Purtzki v. Saunders

Purtzki v. Saunders

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Father's interest in the Home Trust was a family asset under s.58(3)(a)(ii) because the practical realities (source of trust property, long uninterrupted unfettered occupation, identity and likely conduct of trustees) made the Father's interest effectively equivalent to ownership; the interest was therefore valued by reference to the matrimonial home's value (with a modest discount); reapportionment of that interest 70% to Father and 30% to Mother was not overturned; however the judge's income finding for the Mother was corrected to $470,000 and the child support lump sum was set aside and remitted to the Supreme Court for...

Citation
2016 BCCA 344
Parties
Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal (mother): Jacqueline Simone Purtzki; Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal (father): John Howard Saunders
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; trial finding that Father's interest in Home Trust is a family asset and its valuation and reapportionment upheld; Mother's income fixed at $470,000; lump sum child support set aside and remitted for periodic child support determination;...
Legal Topics
Characterization of Trust Interest Under S.58(3)(a)(ii), Valuation of Trust Interests, Reapportionment of Family Assets, Income Determination for Support, Lump Sum Spousal Support, Child Support (lump Sum V Periodic)
Source Language
English
Family Law Trusts Property Law Support Law Characterization of Trust Interest Under S.58(3)(a)(ii) Valuation of Trust Interests Reapportionment of Family Assets Income Determination for Support +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Simone Purtzki

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal (mother)

John Howard Saunders

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a spouse's discretionary interest in a trust can be a family asset under s.58(3)(a)(ii) of the FRA
  2. 2 Proper valuation of a spouse's interest in a trust (look-through vs contingent/discretionary valuation)
  3. 3 Whether reapportionment should award Father's trust interest entirely to Father

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Father's interest in the Home Trust was a family asset under s.58(3)(a)(ii) because the practical realities (source of trust property, long uninterrupted unfettered occupation, identity and likely conduct of trustees) made the Father's interest effectively equivalent to ownership; the interest was therefore valued by reference to the matrimonial home's value (with a modest discount); reapportionment of that interest 70% to Father and 30% to Mother was not overturned; however the judge's income finding for the Mother was corrected to $470,000 and the child support lump sum was set aside and remitted to the Supreme Court for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; trial finding that Father's interest in Home Trust is a family asset and its valuation and reapportionment upheld; Mother's income fixed at $470,000; lump sum child support set aside and remitted for periodic child support determination;...

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in respect of the Father's interest in the Home Trust and the reapportionment of family assets
  • Appeal allowed in respect of the Mother's income (Mother's income for support set at $470,000)