Chutter v. Chutter

Chutter v. Chutter

The application to reopen was dismissed because the respondent failed to establish a clear and compelling legal point such that a very serious injustice would follow if the point were not considered; Stein did not change the outcome because the parties had executed a consent asset division acknowledged as 'roughly equal', there was no evidentiary foundation in the record to quantify or reallocate contingent tax liabilities, and the law at the time already allowed consideration of tax consequences where supported by evidence.

Citation
2009 BCCA 177
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Heather Jane Chutter; Respondent / Defendant: Geoffrey Paul Chutter; Defendant: Chutter Developments Ltd.
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce Appeal Concerning Spousal Support and Division of Family Assets / Application to Reopen Appeal After Reasons Released But Before Entry of Order (supplementary Reasons)
Outcome
Application to reopen appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Spousal Support, Division of Family Assets, Contingent Tax Liabilities, Reopening Appeals, Consent Orders
Source Language
English
Family Law Appellate Procedure Taxation Law Spousal Support Division of Family Assets Contingent Tax Liabilities Reopening Appeals Consent Orders

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Jane Chutter

Appellant / Plaintiff

Geoffrey Paul Chutter

Respondent / Defendant

Chutter Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Appeal Concerning Spousal Support and Division of Family Assets / Application to Reopen Appeal After Reasons Released But Before Entry of Order (supplementary Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be permitted to reopen the appeal to rely on Stein v. Stein after oral argument but before entry of order
  2. 2 Whether Stein's treatment of contingent tax liabilities requires reconsideration of spousal support where parties executed a consent division of assets
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidentiary foundation to treat contingent tax liabilities as altering the 'roughly equal' division agreed by parties

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen was dismissed because the respondent failed to establish a clear and compelling legal point such that a very serious injustice would follow if the point were not considered; Stein did not change the outcome because the parties had executed a consent asset division acknowledged as 'roughly equal', there was no evidentiary foundation in the record to quantify or reallocate contingent tax liabilities, and the law at the time already allowed consideration of tax consequences where supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to reopen appeal dismissed