PO210 Study Guide - Costa Del Sol, Pension
Saleh v. Saleh, 1999 CanLII 12859 (SK QB), <http://canlii.ca/t/1lbsf> retrieved on 2013-10-29
 There shall be the following order:
1. The marriage of Amira and Farouk shall be dissolved at the expiration of
2. Farouk shall pay spousal support to Amira in the amount of $2,400.00 per
month commencing July 1st, 1999 and continuing on the 1st day of
each and every month up to and including June 1st, 2007.
3. Amira shall be entitled to a transfer from Farouk’s employment pension
with the University of Saskatchewan, Academic Plan, to a locked in
retirement plan of Amira’s choosing. The said payout is calculated
by utilizing one half of the communed value of Farouk’s pension plan
utilizing July 18, 1997, as valuation day, being $217,360.93 and
adding accrued geometric rate of interest for the said plan in the
amount of 12.33 per cent for 1997 and 14.91 per cent for January 1,
1998, onward, up to date of payment calculated to be July 1, 1999.
4. The matrimonial property shall be divided as outlined herein.
5. The restraining order shall continue until further order of this Court.
6. Each party shall bear their own costs.
7. Either of the parties shall have leave to apply to the Court if necessary for
further clarification of this order.
8. After the expiration of the appeal period the exhibits filed by the parties
may be returned to them.
On July 18, 1997 Amira commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action
against Farouk. The main issues to be determined in this case include three main
objectives. The first is to appropriate the division of matrimonial property division.
Secondly it must be determined how much spousal support will be needed and how much
is owed to date. The last issue is to calculate the costs related to the overall trial process.
It had been agreed upon that equal division of matrimonial property would be the case.
The matrimonial assets include their condominium in Saskatoon including the contents
that exist inside. Also the condominium in Cairo is among these assets that will be
equally split. Due to the fact that the house was sold for a smaller value then predicted.
Both parties must split the depreciation cost, which is $4,314 each. The next debate was
over the value of the pension from the University of Saskatchewan, the place Farouk
taught. The Pension Benefits Act, 1992, S.S. 1992, c p-6.001, which will only permit the
amount of contributions and the collected interest to the Pension during the marriage to
be split in half. The case, Tucker v. Baudais reflex, (1989) establishes the principle that
tax liability should be taken into account when calculating the sharing value of the
matrimonial assets. The case of Kalytuk v. Kalytuk had the same findings as to the
Tucker v. Baudais, supra case, which was that a 30 percent reduction in his tax liability
cost and a 6 percent reduction for the prepayment advantage and future contingencies that
may occur. Further more the dispute over jewelry, which Farouk believed he was being
shorted due to his belief that Amira had accumulated a larger jewelry collection over their
marriage. This moved on to the deciding over the motor vehicles, time share in Costa Del
Sol, purchased artwork, mutual bank account and lastly the RRSP’s of Amira. A 30
percent deduction to the RRSP’s total value will be done to cover Amira’s tax liability.
The second issue that I highlighted earlier involved in the case is the division of spousal
support. With Farouk making approximately $7736 gross per month and Amira making
$1,500 gross per month there is a clear gap. $2400 was the amount appropriated for
Farouk to pay, commencing July 1, 1999 until June, 2007 each first day of the month.
Lastly Farouk owes costs due to the unsuccessful motion to have Amir’s counsel
removed on January 23,1998.
This case of divorce is a largely covered topic in family law, which has many
solid precedents that make it easy to communicate to the court the outcome of the trial. In
my opinion I think that the split of matrimonial assets are always a tough activity. In this
case I noticed that the wife was trying to gather as many items thru the process of not
claiming the items in the appraisals of her jewelry and house assets. This is something
that would put me off in the court. It shows poor character. But before judging the book
you must consider the lot of educational skills that Amira has compared to Farouk. He is
easily capable of finding work with his PHD while it is a little tougher for Amira to find
as high paying work. The use of precedent cases by Amira like the Carlson v. Carlson
(1984) case in my thoughts was a poor use of a precedent due to the fact that the case had
to due with matrimonial property of the future and not the tax liability of pension funds as
is the case here. The conclusions of this particular trial I thought to be appropriate. Each
party properly receives an equal share of the couples overall wealth. Farouk will also
continue to pay Amira for 8 years, giving her some ability to settle down and begin
saving for retirement.