nan U.F.C. of 1983 105 J.C.S. IN THE UNIFIED FAMILY COURT JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: MARY KLASSEN and JOHN KLASSEN RESPONDENT Mr. J. Gillis for the applicant Ms. T. Holizki for the respondent ORAL JUDGMENT GAGNE, J. DATE: February 12, 1985 The applicant seeks a division of matrimonial property pursuant to the provisions of The Matrimonial Property Act, custody of Randy, 14 years of age and Amanda, 8 years of age, pursuant to The Infants Act and maintenance for the said children pursuant to The Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act. The parties were married in Mexico in October, 1964 and shortly thereafter moved to Saskatchewan. In 1977, the family lived in Hague. The respondent had job operating back-hoe. They owned modest home and equity in the said home of approximately $16,000.00. The family had some difficulty getting along on the respondent's earnings. The respondent was totally in charge of the financial matters in this household. On May 20, 1977, the respondent won $100,000.00 lottery. $65,000.00 house was purchased, $11,000.00 worth of furniture was purchased, $15,000.00 mini-motor home was purchased and the respondent bought $12,000.00 motor vehicle. The family took more holidays and did more travelling. The respondent borrowed some money and bought some trenching equipment and went into business on his own. This business failed and resulted in substantial loss. The trenching equipment was repossessed, the matrimonial home had to be sold and the mini-motor home was gone. At the time of trial, the parties had the proceeds of the matrimonial home in the amount of $12,240.00, lot in Hague valued between $5,000.00 and $7,000.00, the applicant's furniture and household goods, the respondent's furniture and household goods, 1977 Mercury automobile, motorcycle, lawn mower and some of the respondent's tools. The respondent is in arrears of maintenance for the two younger children in the amount of $1,800.00. The respondent's work is seasonal and he is presently on unemployment insurance benefits. The applicant complains about the respondent's use of alcoholic beverages. am satisfied that the respondent, at times, abused alcohol and spent more money on alcohol than he should have. The respondent did not lose his licence and did not miss work because of his consumption of alcohol. The respondent was in charge of the family finances and the $100,000.00 in 1977. In few short years, there is little left. The respondent has not fully accounted for the family finances from 1977 to 1981. am satisfied that the money was spent on the family and lost in the trenching business. I do not find that the respondent dissipated the matrimonial property within the meaning of The Matrimonial Property Act. The respondent will be entitled to keep his 1977 Mercury motor vehicle and his tools and other properties in his possession as his own. The applicant will be entitled to keep household furniture and household goods, the motorcycle, lawn mower in her possession as her matrimonial property. The remaining matrimonial property are the proceeds of the matrimonial home in the amount of $12,240.00 and the lot in Hague, which value at $6,000.00 for total of $18,240.00. The respondent mismanaged the family financial affairs and the property should not be divided equally. The applicant's share will be $10,240.00 and the respondent's share will be $8,000.00. Out of the respondent's share, he will pay the arrears of child support to the applicant in the sum of $1,800.00. He will also repay the applicant half of $360.00 rent which he collected and used for his own purposes for the sum of $180.00. From the respondent's $8,000.00, there will be deducted $1,800.00 and $180.00 leaving due to the respondent $6,020.00. The respondent will have, as his share of the matrimonial property, the lot in Hague as shown on exhibit P-4. This is already in the name of the respondent and the applicant will discharge her caveat, 88PA11713. The applicant will have custody of the two children of the marriage, Randy and Amanda and the respondent will have reasonable access.
Division of matrimonial property. Husband made modest living and, eight years ago, won $100,000 in lottery. The lottery money was spent on household finances and lost in husband's small business venture. Husband 'spent more money on alcohol than he should have'. HELD: This did not amount to dissipation of matrimonial property within the meaning of the Act. Husband's mismanagement of the family's financial affairs was grounds for unequal division of the property: