Livingstone v. Livingstone

Livingstone v. Livingstone

The trial judge erred in principle by over-weighting the RRSP's original acquisition and the husband's preservation/management and by conflating asset distribution with maintenance; equality is the statutory starting point and absent demonstrated unfairness under s.65 the court must order equal division; accordingly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
1999 BCCA 295
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Geraldine Elizabeth Livingstone; Defendant (respondent): John Martin Livingstone
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Family Relations Appeal (property Division, Spousal and Child Support) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: equal division of family assets ordered; trial reapportionment set aside; spousal maintenance order rescinded; trust requirement for custodial parent set aside; child support varied.
Legal Topics
Reapportionment Under S.65, Division of Retirement Assets (rrsp), Inclusion of Assets as Family Property, Custodial Parent Trust Obligation, Sequencing of Property Division and Maintenance
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Division Spousal Support Child Support Trusts Reapportionment Under S.65 Division of Retirement Assets (rrsp) Inclusion of Assets as Family Property +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geraldine Elizabeth Livingstone

Plaintiff (appellant)

John Martin Livingstone

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Family Relations Appeal (property Division, Spousal and Child Support) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in reapportioning assets 75-25 in favour of husband
  2. 2 Whether specific items (foreign bank accounts, corporate shares, accounts receivable, life policy cash value, frequent flyer points) are family assets
  3. 3 Whether trial judge could or should require custodial parent to contribute capital to child support trust

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in principle by over-weighting the RRSP's original acquisition and the husband's preservation/management and by conflating asset distribution with maintenance; equality is the statutory starting point and absent demonstrated unfairness under s.65 the court must order equal division; accordingly the appeal is allowed, reapportionment is set aside, the spousal maintenance order is rescinded and the custodial‑parent trust requirement is removed while child support is varied to $500/month from the husband.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: equal division of family assets ordered; trial reapportionment set aside; spousal maintenance order rescinded; trust requirement for custodial parent set aside; child support varied.

Orders

  • Order equal division of family assets (50%/50%) including assets added by agreement
  • Rescind the trial order for spousal maintenance