outside of Prince George, in about September 2017. [30] In Red Rock (as they did in Hudson's Hope), the parties fixed up properties and sold them, raised horses, and bred dogs, to make money. Mrs. Bressers would do the painting and Mr. Bressers did other manual work such as flooring or drywalling. None of these other properties were owned by the parties when they separated in 2020. [31] The parties sold their Hudson's Hope property, which they had been renting after they moved to Red Rock, in about February 6, 2020. [32] The parties' Red Rock property was sold in October 2020, and I am advised that $238,543 of the proceeds is in Mr. Bressers' lawyer's trust account. Horse Training and Selling [33] Since the time the parties lived in Mackenzie, they had horses. They had raised, trained, bred and sold horses for many years, including when in Hudson's Hope. Mrs. Bressers was chiefly responsible for the work with the horses, with Mr. Bressers performing haying, fixing fences and helping with the venture. [34] At the time of separation, they had 13 horses. After separation, some horses were sold, and some were taken by Mrs. Bressers. [35] After their separation the parties did not communicate well about who was dealing with some of the horses. Mr. Bressers' position is that the horses were Mrs. Bressers' responsibility, even though the horses were jointly owned by

both of them. There was evidence at trial that some horses were left at the Red Rock family home property after the property was sold, and one horse (Star) is now out to pasture with another horse that has been sold and Mrs. Bressers says the parties can come to get this horse at any time. There was evidence that two horses (Eva and Wilma) left at the former family Red Rock property were later gifted to the new owner of the Red Rock property by Mr. Bressers along with $1,000, after that new property owner complained to Mr. Bressers about the horses on the property. 2019 Events [36] Mr. Bressers testified that in 2019, after the parties moved to Red Rock, the parties began to experience difficulties, that he was going through therapy and had depression, anxiety and some PTSD. Clinical records placed in evidence at trial records a history of these conditions, although no expert evidence was adduced at trial about Mr. Bressers' past or current medical condition. Mr. Bressers testified he was having a hard time, and Mrs. Bressers was having a hard time dealing with him, something which is generally consistent with Mrs. Bressers' evidence though she characterized this in different terms described below. [37] Mr. Bressers testified that Mrs. Bressers would become "unglued" at him, and they would argue. [38] At trial in July 2022, Mr. Bressers testified that he was still experiencing

depression, and he was taking anti depressants. June 2020 and Post-Separation Events [39] Mr. Bressers testified the parties separated on June 30, 2020. [40] Following this, Mr. Bressers worked as a farm hand, which included fencing, looking after cows, and haying, for six months from April to October 2021, although he testified he had difficulty with the physical aspects of this work. [41] After Mr. Bressers moved to Alberta, in March 2022, he was referred for knee surgery. [42] In 2023 he was waiting for knee surgery and did not work to earn income. [43] Mr. Bressers had knee surgery in the summer of 2024. He testified he was told the recovery period is six months to one year. He testified at trial in September 2024 that he could not work at the time, since he has knee pain and a bad back. Mrs. Bressers' Evidence at Trial [44] Mrs. Bressers testified during that portion of the trial in September 2024 in which she was self represented. [45] She testified that she believes she is entitled spousal support, and that she has been homeless for the last four years and has been living with others. She asserted that she learned Mr. Bressers had a girlfriend four years ago. She asserted that her bank and credit cards were taken by Mr. Bressers, which is something he denied. She asserted he sold their home in Hudson's Hope in February 2020, at below market value, before he told her he

wanted a divorce. She testified that if she knew that he wanted to divorce her, that she would not have sold that home in Hudson's Hope. [46] Mrs. Bressers testified that after their daughter's fiancé died on New Years Eve in 2019, Mr. Bressers was not interested in having a relationship with her anymore. [47] She testified that after this period of time, including by April 2020, Mr. Bressers was going through bad times. She testified that she experienced very scary things regarding Mr. Bressers. [48] Mrs. Bressers asserts she believes the parties own land in Saskatchewan, though at trial there was no documentary evidence at trial substantiating the existence of property owned by the parties in Saskatchewan. Later, following trial, at a judicial management conference ("JMC"), both parties proceeded on the basis that they did jointly own property in Saskatchewan. [49] Mrs. Bressers' evidence is that on Father's Day in June 2020 Mr. Bressers left her at their daughter's Campbell River home. [50] In cross examination, Mrs. Bressers said she had delivered recent tax return information to Mr. Bressers' counsel. However, there was no evidence of Mr. Bressers' recent tax returns after the year 2019 in evidence at trial. [51] While disagreeing with much of Mr. Bressers' account of what occurred precisely in June 2020, Mrs. Bressers acknowledges that she and Mr. Bressers had an argument

on Vancouver Island in June 2020. This occurred when they were at their daughter's Campbell River home, and involved a misunderstanding arising out what she characterized as Mr. Bressers misreading her when she commented about a house she had seen listed for $800,000, and that Mr. Bressers was mad about her looking at real estate in this price range which they could not afford. [52] Mrs. Bressers testified he left the Campbell River home after this argument, after she had gone out for a drive. On her return to the home, she saw Mr. Bressers leaving though did not wave goodbye to him. [53] After that incident in June 2020, Mrs. Bressers went to the Netherlands, where she stayed until October 2020. At the time, the parties still had horses and dogs at the Red Rock property to care for, and Mr. Bressers was left to do so. [54] In closing submissions, Mrs. Bressers agreed with the values in the claimant's Scott Schedule, but did not agree with an equal division of family assets and instead sought an unequal division. [55] There was not good evidence at trial about Mrs. Bressers' financial circumstances in the last several years. Judicial Management Conference - October 21, 2024 [56] Following the conclusion of the trial on September 5, 2024, a JMC was held on October 21, 2024, for the court to hear submissions from the parties about two documents not entered as exhibits at trial

but sent to the registry by each of the parties after the trial had concluded. One document, sent by Mrs. Bressers, related to the Saskatchewan property; the other, sent by counsel for Mr. Bressers, related to a solicitor's lien by Mr. Hittrich reflected in item 6 of the "Statement of Adjustments" at Appendix C. [57] At the JMC, both parties proceeded on the basis that the Saskatchewan property existed and was held by the parties, but neither party requested that the trial be reopened and that document relating to the Saskatchewan property be placed into evidence. Neither did the parties request the email from Mr. Hittrich be placed into evidence, however counsel for the claimant advised she was now satisfied that a solicitor's lien was no longer asserted (and that the $7,302.40 line item 6 in Appendix C regarding a solicitor's lien was no longer applicable). Issues [58] These issues arise: 1. What is the date of separation?

2. What are the family assets and family debts?

3. Should family property and family debt be divided equally, or unequally (and if so in what proportion)?

4. What order about family property and debt should be made?

5. What order should be made about the Saskatchewan property?

6. Should spousal support be ordered to be paid to Mrs. Bressers and, if so, in what form and what amount?

7. Should a divorce be granted?

8. What order of costs is appropriate? Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses [59] The factors to be considered when assessing credibility were summarized by Justice Dillon in Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff'd 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal to SCC ref'd, 35006 (7 March 2013), as follows: [186] Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness' testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides (Raymond v. Bosanquet (Township) (1919), 59 S.C.R. 452, 50 D.L.R. 560 (S.C.C.)). The art of assessment involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to observe events, the firmness of his memory, the ability to resist the influence of interest to modify his recollection, whether the witness' evidence harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the witness changes his testimony during direct and cross-examination, whether the witness' testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally (Wallace v. Davis, [1926] 31 O.W.N. 202 (Ont. H.C.); Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 152 (B.C.C.A.) [Faryna]; R. v. S.(R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para.128 (S.C.C.)). Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with the

probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in existence at the time (Faryna at para. 356). [60] Both parties tried to be truthful in their evidence. However, I have concerns about the reliability of Mr. Bressers' evidence. Mr. Bressers' memory was not good; for example, he did not have a good memory of some financial matters and about the sales of some of the horses. [61] Further, I also have some concerns about the reliability of Mrs. Bressers' testimony. While not meaning any criticism, I found Mrs. Bressers' evidence at times unfocussed. Also, her memory on some items was not good; for example, she initially testified that the parties owned property on Cougar Road in Red Rock in March 2020, though later acknowledged it had been sold by then. Claimant's Position at Trial [62] In closing submissions, counsel for Mr. Bressers provided the following documents which I append to these Reasons, setting out his position at the conclusion of the trial: (a) Appendix A: Mr. Bressers' Scott Schedule, which reflects proposed division of family assets and debt on an equal basis (with some adjustments); (b) Appendix B: Mr. Bressers' Order Sought; and (c) Appendix C: Mr. Bressers' Statement of Adjustments, which counsel for Mr. Bressers provided to demonstrate the adjustments sought and "Total to Each Party" if the relief which Mr. Bressers seeks in the Order Sought in

Appendix B is granted, subject to costs payable by Mrs. Bressers to Mr. Bressers pursuant to Orders in this proceeding. [63] As set out in Mr. Bressers' Statement of Adjustments in Appendix C, the relief sought by him would result in a "Total to Each Party", after adjustments, of $126,970.20 to Mr. Bressers and $111,573.56 to Mrs. Bressers, not taking into account the costs payable by Mrs Bressers to Mr Bressers pursuant to Orders in this proceeding (and removing from consideration the line item 6 solicitor's lien, which counsel for Mr. Bressers subsequently advised at the JMC is no longer applicable). Issues Not in Dispute [64] In closing submissions at trial, Mrs. Bressers agreed to the following relief in the order sought by Mr. Bressers in Appendix B: para. 6 (adjustment payment for her pension share) and para. 10 (equalization payment to her for unregistered financial instruments). [65] Mrs. Bressers also agreed with the values set out by Mr. Bressers in his Scott Schedule at Appendix A (although did not agree with the proposed equal distribution, and instead sought an unequal distribution of family assets in her favour). Mrs. Bressers' Assertions of Family Violence [66] Mrs. Bressers asserted Mr. Bressers engaged in family violence. Mr. Bressers generally denied this. There was little evidence given at trial about this. In cross examination of Mr. Bressers, Mrs. Bressers

asserted that he choked her on one specific occasion, which Mr. Bressers denied. [67] I am unable to find that Mrs. Bressers has established on the evidence that any instances of family violence were committed by Mr. Bressers. Mrs. Bressers' Assertion of Below Market Value Sale of Hudson's Hope Former Family Home [68] As noted above, Mrs. Bressers asserted the Hudson's Hope home was sold for less than market value. I am not able to make such a finding on the evidence before me. Exhibit 6 tendered as evidence at trial by Mrs. Bressers is not strong evidence of value, and there is no expert appraisal evidence of its value in February 2020 at this trial. Issue 1: What is the Separation Date? [69] I find that the parties separated on June 30, 2020. [70] Mrs. Bressers contends that the date of separation was June 22, 2020, when Mr. Bressers left Campbell River. [71] I find it is more likely than not that the parties separated on June 30, 2020, as Mr. Bressers testified. This occurred after the two had an argument in Campbell River, resulting in Mr. Bressers leaving to return to Red Rock. Mrs. Bressers then went to Holland, where she stayed for about four months. Within approximately one week from their argument, they had separated, around June 30, 2020. [72] I further find that after the parties separated, Mr. Bressers put some of Mrs. Bressers' belonging outside in a "C. Can"

storage container, which was not accessible all year round, and which he understands did not preserve her items which were later discarded. Issue 2: Should Family Property and Debts be Divided Equally or Unequally? [73] In my Reasons I will decide property division issues before I decide spousal support: Tereposky v. Fooks, 2023 BCSC 1989 at paras. 32­--35. [74] Mr. Bressers seeks an equal division of family property and family debt. [75] Mrs. Bressers, in her counterclaim, seeks an unequal division of family property and debt. She bears the onus to demonstrate that an equal division of the family assets would be unfair and there should be an unequal division. Legal Principles - Equal or Unequal Property Division [76] While the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] aims to create a "certain and predictable" regime for the division of property, it also accounts for potential unfairness arising from equal division: Sperring v. Shutiak, 2023 BCCA 54 at para. 112, aff'g 2021 BCSC 1311; Tereposky at para. 37. [77] To determine if equal division would be significantly unfair, the court assesses the extent of family property, and notionally divides it equally. The court then determines whether equal division would be significantly unfair, considering the factors set out in s. 95(2) of the FLA: Draper v. Smith, 2022 BCSC 2133 at para. 41; Remmem v. Remmem, 2014 BCSC 1552 at para. 47. [78] The spouse seeking an unequal division of property bears the onus of establishing significant unfairness: Toth v. Toth, 13 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1 at para. 62, 1995 CanLII 1917 (C.A.), at para.

62. Equal property division is significantly unfair if there is evidence of something "objectively unjust, unreasonable or unfair": Jaszczewska v. Kostanski, 2016 BCCA 286 at paras. 41--42. To justify an unequal distribution, the court must find that the unfairness is "compelling or meaningful" with regard to the s. 95(2) factors: Remmem at para.

44. However, the purpose of an award of unequal property division under s. 95 is not to put the parties in a position of absolute equality: A.D.J. v. F.J., 2022 BCSC 600 at para. 192; L.G. v. R.G., 2013 BCSC 983 at para. 71. [79] Section 95(2) requires a consideration of several factors to assess significant unfairness, with the goal of achieving an outcome that is "reasonable and fair to both parties": Rana v. Ullah, 2022 BCCA 192 at para.

44. Evidence should not be "compartmentalized in a mechanical fashion, rather it is considered globally": Rana at para. 44, citing Zilic v. Zilic, 2021 BCCA 107 at para. 34. [80] Sections 95(1) and (2) state: Unequal division by order 95 (1) The Supreme Court may order an unequal division of family property or family debt, or both, if it would be significantly unfair to (a) equally divide family property or family debt, or both, or (b) divide family property as required under Part 6 [Pension Division]. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Supreme Court may consider one or more of the following: (a) the duration of the relationship between the spouses; (b) the terms of any agreement between the spouses, other than an agreement described in section 93 (1) [setting aside agreements respecting property division]; (c) a spouse's contribution to the career or career potential of the other spouse; (d) whether family debt was incurred in the normal course of the relationship between the spouses; (e) if the amount of family debt exceeds the value of family property, the ability of each spouse to pay a share of the family debt; (f) whether a spouse, after the date of separation, caused a significant decrease or increase in the value of family property or family debt beyond market trends; (g) the fact that a spouse, other than a spouse acting in good faith, (i) substantially

reduced the value of family property, or (ii) disposed of, transferred or converted property that is or would have been family property, or exchanged property that is or would have been family property into another form, causing the other spouse's interest in the property or family property to be defeated or adversely affected; (h) a tax liability that may be incurred by a spouse as a result of a transfer or sale of property or as a result of an order; (i) any other factor, other than the consideration referred to in subsection (3), that may lead to significant unfairness. [81] If equal division would be significantly unfair, the court may (a) vary the date for the valuation of property under s. 87; or (b) order an unequal division of property under s. 95: Banh v. Chrysler, 2022 BCCA 74 at para.

26. Property can be assessed individually or globally: Jaszczewska at para.

49. The appropriate reapportionment is discretionary and depends on the circumstances. [82] Section 95(2)(i) permits the consideration of "any other factor" that "may lead to significant unfairness". This includes the "economic characteristics of a spousal relationship": Singh v. Singh, 2020 BCCA 21 at para.

138. Findings regarding Mrs. Bressers' Claim for Unequal Property and Debt Division [83] On the evidence before me, I find that the respondent Mrs. Bressers has not demonstrated that there would be significant unfairness if the family property is distributed equally. I do not find that she has demonstrated that it would be "objectively unjust, unreasonable or unfair" to divide family property and debt equally. Issue 3: What Order of Family Property and Debt should be Made? [84] Having made a finding there should be an equal distribution of family property, and Mrs. Bressers having accepted the values set out in Mr. Bressers' Scott Schedule, I further find that Mr. Bressers' proposed property distribution as set out his Scott Schedule should substantially be made, although I note there are adjustments made with respect certain horses and the three-horse trailer reflected in Mr. Bressers' relief sought in Appendix B. Issue 4: What Order should be made regarding the Saskatchewan Property? [85] Mrs. Bressers deposed at trial that the parties own property in Saskatchewan. At a subsequent JMC both parties conducted themselves as if such property exists, despite there being little evidence for this at trial and no evidence of its value. I am satisfied it is appropriate to make an order on the basis that there is Saskatchewan property held by the parties. [86] Mr. Bressers does not

want the Saskatchewan property, and sought an order that permits Mrs. Bressers to transfer it into her name in 60 days "after which time any obligations on the claimant will abate". [87] Mrs. Bressers stated at trial that she did not want the property either, though at a subsequent JMC expressed concern that the property might be lost to a tax sale. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to permit Mrs. Bressers to take steps to transfer the property into her own name within 60 days. [88] However, the order sought by Mr. Bressers (Appendix B, para. 4) does not address the circumstance if Mrs. Bressers does not forward transfer documentation within 60 days to acquire the property in her own name, and the property remains in both parties' names. I decline to make an order that, after 60 days, if Mrs. Bressers does not acquire the property solely in her own name, that Mr. Bressers will have no further obligations. [89] I will make an order permitting Mrs. Bressers to transfer the Saskatchewan property to her own name within 60 days but give liberty to the parties to apply for further orders or directions if they consider that to be necessary to address this property if she does not do so. Issue 5: Should Mr. Bressers pay Mrs. Bressers Spousal Support, and if so in what amount? [90] In her counterclaim, Mrs. Bressers seeks an order for spousal support. In oral submissions, she submitted she should receive a lump sum award of at least $70,000. [91] Mr. Bressers contends that he ought not be ordered to pay any spousal support, that he is unable to work, and that the respondent Mrs. Bressers is not entitled to spousal support. [92] In Steen v. Steen, 2010 BCSC 1166, the plaintiff was 62 years of age and the defendant was 57. They had a long, "traditional" marriage: para.

40. The plaintiff husband worked as a woods foreman, and the defendant wife had done some part-time work but chiefly took responsibility of the home and the children: para.

2. The plaintiff had leukemia which had gone into remission (para. 3). The husband retired (after returning to work following being on medical leave) with the agreement of wife, prior to separation: paras. 2--3. The wife was not working. The Court ordered that the plaintiff husband pay half of his pension income as spousal support until the defendant wife began receiving her own pension income, noting that the husband retired with wife's agreement: paras. 41--43). In reaching the decision, the Court found that "neither party is employed nor has a realistic capacity to earn significant income": para 41. [93] In Herman v. Herman, 2009 BCSC 892, the wife, 52, claimed spousal support from the husband, 55, who had retired prior to separation with the wife's approval: para.

115. The husband had unsuccessfully tried to find work post-separation. The court found that the husband did not deliberately choose to retire to defeat the wife's right to spousal support: para.

115. The Court ordered the husband to pay the wife $400 in spousal support per month, with a mandatory review 24 months from the date of the court's order at which time the husband's ability to pay was to be re-evaluated on these terms: 118 This order for spousal support shall be subject to a mandatory review 24 months from the date of this Order. At that time Mr. Herman's ability to pay spousal support shall be re-evaluated. All income sources shall be considered at that time, including any income Mr. Herman receives from the apartment building in Port Alberni. Mrs. Herman's economic situation will also be reassessed at that time. Mr. Herman's efforts to obtain additional income sources at the date of the review may be considered by the Court in determining the appropriate amount of spousal support. [emphasis added] [94] Assessing the evidence at trial to assess the relative incomes, means, and needs of the parties, I find that Mrs. Bressers is entitled to spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis: Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 at para. 49, 1999 CanLII 715; Chutter v. Chutter, 2008 BCCA 507 at paras. 45-54; ss. 15.2(1) and (6) of the Divorce Act. [95] The parties were married for 35 years, and raised two children, justifying Mrs. Bressers' entitlement spousal support for an indefinite duration: Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, s. 7.5. Mrs.

Bressers did not have long-term employment during that time. For many years, when the parties were together, they earned income together from, among other things, training and selling horses. They worked as a team. Now separated, Mrs. Bressers wishes to continue with this type of business, but it is difficult for her to do so without Mr. Bressers. She testified she has been living homeless since separation. I find that Mrs. Bressers has experienced economic disadvantage arising from the marriage or its breakdown, a compensatory basis for support per Divorce Act, s. 15.2(6)(a), and that she has experienced "economic hardship" arising from the breakdown of the marriage, a non-compensatory basis for support per Divorce Act s. 15.2(6)(c). [96] Counsel for Mr. Bressers emphasized that he currently lives on an income below the poverty line, of about $14,200 constituting half of his pensions (the other half being received by Mrs. Bressers) and his CPP. Counsel for Mr. Bressers submits he is unable to pay spousal support and should not be required to do so. I accept in this current situation Mr. Bressers is unable to pay spousal support. [97] However, while I find Mr. Bressers is not able to work now, due to his recent knee surgery, he has not demonstrated on the evidence that he is permanently unemployable. I do not find that Mr. Bressers has "no capacity to work due to his medical

condition, age and lack of employability" or is disabled, as submitted by his counsel. He gave evidence in July 2022 about his difficulty working because of his knee and back, but this was before he had knee surgery. He has recently had knee surgery, and I find there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he will be unable to ever work again or receive income for purposes of calculation of spousal support. I find that Mr. Bressers' current income from his pensions is $18,000, and am satisfied Mr. Bressers cannot pay spousal support of any material amount now, but this does not preclude the possibility that he could do so in future. [98] Further, I agree with Mr. Bressers' counsel that Mrs. Bressers did not adduce evidence at trial of her financial status since 2019. However, on the limited evidence available to me at trial, I infer and find that Mrs. Bressers' current income is the amounts from Mr. Bressers' pensions. [99] In my view, the fact that the parties have divided Mr. Bressers' pension income equally is not dispositive of the issue of spousal support such that Mr. Bressers should not have any spousal support obligation. Unlike Steen, where the plaintiff husband's pension was divided and no spousal support was ordered to be paid, I do not find Mr. Bressers has no "realistic capacity" to earn income in future (Steen v. Steen, para 41). I note in this regard that in

2021 Mr. Bressers was able to work for several months, albeit with some significant physical difficulty, but this was before he had knee surgery in 2024. [100] Further, I do not consider my finding that Mrs. Bressers is entitled to spousal support to, in effect, reapportion division of the pension assets resulting in double recovery to Mrs. Bressers. I do not order any material amount of spousal support payable by Mr. Bressers at this time in virtue of Mr. Bressers' current very low income, which avoids the prospect of double recovery by Mrs. Bressers from Mr. Bressers' very modest pension which is already shared equally between the parties. [101] I have considered the comments in Leskun v. Leskun, 2006 SCC 25 at paras. 36-39 as to when review orders may be justified and, if so, on what terms. In the circumstances, I order that Mrs. Bressers is entitled to receive spousal support from Mr. Bressers, and for Mr. Bressers to pay Mrs. Bressers a nominal amount of $1 per month spousal support at this time, with a review as to the quantum of spousal support after 12 months, at which time Mr. Bressers' ability to pay spousal support shall be re-evaluated and his efforts to obtain income can be re-assessed: Herman at para. 118. [102] I also recognize that one of the objectives of spousal support is to promote steps toward economic self-sufficiency, pursuant to the Divorce Act, s.

15.2(6)(d). Accordingly, the review can also examine Mrs. Bressers' prospects of obtaining employment, including any efforts she has made in that regard: Marquez v. Zapiola, 2013 BCCA 433 at paras. 60, 71. [103] Mrs. Bressers has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a lump sum award of $70,000, given particularly Mr. Bressers' current low level of income. [104] I therefore order: (a) Mrs. Bressers is entitled to spousal support in the amount of $1 per month; (b) There shall be a review of spousal support as to quantum, but not entitlement, after 12 months; (c) Mr. Bressers shall pre-pay at this time 12 months of spousal support from the date of this order in the amount of $12, as part of the final order for division of family property; and (d) Mr. Bressers shall disclose to Mrs. Bressers documents regarding his employment and income within 30 days of obtaining income. Issue 6: Should a Divorce Order be Granted? [105] I am satisfied the elements of divorce are met and grant a divorce: s. 8(1) of the Divorce Act. [106] I am satisfied on the evidence that there has been a "breakdown of their marriage" up to and including the commencement of the trial. [107] Under s. 10(1) of the Divorce Act, I must satisfy myself that there is no possibility of the reconciliation of the spouses before granting the divorce sought. I am satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation in

this case. [108] Finally, I find that there has been no collusion in bringing this application for divorce, pursuant to s. 11(1)(a) of the Divorce Act. [109] I conclude that there should be an order of divorce which will take effect 31 days from the date of these Reasons. Issue 7: What Order of Costs is Appropriate? [110] Mr. Bressers asked to speak to the matter of costs. [111] If the parties cannot agree on costs they may, within 30 days, submit a request to Supreme Court Scheduling for a video court appearance before me to make submissions on the matter of costs. Conclusion and Order Granted [112] The parties' request for a divorce under the Divorce Act is granted, taking effect 31 days from the date of these Reasons, and I further make the other orders sought by Mr. Bressers in paras. 1--3 and 5--10 of Appendix B. I add that paras. 1(y) and (z) of the orders sought in Appendix B refer to certain bank accounts, and then both go on to refer to other information with respect to activity in those accounts (commencing with the words, "including funds taken " in para 1(y), and "with claimant taking " in para 1(z)) which additional wording does not appear appropriate for inclusion in a final order describing bank accounts for purposes of family debt division; I accordingly do not grant an order with this excess wording in paras. 1(y) and (z) beyond that required for description of

the bank accounts, but give the parties leave to appear back before me by a video court appearance if required to settle this aspect of the order. [113] I further order that if Mrs. Bressers wishes to acquire ownership of the Saskatchewan property, she may, at her cost, within 60 days from the date of this order, produce to P. L. Schmidt, K.C., lawyer for Mr. Bressers, the documents necessary to transfer Mr. Bressers' interest in the Saskatchewan property into her name, and the parties are at liberty to apply for further orders or directions with respect to the Saskatchewan property. [114] I further order that: (a) Mrs. Bressers is entitled to spousal support in the amount of $1 per month; (b) There shall be a review of spousal support as to quantum, but not entitlement, after 12 months; (c) Mr. Bressers shall pre-pay to Mrs. Bressers 12 months of spousal support from the date of this order in the amount of $12, as part of the final order for division of family property; and (d) Mr. Bressers shall disclose to Mrs. Bressers documents regarding his employment and income within 30 days of obtaining income. [115] These Reasons dispose of all relief sought in the notice of family claim filed August 31, 2020, and Mrs. Bressers' counterclaim filed February 15, 2022, except for the matter of costs. "Stephens J." Appendix A: Claimant's Scott Schedule

SCOTT SCHEDULE OF FAMILY PROPERTY AND FAMILY DEBTS date prepared: January 13, 2022 Date of marriage: June 19, 1985 Date of separation: June 30, 2020 No dependent children # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value Proof

A

REAL PROPERTY 1 sale proceeds from Former Family Home completion of sale Oct. 15 2020 - Duncan Law Firm's trust acct $238,543.76 divide net equity equally between parties $238,543.76 CBOD D.l 2 Saskatchewan Land If Respondent wants the land, Claimant will sign transfer presented by her - no equalization payment; Claimant will not pay any further land taxes undetermined

NO

DOCUMENTS

B

CHATTELS 1 2010 Dodge Longhorn 2500 Laramee RO - Respondent Respondent to retain at deemed value $20,000 and respondent should pay ⅟2 estimated value to claimant $20,000/2 CBOD E.l # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value 1 Proof 2 sale proceeds of 2010 Dodge SLT RO-Claimant Claimant sold his 2010 Dodge SLT on August 28, 2020 for $20,000 and claimant should pay ⅟2 sale proceeds to respondent $20,000/2 CBOD E.3 3 2013 Sundowner 3-horse Horse trailer with tack room 5th wheel Respondent will retain horse trailer deemed value $6,000 and respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed to Claimant $6,000/2 CBOD E.l 4 proceeds of sale 5th Wheel retained by Respondent Respondent will retain sale proceeds of $9,000 and respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $9,000/2 CBOD E.l 5 Universal front wheel assist 4X4 tractor Claimant will retain at sale price from Vaughn $3,000 and claimant to divide deemed value equally with Claimant $3,000/2 CBOD E.l 6 International 706 front wheel assist tractor Claimant will retain at sale price from Vaughn $2,000 and claimant will pay ⅟2 deemed value to Respondent $2,000/2 CBOD E.l 7 2014 Dodge Journey Respondent will retain at deemed value of $6,000 and respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant. $6,000/2 CBOD E.1 8 2004 BMW M3 2-door rag-top Respondent will retain at deemed value of

$12,000 and respondent to divide deemed value equally with Claimant. $12,000/2 CBOD E.l 9 2010 Rainbow Flatdeck Claimant will retain at sale price from Vaughn $4,000 and claimant will pay ⅟2 deemed value to Respondent $4,000/2 CBOD E.1 # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value Proof 10 Lawn tractor non-operational; no value left with house at sale undetermined CBOD E.1 Animals 11 Horse Eva owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $1,500 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $1,500/2 sell and divide equally CBOD E.2 12 Horse Esperanza owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $4,000 sell and divide sale proceeds equally with Claimant $4,000/2 sell and divide equally CBOD E.2 13 Horse Ruby owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $2,500 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $2,500/2 sell and divide equally CBOD E.2 14 Horse Buttons owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $2,500 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $2,500/2 sell and divide equally CBOD E.2 15 Horse Beetle owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $1,500 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $1,500/2 $750 to claimant CBOD E.2 16 Horse Wilma owners: Claimant and Respondent possession:

Respondent respondent left Wilma with new owners of the home; claimant arranged with new owners to give them Wilma and $1,000 for board and feed Respondent to pay to Claimant ⅟2 of $1,000 value: $ 1,000 CBOD E.2 17 Horse Star owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $2,000 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $2,000/2 CBOD E.2 # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value Proof 18 Horse Taz owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $8,500 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $8,500/2 CBOD E.2 19 Horse Merlin owners: Claimant and Respondent possession: Respondent value: $6,000 Respondent should pay ⅟2 deemed value to Claimant $6,000/2 CBOD E.2 20 Horse Reko Swave owners: Claimant and Respondent sold by Claimant Claimant will pay to Respondent 1/2 of sale proceeds $2,500.2 $2,500/2 CBOD E.2 21 Horse Turtle owners: Claimant and Respondent sold by Respondent sale proceeds to Respondent value: $2,800 Respondent will pay to Claimant 1/2 of sale proceeds $2,800/2 CBOD E.2 22 Horse Soldado Sea owners: Claimant and Respondent sale proceeds to Claimant value: $2,500 Claimant will pay to Respondent ⅟2 of sale proceeds $2,500/2 CBOD E.2 23 Horse Bar-K-Mikey owners: Claimant and Respondent sale proceeds to Claimant value: $2,800 Claimant will pay to Respondent ⅟2 of

sale proceeds $2,800/2 CBOD E.2 Dogs: Respondent admitted at E/D that each party should keep the dogs and money from dog sales in their respective possession D Parties' financial instruments non-registered assets and debts # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value Proof 1 North Peace Credit Union joint account #*7705 approx. balance at Jan 22, 2021 $138.24 Respondent withdrew $6,000 on Sept 30,2020 and Claimant withdrew a total of $4,500 on Oct 1 & 2, 2020; Respondent to pay $750 to Claimant to equalize $6,000 to respondent $4,500 to claimant Total $10,500/2 = $5,250 - $6000 = $750 to claimant CBOD F.l 2 TD Canada Trust account #* 1315 registered owner: Respondent (formerly joint account) The parties divided account on Feb. 14, 2020 with Claimant taking $80,000 and Respondent taking $73,490.63 as well as a cash advance drawn on the TD Visa #5906 of $15,000 which Respondent used post separation account now in Respondent's own name Claimant to pay to Respondent $3,254.68 CBOD F.3 3 TD Canada Trust joint account #*1388 account owner: respondent (Respondent's Account) Respondent to retain funds in this account (funds from joint account #1315) CBOD F.4 4 TD Line of Credit account #*3699 debtor: respondent Respondent's post separation debt CBOD F.5 5 TD Canada Trust credit card for account #***5906 debtor:

respondent Respondent's post separation debt CBOD F.6 6 Royal Bank of Canada account#*9636 registered owner: Claimant chequing acct Claimant's excluded property CBOD F.7 # Family Property and Family Debts Claimant's position (Respondent's Position is unknown as of TMC) Value Proof 7 Royal Bank of Canada account #*5669 registered owner: Claimant personal chequing | Claimant's excluded property CBOD F.8 8 Loan to Kurt Bressers Claimant forgave loan to son Kurt Claimant says that if Respondent wishes to pursue repayment from Kurt for 1/2 of loan, then that is up to her

NO

DOCUMENTS E Pensions 1 Claimant's Municipal Occupational Pension Plan portion of pension acquired during marriage was divided equally pursuant to Part 6 and Order made Mar 21, 2021 CBOD A.1 F.7 & F.8 2 Claimant's Pulp and Paper Pension Plan portion of pension acquired during marriage was divided equally pursuant to Part 6 and Order made Mar 21, 2021 CBOD A.1 F.7 & F.8 3 Claimant's and Respondent's Canada Pension Plans credits acquired during marriage to be equalized per Canada Pension Plan Act

NO

DOCUMENTS Appendix B: Order Sought by Claimant Subject to section 12 of the Divorce Act (Canada), the claimant, Layton Anthony Bressers and the respondent, Maike Maria Bressers, also known as Maike Maria Cornelia Bressers, who were married at Boxtel, Netherlands on June 19,1985 are divorced from each other, the divorce to take effect on the 31 st day after the date of this order. THIS COURT ORDERS that 1. The following are declared to be family property and family debt to which each of claimant and respondent are entitled to a 1/2 interest: a. net proceeds of sale of former family home of $238,543.76 ("net proceeds"); b. Saskatchewan Land; c. Canada Pension Plan credits of the parties acquired from June 19, 1985 to June 30, 2020, which have previously been equalized under the Canada Pension Plan Act; d. Claimant's Pulp and Paper Industry Pension Plan through claimant's employer divided pursuant to Part 6 of the Family Law Act by way of the Order made at the Judicial Case Conference pronounced March 23, 2021; e. Claimant's Municipal Pension Plan through claimant's employer already divided pursuant to Part 6 of the Family Law Act by way of the Order made at the Judicial Case Conference pronounced March 23, 2021; f. $20,000 being the value of 2010 Dodge Longhorn 2500 Laramee retained by respondent; g. $20,000.00 in sale proceeds of 2010 Dodge SLT retained by claimant; h. 2013

Sundowner 3-horse Horse trailer with tack room 5th wheel retained by respondent, having a deemed value of $10,000; i. $9,000 in sale proceeds of 5th Wheel retained by respondent; j. $9,000 from sale of the Universal front wheel assist 4X4 tractor, 2010 Rainbow Flatdeck and International 706 front wheel assist tractor retained by claimant; k. 2014 Dodge Journey retained by respondent having a deemed value of $6,000; l. 2004 BMW M3 2-door rag-top retained by respondent having a deemed value of $12,000; m. Horses Eva and Wilma gifted by claimant to neighbour along with claimant paying neighbour $1,000 for care). n. Horse Esperanza retained by respondent having a deemed value of $2,500; o. Horse Ruby retained by respondent having a deemed value of $ 1,700; p. Horse Buttons retained by respondent having a deemed value of $1,800; q. Horse Beetle retained by respondent having a deemed value of $ 1,500; r. Horse Star retained by respondent having no value; s. Horse Taz retained by respondent having a deemed value of $7,000; t. Horse Merlin retained by respondent having a deemed value of $6,500; u. Horse Reko Swave retained by claimant having a deemed value of $2,500; v. sale proceeds of Horse Turtle retained by respondent of $2,650; w. sale proceeds of Horse Soldado Sea retained by claimant of $2,500; x. sale proceeds of Horse Bar-K~Mikey retained by claimant of $2,800; y. North Peace

Credit Union joint account #*7705 including funds taken from account by respondent $6,000 on Sept 30, 2020 and $4,500 taken from the account by claimant on Oct 1 & 2, 2020 and which account is now closed. z. TD Canada Trust account #*1315 registered owner: respondent, formerly joint account of parties which was divided by the parties on Feb. 14, 2020 with claimant taking $80,000 and respondent taking $73,490.63 and respondent taking a cash advance on the parties' joint TD Visa of $15,000; 2. the following financial instruments are the excluded property and excluded debt of the registered owner: a. TD Canada Trust account #*1388 account owner: respondent formerly in the joint names of the parties; b. TD Line of Credit account #*3699 debtor: respondent; c. TD Canada Trust credit card for account #*5906 debtor: respondent; d. Royal Bank of Canada account #*9636 registered owner: Claimant; e. Royal Bank of Canada account #***5669 registered owner: Claimant; 3. The net proceeds of sale of the former family home of $238,543.76 ("net proceeds") will be divided equally between the parties, subject to the terms of this Order.

4. If the respondent wishes to acquire ownership of the Saskatchewan Property, the respondent will, at her cost, within 60 days from the date of this Order produce to P. L. Schmit, K. C. lawyer for the claimant the documents necessary to transfer the claimant's interest in the Saskatchewan Property into her name after which time any obligations on the claimant will abate.

5. The claimant's employment pension plans having been divided pursuant to the JCC Order, each party will retain their respective shares of these pensions for their own use absolutely.

6. To account for the respondent's portion of the claimant's employment pension payments received by the claimant prior to respondent exercising her rights under the Order made March 23, 2021 claimant will pay to respondent the sum of $11,722.00 which is net of his tax thereon.

7. Claimant will retain the following chattels and proceeds of sale of chattels: a. sale proceeds of 2010 Dodge SLT of $20,000; b. sale proceeds of Universal front wheel assist 4X4 tractor. International 706 front wheel assist tractor and 2010 Rainbow Flatdeck of $10,800; c. sale proceeds of horses he sold d. household goods and personal items in his possession.

8. Respondent will retain the following chattels and proceeds of sale of chattels: a. proceeds of sale of the RV 5tb-wheel of $9,000.00; b. 2010 Dodge Longhorn 2500 Laramee; c. 2013 Sundowner 3-horse 5th-wheel horse trailer with tack room; d. 2014 Dodge Journey; e. 2004 BMW M3 2-door rag-top; f. sale proceeds of horses either in her possession or sold by her; g. Household goods and personal items in her possession.

9. Respondent will pay to claimant an equalization payment of $14,000.00 to equalize the parties' respective chattels and an equalization payment of $7,925.00 to equalize the parties' horses and sale proceeds of horses.

10. Claimant will pay to respondent an equalization payment of $2,504.68 to equalize the unregistered financial instruments of the parties.

11. Respondent's approval of the form of this Order is dispensed with.

12. Claimant will have his costs of this Action at Scale B. Appendix C: Claimant's Statement of Adjustments CLAIMANT'S STATEMENT OF ADJUSTMENTS Claimant: Layton Anthony Bressers Respondent: Maike Maria Bressers Claimant Respondent 1. Proceeds of sale of Former Family home $238,543.76 being held in trust at Chudiak Schmit & Co., Ex. 4 Tab D $119,271.88 $119,271.88 2. Equalization payable by respondent to claimant for other vehicular chattels $9,000+ $37,000= $46,000/2 = $23,000 - $9,000 = $14,000(claimant's submissions para. 16) $14,000.00 ($14,000.00) 3. Equalization payable by respondent to claimant for horses $7,800 + $23,650 = $31,450/2 = $15,725 - $7,800 = $7,925 (claimant's submissions para, 17) $7,925.00 ($7,925.00) 4. Unregistered financial instruments (claimant's submissions para. 18) ($2,504.68) $2,504.68 5. equalization payable by claimant to respondent for pension net of taxes (claimant's submissions para. 20) ($11,722.00) $11,722.00 Subtotals payable to each party $126,970.20 $111,573.56 6. Minus solicitor's lien respondent owes to J. Hittrich Ex.4 . Tab A,6** . . . _ . ($7,302.40) TOTAL TO EACH PARTY: ** $126,970.20 $104,271.16 * plus costs payable by respondent to claimant pursuant to Orders **release of lien to be confirmed by J. Hittrich in writing