D.A.B. v. J.G.B.

D.A.B. v. J.G.B.

Court held that reapportionment under s.65(1) was warranted and that an unequal division of family assets of 60/40 in favour of the plaintiff was fair and just; the agreed trial valuation of the dental practice ($473,500) was adopted for division and post-trigger extraordinary efforts by the husband could not justify denying reapportionment; husband’s guideline income was set at $300,000/year for spousal support calculations, and spousal support of $6,500/month for three years was ordered with liberty to review.

Citation
2003 BCSC 226
Parties
Plaintiff: D.A.B.; Defendant: J.G.B.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Family Law Reapportionment and Spousal Support / Trial Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Reapportionment ordered: family assets reapportioned 60% to plaintiff and 40% to defendant; spousal support ordered; specified asset transfers, immediate cash payment and secured charge to plaintiff; child support continued as prior order; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Reapportionment, Family Relations Act S.65, Valuation Date of Business Assets, Triggering Event Doctrine, Income Determination for Support, RRSP and Asset Rollover
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Division Spousal Support Child Support Business Valuation Reapportionment Family Relations Act S.65 Valuation Date of Business Assets +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.A.B.

Plaintiff

J.G.B.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Reapportionment and Spousal Support / Trial Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reapportionment under s.65 of the Family Relations Act should be ordered in favour of the wife
  2. 2 Proper valuation date for the dental practice and whether post-triggering event increases are excluded from reapportionment
  3. 3 Whether an equal division of family assets would be fair and just

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that reapportionment under s.65(1) was warranted and that an unequal division of family assets of 60/40 in favour of the plaintiff was fair and just; the agreed trial valuation of the dental practice ($473,500) was adopted for division and post-trigger extraordinary efforts by the husband could not justify denying reapportionment; husband’s guideline income was set at $300,000/year for spousal support calculations, and spousal support of $6,500/month for three years was ordered with liberty to review.

Court Disposition

Reapportionment ordered: family assets reapportioned 60% to plaintiff and 40% to defendant; spousal support ordered; specified asset transfers, immediate cash payment and secured charge to plaintiff; child support continued as prior order; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Reapportionment of family assets 60/40 in favour of the plaintiff
  • Leave the dental practice, dental practice strata lot, husband vehicles and husband bank accounts with the husband