Law360 Canada (May 1, 2023, 8:59 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellant from division of matrimonial property. The appellant argued that the trial judge made reviewable errors by, among others, adopting the respondent’s expert tracing report, and failing to distribute any gains to her. The respondent came into the marriage with certain property, and he also received an inheritance during the marriage. The parties agreed that some of the respondent’s inheritance was exempt. Unfortunately, the inherited funds were not carefully segregated, and the parties maintained less than meticulous records of the flow of exempt and family funds in and out of their various investments. The respondent retained Rivard to prepare an independent analysis tracing the respondent’s claimed exemptions relating to his pre-marriage and inheritance property. The appellant retained Manek to rebut the Rivard report. For the purposes of his report, Manek assumed that at different points, certain exemptions were reduced by half where property flowed through a joint asset. The trial judge rejected the appellant’s expert’s estimation of the exempt and non-exempt property. He also preferred the respondent’s evidence. The two investments that were critical to the tracing analysis were a failed investment in Packrat Louie that was sold prior to trial, and a $100,000 investment in Aurora Cannabis shares that were acquired before the parties separated but were sold post-separation at a significant gain....