Baryla v. Baryla
- Citation
- 2018 BCSC 156
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 1 February 2018
- Posture
- Family Law Equalization of Family Property / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (correction of Calculation)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 1 February 2018
- Posture
- Family Law Equalization of Family Property / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (correction of Calculation)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court identified and corrected a numerical error in its prior Reasons for Judgment where the family debt was double counted; the correct equalization calculation is one half of $1,647,658.76, and accordingly the respondent must pay the claimant $823,829.38.
Court disposition
Addendum to Reasons for Judgment correcting a calculation error and amending the compensation payment ordered.
Orders
- Paragraph 44 amended to state: 'Mrs. Baryla claims that Mr. Baryla should pay her $823,829.38 ($1,647,658.76 x 50%) so that there is an equal division of the family property.'
- Mr. Baryla will make a $823,829.38 compensation payment to Mrs. Baryla.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lorraine Marie Baryla
Claimant Counsel: R.S. Tretiak Q.C.; M.L. Brus; C.L. HallGordon Paul Baryla
Respondent Counsel: Gordon Paul BarylaPic River Investment Corp.
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Payment Ordered From Mr. Baryla to Mrs. Baryla: CAD 823,829.38
- Family Debt Listed in Scott Schedule: CAD 364,113.68
- Total Family Property Subject to Equalization: CAD 1,647,658.76
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law Equalization of Family Property / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (correction of Calculation)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the compensation payment amount was miscalculated due to double counting a family debt
- 02
Whether the family property should be equally divided between the parties
- 03
Correction of a numerical error in the court's prior Reasons for Judgment
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The claimant sought an equal division of the family property and that the respondent pay a compensation payment of $823,829.38 (half of $1,647,658.76).
- Respondent
- The respondent appeared and the parties had agreed the debt should be shared; the court's prior calculation had subtracted the debt twice resulting in an incorrect figure of $641,772.54, and the proper correction yields $823,829.38.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Family Law Act (British Columbia) / family property principles
Equal division of family property on marriage breakdown
- 02
Scott Schedule / trial practice
Use of a Scott Schedule to list assets and debts for equalization calculations
- 03
Court's inherent jurisdiction / BCSC practice
Court's authority to correct clerical or calculation errors in its Reasons for Judgment by addendum
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court identified and corrected a numerical error in its prior Reasons for Judgment where the family debt was double counted; the correct equalization calculation is one half of $1,647,658.76, and accordingly the respondent must pay the claimant $823,829.38.
Court disposition
Addendum to Reasons for Judgment correcting a calculation error and amending the compensation payment ordered.
- Paragraph 44 amended to state: 'Mrs. Baryla claims that Mr. Baryla should pay her $823,829.38 ($1,647,658.76 x 50%) so that there is an equal division of the family property.'
- Mr. Baryla will make a $823,829.38 compensation payment to Mrs. Baryla.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 1 February 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 1 February 2018
2018 BCSC 156 Baryla v. Baryla
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Baryla v. Baryla, 2018 BCSC 156 Date: 20180201 Docket: E51304 Registry: Vernon Between: Lorraine Marie Baryla Claimant And Gordon Paul Baryla and Pic River Investment Corp. Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Loo Addendum to Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: R.S. Tretiak Q.C. M.L. Brus C.L. Hall Respondent, appearing on his behalf: Gordon Paul Baryla Claimant's Written Submission Filed: December 4, 2017 Respondent's Written Submission Filed: December 16, 2017 Claimant's Reply Submission Filed: December 19, 2017 Place and Date of Addendum to Judgment: Vernon, B.C. February 1, 2018 [1] This is an addendum to my Reasons for Judgment dated September 29, 2017 (indexed at 2017 BCSC 1759). There are calculation errors in paragraphs 44 and 115(1).s [2] The Scott Schedule in paragraph 43 sets out the parties' assets and debts, including a debt of $364,113.68 that was subtracted from the assets to arrive at the amount of $828,829.38 to equalize the family property. However, in paragraph 44, I then stated that Mrs. Baryla agreed she should be equally responsible for the family debt of $364,113.68, and "that Mr. Baryla should pay her $641,772.54 ($823,829.38 - $182,056.84)." To subtract one‑half of the $364,113.68 from the $828,829.38 is to double count the debt, and is an error. Therefore the compensation payment
payable from Mr. Baryla to Mrs. Baryla in paragraph 115(1) of the reasons for judgment should not be $641,772.54, but should be $823,829.38. [3] Paragraph 44 is amended and will now read: [44] Mrs. Baryla claims that Mr. Baryla should pay her $823,829.38 ($1,647,658.76 x 50%) so that there is an equal division of the family property. [4] Paragraph 115, point 1, is amended and will now read: 1. Mr. Baryla will make a $823,829.38 compensation payment to Mrs. Baryla. "Loo J." _______ The Honourable Madam Justice Loo
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.