Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                          SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

                                                           (FAMILY DIVISION)

 

Citation: Klefenz v. Klefenz, 2015 NSSC 196

Date: 20150702

Docket: 1201-066790

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Dawn Marie Klefenz

Petitioner

v.

Byron Kees Klefenz

           

Respondent

______________________________________________________________________________

                                                          LIBRARY HEADING

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Judge:                         The Honourable Justice Beryl MacDonald

 

 

Heard:                        April 20 and 21, 2015, Halifax Nova Scotia                        

 

Written Decision:      July 2, 2015

 

Keywords:                 Family, Divorce, Business Assets, Unequal Division of Matrimonial                                               Assets, Determination of Income, Spousal Support Guidelines

 

Legislation:                Matrimonial Property Act,R.S.N.S. 1989, c.275, s. 13, s.18

 

Summary:                  Parties had an 18 year marriage. The Father worked for years for V***C***, an unincorporated business owned by one person. That owner was not the Husband. Shortly before the parties separated the owner of V***C*** received an offer to sell this business. To do so he incorporated that business and gave shares to the Husband. As a result the Husband became an owner and received assets as a result of that sale, including shares in the new company created. The Wife alleged the assets received including the shares were matrimonial assets, and if not, she had an interest in them because of her contribution to their acquisition, or she should have an interest because it would be unconscionable to decide otherwise. No interest in the assets was granted to the Wife. Matrimonial assets were divided unequally in the Wife’s favour. Child support was ordered. A different income was applied for spousal support. The Wife had a significant compensatory claim to spousal support. Spousal support was to continue indefinitely.

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISION.           QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.