Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization and equal division of marital property, including investments and corporate-held assets accumulated during the marriage
• Exclusion of pre-marital assets and home-sale proceeds from equalization based on fairness and traceability under the Marital Property Act
• Treatment of professional and holding corporations as family assets rather than business assets, given their use as vehicles for investment and tax deferral rather than entrepreneurial activity
• Allocation of equity in the marital home and vehicles, including credit for a significant pre-marital deposit and post-separation payment of property expenses
• Claim for occupational rent where one spouse remained in exclusive possession of the marital home while the other paid both home expenses and separate accommodation costs
• Costs consequences and enforcement measures arising from the respondent’s persistent non-disclosure, non-attendance, and contempt of court, including authorization for the court clerk to sign in his stead

Background and relationship history

The case arises from a marital property dispute between the applicant, Lise Geralda Caissie, and the respondent, Michael David Tripp, in the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick, Family Division, after the breakdown of their marriage. The parties began cohabiting in March 2012 and married on August 2, 2015. There were no children of the marriage. They separated on February 18, 2022, and their divorce was granted at the hearing on January 13, 2026. At the beginning of the relationship, Ms. Caissie was an accountant with a professional corporation of which she was the sole director, officer and shareholder. She owned a mortgage-free home at 41 Irene Crescent in Dieppe, New Brunswick, and had accumulated savings and RRSPs. In contrast, Mr. Tripp, a lawyer, had recently left his employment in Ontario, was living with his parents, owned only an old vehicle and was in financial difficulty. In June 2012, he filed a consumer proposal, and Ms. Caissie advanced him $10,000 to allow him to proceed with it. Shortly after the parties began living together, Mr. Tripp worked in-house for a mining company, then with a start-up, and by late 2013 established himself as a sole practitioner. By March 2014 he had become outside counsel for Organigram, a local cannabis company, and in 2017 accepted a full-time role there as Vice-President, Legal.

Financial circumstances and acquisition of major assets

Before the marriage, Ms. Caissie held substantial personal and corporate investments, including RRSPs, TFSAs and corporate bank accounts and investment portfolios. These pre-marital assets were clearly documented and traceable, and they were not used as family-use property such as shelter or transportation during the relationship. In the summer of 2017, she sold her Irene Crescent home and used $200,000 of the sale proceeds as the deposit for a new home at 345 Lavoie Street in Dieppe. Title to the Lavoie property was registered solely in her name. She paid the mortgage, property taxes and all household expenses related to that property throughout the relationship. In 2018, Ms. Caissie advanced $90,300 to Mr. Tripp to allow him to invest in shares of Green Organic Dutchman (TGOD) through his holding company, Anamnesis Incorporated, of which he was the sole shareholder, director and officer. Around the same time, he transferred $40,000 worth of Organigram shares to her. In April 2019, Mr. Tripp lost his employment with Organigram but received a lucrative severance package: he continued to receive his salary of about $200,000 per year until March 2020, and the value of his Organigram shares and stock options increased dramatically after legalization of marijuana and public trading of the company’s stock. These events produced very substantial investment wealth for him personally and through his corporations.

Separation, post-separation conduct, and financial divergence

The parties separated on February 18, 2022, following serious disagreements. Ms. Caissie left the Lavoie Street home, taking only some clothing, while Mr. Tripp remained in the residence and refused to vacate despite her requests. From separation until October 2022, she paid approximately $30,500 in expenses related to the Lavoie property, including mortgage, utilities, lawn care and snow removal, even though she no longer lived in the home. Over the same eight-month period she also paid about $27,000 in rent for separate accommodation. During the post-separation period, her investments grew by roughly 48.12%, but those post-separation gains were not included in the marital division. At the date of separation, Ms. Caissie held significant personal and corporate investments (after tax adjustments), along with two vehicles—a 2011 BMW X3 and a 2005 Mercedes-Benz SLK55. The Lavoie home had an appraised value of $875,000 in June 2022 with a mortgage of $257,682. Mr. Tripp, personally and through his corporations Anamnesis Incorporated and 8782750 Canada Corporation, held sizeable investment portfolios and cash accounts, as well as an interest in a fishing camp and a 2022 Audi A7 and a Vespa. These balances reflected the accumulation of substantial wealth, particularly on his side, during the marriage. After separation, Mr. Tripp repeatedly failed to comply with procedural obligations. He did not file pleadings, financial statements or income tax returns despite being ordered to do so, and he failed to attend multiple hearings. On June 5, 2023, he was found in contempt of court for failing to file financial statements and ordered to pay solicitor-client costs. His whereabouts later became uncertain; evidence suggested he had travelled to Ecuador and might be living in Toronto.

Legal framework for division of marital property and debts

The court applied the New Brunswick Marital Property Act (MPA). Under sections 2 and 3, each spouse is generally entitled to an equal share of marital property acquired while they cohabited and is equally responsible for marital debts. “Marital property” includes family assets—property used for shelter, transportation, and household or family purposes, including homes, money in accounts and shares—but excludes “business assets,” which are assets used to generate income in an entrepreneurial sense. The judge relied on case law (including Clarke v. Clarke, Hebb v. Hebb, MacElwain v. MacElwain and Milton v. Milton) to distinguish between business assets and family assets held in corporate or investment form. Where professional or holding corporations are primarily used to defer tax and hold surplus earnings for future family security (similar to RRSPs or pensions), their retained earnings and investments are properly treated as family assets subject to marital division, rather than business assets excluded from division. The court also applied section 6 of the MPA, which allows exclusion of a pre-marital family asset from the division if including it would be unfair and unreasonable to its owner, and section 7, which permits unequal division where equal division would be inequitable, considering factors such as the timing and source of acquisition and the parties’ contributions. In addition, M.R. v. J.R. was cited for the principle that taxable assets should be notionally reduced by a standard 30% tax discount when valuing them for equalization, and that post-separation increases in asset value are not shared, other than per diem interest.

Treatment of pre-marital assets and corporate holdings

On the evidence, the court found that Ms. Caissie’s pre-marital investments and the equity she brought into the relationship through the Irene Crescent home should be excluded from marital division. Her pre-marriage assets were easily traceable, were not commingled with family-use property, and were not used for shelter, transportation or recreational purposes. The parties had a relatively short marriage of seven years, were older when they married, and had no children. In these circumstances, it would have been unfair and unreasonable to treat her pre-existing financial holdings and the $200,000 deposit funded from her former home as marital property. By contrast, the investments and savings accumulated by both parties during cohabitation and marriage—including those held within her professional corporation and his holding corporations—were treated as marital property. The court characterized both Ms. Caissie’s professional corporation and Mr. Tripp’s holding corporations as vehicles for investing surplus earnings and deferring tax, rather than as entrepreneurial, income-producing business enterprises. Their assets, after discounting for tax, were therefore included in the pool of family assets acquired during the marriage. Applying the tax adjustment and excluding Ms. Caissie’s pre-marital wealth, the judge concluded that the total value of investments and savings acquired during the marriage and subject to equal division was approximately $4.94 million, with each spouse presumptively entitled to 50%. After accounting for what each already held at separation, the court determined that Mr. Tripp owed Ms. Caissie a substantial equalization payment to achieve that equal division.

Marital home, vehicles, and real property expenses

The Lavoie Street home was treated as marital property, but with important adjustments. The appraised value of $875,000 was accepted as the fair market value, with an outstanding mortgage of $257,682 at separation. The court removed the $200,000 deposit, funded from the sale of Ms. Caissie’s solely owned pre-marital home, from the divisible value of the Lavoie property, on the basis of fairness and the factors under sections 6 and 7 of the MPA. This left marital equity in the property to be shared. When the home and vehicles were valued together, Ms. Caissie’s side included the net value of the marital home (after excluding the $200,000 deposit), plus the BMW and Mercedes, while Mr. Tripp’s side included the Audi A7 and Vespa. After subtracting the mortgage and post-separation property taxes (which were allocated equally in light of authority indicating both spouses are typically responsible unless occupational rent is ordered), combined net equity was calculated and divided. On that basis, Ms. Caissie owed Mr. Tripp an equalization amount for his share of the home and vehicle equity, which the court set off against the much larger equalization payment he owed her on the investment and savings side.

Occupational rent and post-separation accommodation

A significant issue was occupational rent for the period when Mr. Tripp remained in exclusive possession of the Lavoie home after separation while Ms. Caissie both maintained the home and rented another residence. Under the MPA, a court may order a spouse with exclusive possession to make payments to the other spouse. The court referred to Thurrott v. Thurrott, which sets out discretionary factors for occupational rent, such as duration of occupancy, expenses borne by each spouse, the cost of alternative accommodation, financial resources, child-care responsibilities and the circumstances of departure. Here, Ms. Caissie left quickly due to fear of Mr. Tripp, and despite being the registered owner and sole payer of all housing costs, she was forced to rent elsewhere while he refused to vacate until ordered out by the court in the fall of 2022. She continued servicing the mortgage and meeting household expenses to preserve the asset, while also covering substantial rent. The judge accepted that she should be compensated for the unfair burden of paying for housing she did not occupy while Mr. Tripp enjoyed exclusive use of the marital home without contributing to its costs. As the property taxes paid during that period had already been accounted for in the property division calculations, those were partially excluded from the occupational-rent computation. The court ultimately ordered that Mr. Tripp reimburse most of the household expenses paid during his exclusive occupancy, recognizing this as an appropriate measure of occupational rent owed to Ms. Caissie.

Costs, non-disclosure, and enforcement mechanisms

The court then addressed costs in light of Mr. Tripp’s persistent non-compliance. Relying on Rule 59 and appellate guidance, the judge emphasized that full and ongoing financial disclosure is a fundamental obligation in family law, and that failure to disclose typically attracts a costs sanction because it delays proceedings, wastes judicial resources and prejudices the other party. Mr. Tripp had refused to file financial statements, ignored court directions, failed to appear, and had already been found in contempt. These factors, combined with Ms. Caissie’s success on the merits, justified a significant costs award. The judge quantified costs for the trial itself, confirmed earlier costs orders and fixed the previously granted solicitor-client costs for contempt based on counsel’s bill of costs and disbursements. Additionally, because Mr. Tripp had demonstrated a pattern of non-participation and non-cooperation, the court invoked statutory authority to empower the clerk of the Court of King’s Bench to sign documents on his behalf. This mechanism was intended to ensure that asset transfers, title changes and payments required to give effect to the judgment could proceed even if he refused or failed to sign the necessary paperwork.

Overall outcome and monetary consequences

In the final disposition, the court ordered that Mr. Tripp convey his interest in the Lavoie Street marital home to Ms. Caissie. The detailed charts in the reasons were adopted as the binding division of marital property and debts. After excluding her pre-marital wealth, adjusting for tax on registered and corporate investments, and equalizing the assets acquired during the marriage, the judge ordered Mr. Tripp to pay Ms. Caissie an equalization amount of $1,287,482, which already reflected a set-off of $163,962 to account for his share of equity in the home and vehicles. On top of this, he was ordered to pay $24,500 as occupational rent to compensate her for the period during which he occupied the marital home while she both maintained it and rented separate accommodation. In respect of costs, he was ordered to pay a total of $32,665, encompassing the new trial costs award, prior costs totalling $5,700 and quantified solicitor-client costs of $12,965 arising from the contempt finding. All told, the court’s orders in favour of the successful party, Ms. Caissie, amounted to $1,344,647 in equalization, occupational rent and costs, with the clerk specifically authorized to sign the documents needed to implement these transfers if Mr. Tripp failed to cooperate.