[1] After a marriage lasting fifteen years, Dawn Wright claims a greater share of matrimonial property on the basis that she and Alan Wright do not have equal abilities to buy a home. She also seeks spousal support for three years to assist her in completing a diploma course in business.

[2] Alan Wright responds that the parties' modest estate (just over $120,000) should be shared equally, and that Dawn Wright's claim to a greater share is attributable to a recent townhouse purchase. He further contends that Dawn Wright could be self-sufficient in only one year if she re-trained as a dental assistant, an occupation she quit in 1986.

[3] The Wrights are both 38 years old. They were married in 1985, separated in January 1998, and were divorced on February 24, 2000. Their only child, Justin, is 10 years old, and lives primarily with Dawn Wright. The Wrights share custody.

[4] Alan Wright earns $77,500 a year as a television producer. He lives a short drive away from Justin's home, and spends as much time as he can with Justin.

[5] Dawn Wright works part time in her parents' plastics business, earning less than $1,000 per month. She and Justin also live with her parents, but she recently purchased a townhouse near her parents' home.

[6] Although Alan Wright's criticism of the timing of Dawn Wright's townhouse purchase is understandable, questioning her proposed career path is not.

[7] With respect to the former, having regard to the comparatively modest rent which Alan Wright pays for a two bedroom suite, it is hardly surprising that he questions his former wife's decision to commit herself to mortgage payments before she is fully employed (notwithstanding that her parents have guaranteed the mortgage). That, however, does not permit me to do much more than concede that she might well have opted for co-op housing or a condominium, perhaps delaying purchase until completion of her renewed schooling.

[8] However, her consideration of a business career is another matter. While Dawn Wright enjoyed some aspects of dental assistant's work, her 1986 decision (supported by her husband) to seek a part-time position in her parents' business was precipitated by the need for more flexibility in her work schedule so that she could address health problems which were hampering the Wrights' efforts to start a family. That aside, it is not for Alan Wright to dictate a career choice to his former wife. He has a challenging job, and it is reasonable that Dawn Wright should be given an equal crack at more fulfilling work.

[9] Turning to statutory considerations affecting the Wrights' estate, Dawn Wright is at a disadvantage in resolving her housing needs, prompting consideration of whether an equal sharing of family assets as mandated by s.56 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.128, would be fair. Applying s.65, reapportionment seems justified purely on the basis of the disparity between the Wrights' incomes. That disparity will not soon change, even assuming Dawn Wright completes business training.

[10] Her counsel listed amounts totalling more than $17,000 for which Alan Wright should be required to account, having regard to his rejection of the property settlement which the parties negotiated in November, 1998. Although Alan Wright is doubtful about several of the listed items, I have concluded that this matter can best be resolved by simply ordering that 75% of the funds held in trust be paid to Dawn Wright, and 25% to Alan Wright (each has already received $5,000). In ordering reapportionment I emphasize two factors: the housing needs of Dawn Wright and Justin and the disparity between the Wrights' present and (likely) future incomes.

[11] With the exception of the leaky Zodiac, which Alan Wright can keep, disposition of the remaining assets will be in accordance with the schedule produced at the trial.

[12] Turning to maintenance, one of the objectives of a spousal support order is to promote economic self-sufficiency "as soon as practicable" (s.15.2(6)(d) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3). In this case, purporting to require the attainment of that goal in one, rather than three years, is not reasonable.

[13] As mentioned, Dawn Wright was introduced to her parents' successful business in 1986, and continues to work there while she attends Douglas College. Aside from the fact that she has achieved outstanding marks at Douglas College, the opportunity to continue business training should not be interrupted simply because she could more quickly equip herself to resume dental assistant's work. It is not unreasonable for her to prefer the more interesting and satisfying career options which she seems abundantly capable of pursuing.

[14] However, continuation of spousal support at the ordered level is problematic.

[15] While both parties' lists of expenses could be subjected to some value judgment chiselling, I do not intend to embark on that kind of exercise here. Each claims to be going into the hole. I do not doubt either claim, and mutual paring seems essential.

[16] Having said that, I reject the notion that it would be reasonable for Dawn Wright to increase her student's load by doubling course commitments and achieving her diploma in half the anticipated time. That would jeopardize the success she has attained to date, impose greater scheduling demands, and be contrary to Justin's best interests.

[17] Nevertheless, in remarks made when she was ordering interim support, Madam Justice Dillon observed that "there is a threshold here for increased work" on Dawn Wright's part, with which I agree. While I am not prepared to make an order reflecting Alan Wright's suggestion that his former wife could more quickly attain her diploma by taking more courses in this and succeeding terms, Dawn Wright is capable of earning more than she now makes in her parents' employ.

[18] Spousal support is set at $1,500 per month, which reflects both Alan Wright's claimed deficit and Dawn Wright's realistic earning potential. Both continuation and quantum of spousal support will be reviewed in September 2003, unless Dawn Wright ends her studies before then.

[19] Dawn Wright is entitled to Scale 3 costs.

"R. Collver, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Collver