Plotnikoff v. Plotnikoff

Plotnikoff v. Plotnikoff

On the sparse record the defendant failed to prove the assets were not family assets; except for the Makonin Road inheritance, the assets were family assets. The life estate required valuing the family portion as the value of improvements ($338,000) and treating the landowner's residual interest notionally....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1595
Parties
Plaintiff: Karen Violet Plotnikoff; Defendant: Cecil Wayne Plotnikoff
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Divorce granted; reapportionment ordered with 60% of family assets to defendant and 40% to plaintiff; plaintiff's interest fixed at $240,000; RRSP rollovers and specific asset adjustments ordered; child support ordered with arrears; no costs.
Legal Topics
Division of Family Assets, Characterization of Property (family Vs Excluded), Reapportionment Under S.65, Spousal Support, Child Support (cpp Disability Gross Up), Custody and Guardianship, Valuation of Life Estate/improvements
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Law Pension Law Support Law Division of Family Assets Characterization of Property (family Vs Excluded) Reapportionment Under S.65 Spousal Support +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Violet Plotnikoff

Plaintiff

Cecil Wayne Plotnikoff

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assets in defendant's possession are family assets or excluded assets
  2. 2 Proper valuation of the family home given a registered life estate in favour of the defendant's father
  3. 3 Onus of proof under Family Relations Act s.60

Ratio Decidendi

On the sparse record the defendant failed to prove the assets were not family assets; except for the Makonin Road inheritance, the assets were family assets. The life estate required valuing the family portion as the value of improvements ($338,000) and treating the landowner's residual interest notionally. Considering the parties' relative needs and capacities (defendant's disability), the court exercised s.65 reapportionment and fixed division at 60% to the defendant and 40% to the plaintiff, fixing the plaintiff's interest at $240,000, directing specific RRSP rollovers and cash/asset adjustments, ordering child support of $140/month (grossed up CPP) with $5,000 arrears, and granting...

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; reapportionment ordered with 60% of family assets to defendant and 40% to plaintiff; plaintiff's interest fixed at $240,000; RRSP rollovers and specific asset adjustments ordered; child support ordered with arrears; no costs.

Orders

  • Joint custody and guardianship of Coltin on the Joyce model and liberty to include agreed elaborations in consent order
  • Coltin's principal residence with the plaintiff; reasonable access to defendant