Case information

Family law — Family assets — Valuation — Applicant disagreeing with valuations and calculations made by a Chartered Business Evaluator (“CBV”) jointly retained by the parties in the course of litigation, and seeking to make corrections — When a self-represented litigant in a divorce case regarding property division issue pointed out significant business valuation methodology and calculation errors made by the joint expert CBV but such errors were not recognized by the trial judge and the court of appeal, should the valuation errors sought to be corrected in the Supreme Court as the last resort? — What is the proper legal remedy for such similar and future business valuation errors made by an expert CBV when there is no existing legislative statutes and regulations overseeing the CBV profession?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The parties, who have two children, were married in June of 2008 and separated in April of 2019. They jointly purchased a home together after they married and also acquired 50 per cent interests in two restaurant franchises. The wife stopped working in the paid work force in 2014 because of their younger son’s special needs and later returned in 2020. Their home was sold in March 2021 with net proceeds held in trust pending resolution of disputed issues. The issues at trial included quantum and entitlement to spousal support, the income of the parties to determine quantum of child support payable by the husband and arrears, identification and valuation of the assets acquired during marriage and the amount of any equalization payment arising from the assessment of net family properties. The parties jointly retained a Chartered Business Valuator to determine the value of the franchise interests and the amount of the husband’s income. The wife disagreed, however, with the CBV’s valuation of the husband’s franchise interest and with the determination of his income. The trial judge dismissed the wife’s claims for an unequal division of net family property and for spousal support. She also dismissed the husband’s claim for occupation rent. She accepted the CBV’s evidence regarding the value of the franchise shares and the husband’s income, and she determined the amount of the equalization payment owing by the husband to the wife. The trial judge also determined the amount of income of both parties for fixing the amount of retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s appeal.