D.Z. v. M.Z.

D.Z. v. M.Z.

Orders altering prior judgment were set aside or varied where there was insufficient evidentiary basis to impose repayment or third-party distributions; the debt to R.K. was not a family debt under s.86 FLA so trust funds could not be paid to a third party and must be divided between the parties; and future Guidelines income for M.Z. is fixed as the greater of $170,000 or his Line 15000 income less dividends and associated tax used to fund compensation payments, with annual disclosure of Company C.'s financials required to enable review and applications for increase only on sufficient change.

Citation
2022 BCSC 1462
Parties
Claimant: D.Z.; Respondent: M.Z.; Respondent: Company R.; Respondent: Company C.; Respondent: Company 919; Respondent: Company 918
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law / Post Trial Supplementary Reasons and Clarification (reconsideration)
Outcome
Court varied its prior judgment: adjusted s.7 expense allocation, set aside repayment order for elective surgery, set aside distribution to R.K. and ordered equal division of those funds, fixed prime rate for interest on compensation payments, and clarified future income determination and disclosure obligations.
Legal Topics
Income Determination Under Federal Child Support Guidelines, Personal Services Method, Family Debt (s.86 Fla), Disclosure Obligations (s.21 Guidelines), Allocation of Special Expenses (s.7), Distribution of Funds Held in Trust
Source Language
English
Family Law Family Property Child Support Spousal Support Trusts and Distributions Income Determination Under Federal Child Support Guidelines Personal Services Method Family Debt (s.86 Fla) +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.Z.

Claimant

M.Z.

Respondent

Company R.

Respondent

Company C.

Respondent

Company 919

Respondent

Company 918

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law / Post Trial Supplementary Reasons and Clarification (reconsideration)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order requiring claimant to repay $15,000 for elective surgery should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether $3,675 of trust proceeds could be distributed directly to a third party (R.K.) or was a family debt
  3. 3 How to determine respondent M.Z.'s income for child support in future years

Ratio Decidendi

Orders altering prior judgment were set aside or varied where there was insufficient evidentiary basis to impose repayment or third-party distributions; the debt to R.K. was not a family debt under s.86 FLA so trust funds could not be paid to a third party and must be divided between the parties; and future Guidelines income for M.Z. is fixed as the greater of $170,000 or his Line 15000 income less dividends and associated tax used to fund compensation payments, with annual disclosure of Company C.'s financials required to enable review and applications for increase only on sufficient change.

Court Disposition

Court varied its prior judgment: adjusted s.7 expense allocation, set aside repayment order for elective surgery, set aside distribution to R.K. and ordered equal division of those funds, fixed prime rate for interest on compensation payments, and clarified future income determination and disclosure obligations.

Orders

  • M.Z.'s share of the children's s.7 expenses is 68% and D.Z.'s share is 32% for 2021 and going forward; M.Z. owes $2,274.51 in retroactive s.7 expenses for 2021
  • The prior distribution to Mr. Sturgess is set aside and $4,725 of funds held in trust shall be paid to D.Z. to reimburse her payment to Mr. Sturgess (and $4,725 remains payable to Mr. Sturgess on account of M.Z.'s portion)