Prasad v. Prasad

Prasad v. Prasad

Respondent did not wilfully fail to respond and did not unduly delay in seeking relief; however the Final Order's unequal distribution of family property (granting claimant 100% of home and respondent's assets) lacked evidentiary foundation and no s.95 analysis was made, so the property provisions of the Final Order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 BCSC 430
Parties
Claimant: Saileshni Devi Prasad; Respondent: Herendra Prasad
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce and Division of Family Property / Application to Set Aside or Vary Final Order (post Judgment Application)
Outcome
Final Order of June 21, 2019 varied in part: property-related provisions set aside or varied; other orders (divorce, custody, child support, name change) left intact; net proceeds to remain in claimant's lawyer trust pending agreement or further order; court not seized of further applications; costs reserved to...
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default/desk Order Judgment, Service of Process, Unequal Division of Family Property S.95 FLA, Vesting Order, Distribution of Sale Proceeds, Delay and Wilfulness, Costs
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Child Support Setting Aside Default/desk Order Judgment Service of Process Unequal Division of Family Property S.95 FLA Vesting Order +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saileshni Devi Prasad

Claimant

Herendra Prasad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce and Division of Family Property / Application to Set Aside or Vary Final Order (post Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent wilfully or deliberately failed to file a response to the notice of family claim
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside the Final Order was brought without undue delay
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has a meritorious defence worthy of investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent did not wilfully fail to respond and did not unduly delay in seeking relief; however the Final Order's unequal distribution of family property (granting claimant 100% of home and respondent's assets) lacked evidentiary foundation and no s.95 analysis was made, so the property provisions of the Final Order must be set aside or varied and the matter remitted for proper evidentiary presentation; accordingly paras 5 and 7 of the Final Order were deleted, para 9 varied to require accounting, and net sale proceeds remain in claimant's lawyer trust pending further agreement or court order.

Court Disposition

Final Order of June 21, 2019 varied in part: property-related provisions set aside or varied; other orders (divorce, custody, child support, name change) left intact; net proceeds to remain in claimant's lawyer trust pending agreement or further order; court not seized of further applications; costs reserved to...

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the Final Order (unequal division transferring home to claimant) deleted
  • Paragraph 7 of the Final Order (claimant interest in respondent vehicles and financial assets) deleted