(FAMILY DIVISION)
Citation: Carroll v. Richardson, 2012 NSSC 18
Date: 20120111
Docket: SFHMCA-069321
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Joann Carroll
Applicant
v.
Michael Russell Richardson
Respondent
Judge: The Honourable Justice Deborah Gass
Heard: May 18, 2011, in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Written Submissions: May 24 and June 10, 2011
Counsel: Fergus Ford, for the applicant
Jennifer Schofield, for the respondent
By the Court:
[1] The Applicant, Joann Carroll, seeks an equal division of an investment fund held by the Respondent with an apparent balance of $31,585.27 as of June 30, 2008.
[2] While the parties have disagreed on the length of cohabitation it appears that they finally separated in September 2009.
[3] While there was disagreement about the nature and disposition of these investments, the parties do agree that the Respondent received a matrimonial property settlement from his marriage and funds from that settlement were used to purchase land and build the parties’ home.
[4] The funds in the account apparently came in part from the balance remaining of that matrimonial settlement as well as some funds from Coca Cola.
[5] The Respondent says these funds were liquidated to pay off debt which accumulated while the parties were together.
[6] Notwithstanding the issues surrounding the source and disposition of these funds, an equal division of such an asset is not presumed.
[7] Cohabitation does not in and of itself provide grounds for a division of assets held in one person’s name. This is not a matrimonial asset.
[8] A claim for division must be founded on the principles of constructive trust based on unjust enrichment.
[9] Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have adapted these common law principles to family law context under the “joint family venture” principle, but a link between one’s contribution and the accumulation of wealth must still be established.
[10] The evidence of the claimant must be sufficient to support the claim that the asset in the name of one party is connected to some contribution by the other party
[11] Here it appears that some of the funds were from a previous settlement, and whatever the source of the balance of those funds, there is no evidence to show that there was a benefit conferred on the Respondent to the detriment of the Applicant. A general claim is not sufficient and the application is dismissed.
[12] No order is necessary.
J.