Ruling notes judge did not double-count value of structures on parcel of land
In a case concerning two land parcels jointly held by a former couple, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal saw a palpable and overriding error in a judge’s finding that the evidence was unclear about what structures were on the lands.
In Ledingham v Ledingham, 2026 SKCA 4, the parties separated in 2011 following a five-year marriage.
In 2024, the parties went to trial over the value of two jointly held parcels of land (80 acres and 1.84 acres) near Colgate, Saskatchewan. At trial, the appellant ex-husband filed appraisals of both parcels, which excluded the value of an older cottage in the 80-acre parcel and a mobile home in the 1.84-acre parcel.
In May 2024, a trial judge deemed it inappropriate to use the appraised values for property division purposes upon determining that the evidence did not establish the type of structures on these lands and that the appraisals did not consider the buildings’ impact on the land values.
The judge ordered the sale of the lands and the equal division of the sale proceeds if the parties could not agree on the lands’ disposition.
The ex-husband appealed this aspect of the decision. He argued that the judge misapprehended the evidence when he ordered the sale of the lands upon deeming it inappropriate to use the appraised values.
The respondent ex-wife cross-appealed and alleged multiple evidentiary errors.
Sale order set aside
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan set aside the order for the sale of the parcels of land upon determining that the trial judge erred in ordering the sale.
The appeal court ordered the transfer of the titles to the two parcels to the ex-husband, as well as the equal division of the lands’ value based on the 2011 appraisals filed at trial.
Upon making adjustments to the property division, the appeal court required the ex-wife to provide her ex-husband with an equalization payment of $381,929.24 to facilitate the division of their non-taxable property.
The appeal court rejected the ex-husband’s argument that the judge double-counted the value of the structures on the 80-acre parcel.
However, the appeal court ruled that the judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding the evidence unclear about what structures were on the lands and ordering their sale, rather than using the appraised value for division purposes.
Regarding the misapprehension of the evidence related to the cottage on the 80-acre parcel, the appeal court held that the appraisal properly excluded the cottage, given its move onto the land after the date of the application in 2011, which was the date for the valuation of the family property for division purposes.
Regarding the misapprehension of the evidence related to the mobile home on the 1.84-acre parcel, the appeal court pointed out that the judge overlooked that he had already considered the mobile home’s value in the property division, separately from the land value, and should have appreciated the lack of any other structures on the parcel.
Next, the appeal court dismissed the ex-wife’s cross-appeal as abandoned, given that she failed to respond to her ex-husband’s appeal, file materials supporting her cross-appeal, or appear at the hearing.
Lastly, the appeal court awarded the ex-husband $1,000 in appeal costs and issued no order for the cross-appeal costs. As the judge had since died, the appeal court permitted the parties to file written submissions regarding the trial costs.
