CAZ & GAZ

This matter concerned an appeal by the wife against orders made by a trial judge concerning the division of property following a twenty-year marriage. The parties, aged 49 and 46 at the time of trial, had separated in late 2002 or early 2003. The appeal court considered oral submissions regarding events that had occurred since the initial appeal hearing in May 2005, specifically concerning difficulties in agreeing on property valuations, though it ultimately found these did not impact the outcome of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original property division orders were appropriate, and if not, what revised orders should be made. The court also considered submissions regarding costs, including the wife's request to refrain from a costs order against her due to her poorer financial position, and the husband's arguments that the wife's actions had caused delays and financial detriment. The court was asked to determine the appropriate distribution of assets, including the sale of two properties, the M unit and the S property, and the allocation of proceeds.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside certain orders of the trial judge and substituting new directions. These new orders mandated the sale of the M unit by public auction within three months, with specific provisions for the reserve price and the application of sale proceeds, including payment to the wife of $43,109 plus interest for mortgage payments made. The court also ordered the wife to pay the husband 42.5 per cent of the net assets, less a specified amount, within three months. Failure to do so would trigger the sale of the S property, with proceeds to be applied to achieve a 42.5 per cent distribution to the husband and 57.5 per cent to the wife. The court granted the appellant wife a costs certificate.