Robinson v. Robinson
The Court allowed the wife's appeal and dismissed the husband's cross-appeal: it held that the trial judge erred in excluding relevant evidence and that there was no reliable evidence to sustain the trial valuation of fishing licenses (which must be treated as business assets); the 70/30 division and 20% sharing of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 1993 NSCA 37
- Parties
- Appellant: Dorothy Robinson; Respondent: Edward Robinson
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 January 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Division Decision Under the Matrimonial Property Act and Divorce Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision (judgment Delivered)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; most trial findings affirmed except valuation of fishing licenses/boats and denial of spousal support which were remitted to the Trial Division for determination.
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property Division, Spousal Support, Valuation of Business Assets, Admissibility of Evidence, Costs, Pre Judgment Interest
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dorothy Robinson
Appellant
Edward Robinson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Division Decision Under the Matrimonial Property Act and Divorce Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision (judgment Delivered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility of Mr. Amero's evidence regarding scallop license transactions
- 2 Valuation of fishing licenses and boats as matrimonial/business assets
- 3 Whether fishing licenses constitute business assets
Ratio Decidendi
The Court allowed the wife's appeal and dismissed the husband's cross-appeal: it held that the trial judge erred in excluding relevant evidence and that there was no reliable evidence to sustain the trial valuation of fishing licenses (which must be treated as business assets); the 70/30 division and 20% sharing of business assets were affirmed, but valuation of licenses and the denial of spousal support were set aside and remitted to the Trial Division because the respondent's income evidence was patently unreliable, requiring further determination.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; most trial findings affirmed except valuation of fishing licenses/boats and denial of spousal support which were remitted to the Trial Division for determination.
Orders
- Appellant awarded $2,000.00 plus disbursements on the appeal
- No pre-judgment interest awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Robinson v. Robinson Court Court of Appeal Date 1993-01-21 Citation 1993 NSCA 37 Docket SCA 02634 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Hallett, J. Doane (Honourable Justice) (CA); Chipman, David (Honourable Justice); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content Your browser's JavaScipt is disabled. Please download the PDF via the PDF icon. Cite as: Robinson v. Robinson, 1993 NSCA 37 , I S.c.A.. No. 02634 APPEAL DMSION Hallett, ChJgman and Roscoe..J.LA. BE'lWEEN; DOR01HY ROBINSON ) Brian J. Hebert ) for the Appellant Appellant ) ) • and· ) ) ) S. Clifford Hood, Q.C. EDWARD ROBINSON ) and Mr. S. Cushing ) for the Respondent ) Respondent ) Appeal Heard: ) January 21, 1993 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) January 21, 1993 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TIlE COURT; Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Hallett, JA; Chipman and Roscoe, JJ.A concurring. The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: HAl J En J,A. This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Boudreau dividing property between separated spouses pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act, and granting them a divorce but denying support to the petitioning wife. The wife's appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal of the husband is dismissed The trial judge erred in ruling inadmissible a Mr. Amero's evidence of what he paid for a scallop license and what offers he had received It is impossible for this court to value the fishing licenses as there is no reliable evidence as to the value of them. It would appear their value could be as high as S300,000.00 (based on the report of the petitioner's expert) which was quite properly given little weight by the trial judge who valued the licenses at S50,000.00. We affirm'the trial judge's findings with the following exceptions: (a) His valuation of the fishing licenses and boats; (b) His decision not to award suppon to Mrs. Robinson. The evidence of the husband's income on the latter issue was so patently unreliable and vague that the trial judge's finding was arbitrary. We are specifically satisfied on the following issues that were raised on this appeal: a. the fishing licenses are business assets as found by the trial judge; b. the 70/30 split of matrimonial assets by the trial judge was fair and reasonable; c. that each of the parties should share, as found by the trial judge, in 20% of the value of the other's business assets; and d. that there were no hidden assets that accounted for the investment income and lease income shown on the respondent's tax returns as introduced as exhibits at . ~ . 3 There should be no pre-judgment interest awarded. As to costs, we award the appellant $2,000.00 plus disbursements on this appeal. We leave alone the disposition of trial costs as arrived at by Mr. Justice Boudreau. With respect to the matters remitted to the Trial Division for determination, the costs shall be for the judge of the Trial Division who hears the matter. .--- Concurred in: ~, Chipman, JA it!!-~ . • 1:.'/ Roscoe, JA "", . ....". ' '-",'I