The waiver was not conditioned on the transfer of the husband’s retirement plan to the wife: court
In a recent family law dispute, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the conditions for the waiver of spousal support were met based on the property transfers that did occur between the spouses.
The dispute in Zibell v Zibell, 2024 ABCA 145 stemmed from a dispute between parties who separated after 24 years of marriage. In 2019, Marie Zibell and Harold Zibell entered into a contract stipulating the terms for the division of property and spousal support. According to the contract, Marie would receive a lump sum spousal support award of $93,000, satisfied through the transfer of Harold’s interest in the matrimonial home and a portion of his locked-in retirement account (LIRA) pension. The agreement also included a $90,000 registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) transfer from Harold to Marie, which Harold admitted he failed to complete.
Marie argued that the conditions for her to waive further spousal support were not satisfied due to the missing RRSP transfer. She contended that the waiver of spousal support was conditional upon receiving all the property outlined in the contract. In response, Harold claimed that the transfer of the home and LIRA pension activated the spousal support waiver, suggesting that Marie’s remedy for the untransferred RRSP should be a separate breach of contract action.
The chambers judge supported Marie’s position, awarding her spousal support in the lump sum of $90,871 and ruling that her application for spousal support was appropriate given the circumstances. This award considered the value of the untransferred RRSP and additional losses incurred from garnishments by Harold’s creditor.
The appeal focused on the contractual interpretation of the agreement’s clauses, examining whether the waiver of spousal support was contingent upon Marie receiving all properties specified in the contract, including the disputed RRSP amount. The appellate court concluded that the key terms of the contract did not condition the waiver of spousal support on the transfer of the RRSP. Instead, it found that the receipt of the matrimonial home and a portion of the LIRA pension were sufficient to satisfy the spousal support agreement.
Thus, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, indicating that the conditions for Marie’s waiver of spousal support were met with the transfers that did occur. The court underscored the importance of precise contractual language and the adherence to agreed terms in family law disputes. The court encouraged the parties to consider a consent judgment to resolve any remaining issues efficiently and equitably.
