Calculation, Estimate or Comprehensive: Which Report Does a Family Law Matter Need?

A business valuation can shape a family property settlement long after the legal fees have been paid. For spouses dividing their finances, the appropriate report is one that gives them enough reliable evidence to make that decision, at a cost proportionate to the issues involved.

Calculation, Estimate and Comprehensive reports differ in the depth of work behind the conclusion. Choosing among them requires a discussion about the business, the information available and how the valuation will be used. A cooperative separation can still involve difficult valuation questions, while a contentious matter may turn on one narrow issue that deserves focused investigation.

What the three levels mean

Under CBV Institute’s 2026 standards, a Calculation conclusion involves the least extensive scope of work. The valuator limits independent corroboration, may use reasonable simplifying assumptions for certain inputs and relies more heavily on client representations. It remains an independent professional conclusion that must be credible and properly supported.

An Estimate conclusion involves substantial work and a moderate degree of independent corroboration. A Comprehensive conclusion involves extensive work, detailed examination of significant inputs and assumptions, and a high degree of independent corroboration. These distinctions concern the work performed, so page count alone tells a reader little about the strength of the underlying evidence. [1]

In a family law matter, the useful question is what additional work would resolve an uncertainty that could affect the settlement. If the disagreement concerns the owner’s replacement salary, examining compensation evidence may contribute more than expanding the report’s general background discussion.

The same discipline helps contain fees. Once the parties know which assumptions have little effect on the result, they can discuss directing the valuator’s attention to the matters that could change the settlement materially. The valuator still determines whether the resulting scope is appropriate.

What changed for Calculation engagements in 2026

The revised standards apply to independent valuation engagements beginning on or after January 1, 2026. Practice Standard 120 applies its minimum scope requirements to all three levels, including Calculation. Significant inputs and assumptions must be supported; unsupported significant assumptions must be disclosed as scope limitations. [2]

Industry analysis also belongs in the work at every level. Paragraphs 3K and 3L require sufficient understanding of the relevant industry and economic conditions affecting the business at the valuation date. The depth varies: Practice Bulletin 3 illustrates general industry research and discussions with management for a Calculation, compared with detailed independent research for a Comprehensive conclusion. [2, 3]

When a Calculation may be sufficient

The distinction between an initial discussion and a final settlement matters. Practice Bulletin 3 identifies greater reliance on the conclusion, the significance of the decision and potential conflict as reasons for a more extensive scope. An amicable process does not, by itself, establish that a Calculation is sufficient for a binding agreement. [3]

Both spouses should understand what was examined and what was accepted with limited corroboration. The spouse who works in the business may be comfortable with an explanation that the other spouse has no practical way to assess. Clear disclosure helps each person ask informed questions before accepting the result.

When an Estimate or Comprehensive deserves consideration

An Estimate may be appropriate where the parties need more corroboration of material assumptions. Examples include disputed personal expenses, compensation paid to family members, rent paid to a related company or earnings affected by an unusual year. The engagement should identify the evidence needed to assess those items.

A Comprehensive conclusion deserves consideration where substantial value depends on uncertain forecasts, complex ownership rights or several interrelated companies. It may also be appropriate when the business represents most of the family wealth and the conclusion will face close scrutiny. Counsel and the valuator should discuss the anticipated use in negotiations or court before settling the scope.

Neither spouse benefits from a valuation built around a preferred outcome. An overstated value may create a payment obligation the business cannot reasonably support; an understated value may leave the other spouse with less than their entitlement. Independent scrutiny should follow the financial evidence regardless of which spouse supplied it.

Missing records require a separate decision

A lower report level cannot automatically solve a disclosure problem. Under paragraph 3F of Practice Standard 120, the valuator must not issue a conclusion if scope limitations are serious enough to jeopardize its credibility. Missing records can therefore affect whether any conclusion is possible. [2]

If sales records conflict with the financial statements, the immediate task is to understand the discrepancy. Counsel may need to obtain further disclosure, and the valuator may need additional accounting or investigative work. Paying for a more extensive report will accomplish little if access to essential evidence remains unresolved.

Get the Manitoba instructions right

Manitoba’s Family Property Act supplies the legal framework for the property accounting. Section 15 generally uses the amount an asset could reasonably realize in an open-market sale between willing parties, with a separate provision for assets that are inherently non-marketable. Section 16 allows spouses or common-law partners to agree on valuation dates; absent agreement, it generally uses the date they last cohabited, or the application date if they continue cohabiting. [4]

Counsel should confirm the applicable date and the interest being valued before work begins. Valuing a company’s operations is different from valuing a particular spouse’s shares, with their specific rights and obligations. A sound analysis of the wrong interest or date can create avoidable work and delay.

Business value also answers a different question from income available for support. Where both issues arise, counsel and the valuator should coordinate the instructions and examine how compensation and business earnings enter each analysis. A property valuation should not silently become an income determination.

Agree on the work before agreeing on the fee

Ask the valuator to explain which uncertainties could move the value materially and what evidence would help resolve them. A useful fee proposal connects the procedures to those uncertainties and identifies foreseeable additional work. The cheapest initial engagement can become expensive if the parties later need to revisit assumptions before settlement.

There can be value in staging the work, provided the first stage is suitable for its intended use. Agree in advance on the findings that would prompt a broader scope and how additional fees will be approved. Both spouses and their advisers should know whether they are commissioning an initial assessment or evidence intended to support a final decision.

Acadia Hill can discuss the proposed scope with you and your family law counsel before an engagement begins. That conversation can help identify the records needed and the level of work appropriate to the decision ahead.

Peter Fast, CBV, Acadia Hill

This article provides general information and is not legal, tax or accounting advice. The appropriate scope depends on the purpose, intended users, available evidence and specific circumstances of the engagement. Family law counsel should advise on how the law applies to your situation.