Y.L. v. G.L.

Y.L. v. G.L.

Material change in circumstances (post‑Loo 28‑day trial, respondent now primary caregiver with significant litigation costs and high expenses) justified varying the interim Loo Order. Under s.89 FLA an interim distribution was necessary to permit the respondent to continue litigation and was not harmful to the claimant given alleged entitlements and available security. Sale of the Wilson Avenue property under Rule 15-8 was necessary and expedient; $250,000 of the net proceeds was awarded to the respondent as an interim distribution and the claimant's CPL on title was cancelled with the remaining proceeds held in trust as security for any future claim by the claimant.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1571
Parties
Claimant: Y.L.; Respondent: G.L.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Matrimonial Property and Custody / Interim Application for Sale of Property, Interim Distribution and Cancellation of CPL (pre‑trial; Further 30‑day Trial Scheduled)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Interim Distribution Under S.89 FLA, Sale of Matrimonial Property Under Rule 15 8 SCFR, Cancellation of Certificate of Pending Litigation (cpl) Under Ss.256 257 LTA, Variation of Interim Order Under S.216 FLA, Child Custody and Residence, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Land Title Act Civil Procedure Interim Distribution Under S.89 FLA Sale of Matrimonial Property Under Rule 15 8 SCFR Cancellation of Certificate of Pending Litigation (cpl) Under Ss.256 257 LTA Variation of Interim Order Under S.216 FLA +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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y.L.

Claimant

G.L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Matrimonial Property and Custody / Interim Application for Sale of Property, Interim Distribution and Cancellation of CPL (pre‑trial; Further 30‑day Trial Scheduled)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late affidavit was admissible and application should proceed
  2. 2 Whether application was premature pending Chinese proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the Loo interim order may be varied

Ratio Decidendi

Material change in circumstances (post‑Loo 28‑day trial, respondent now primary caregiver with significant litigation costs and high expenses) justified varying the interim Loo Order. Under s.89 FLA an interim distribution was necessary to permit the respondent to continue litigation and was not harmful to the claimant given alleged entitlements and available security. Sale of the Wilson Avenue property under Rule 15-8 was necessary and expedient; $250,000 of the net proceeds was awarded to the respondent as an interim distribution and the claimant's CPL on title was cancelled with the remaining proceeds held in trust as security for any future claim by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Loo Order varied to permit sale of the Wilson Avenue property
  • Order for sale of the Wilson Avenue property with the respondent to have sole conduct of sale