P.F. v. P.T.

P.F. v. P.T.

Section 9 did not apply because the defendant's parenting time fell short of the 40% threshold on the trial record; post-trial financial statements cannot be used to alter income findings made on trial evidence; the court must order sale and equal division of assets where equitable and evidence supports sale; tools routinely used by the defendant must be returned; other personal property remains with current possessors; credit attributed to the plaintiff related to another debt and stands; and pension reapportionment was performed without accounting for investment returns because plan value was not in evidence.

Citation
2010 BCSC 598
Parties
Plaintiff: P.F.; Defendant: P.T.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Support and Property Division / Supplementary Reasons (post Trial)
Outcome
Application for reconsideration denied in part; supplementary orders issued clarifying child support offset inapplicability and directing disposition of specified personal property and related procedural obligations
Legal Topics
Section 9 Federal Child Support Guidelines, Parenting Time, Set Off, Personal Property, Pension Valuation, Access Arrangements
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Property Division Pension Division Section 9 Federal Child Support Guidelines Parenting Time Set Off Personal Property +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.F.

Plaintiff

P.T.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Support and Property Division / Supplementary Reasons (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an offset under s.9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies
  2. 2 Proper annual income to attribute to the plaintiff for any offset
  3. 3 Accounting, set-off and allocation of personal property in plaintiff's possession

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 did not apply because the defendant's parenting time fell short of the 40% threshold on the trial record; post-trial financial statements cannot be used to alter income findings made on trial evidence; the court must order sale and equal division of assets where equitable and evidence supports sale; tools routinely used by the defendant must be returned; other personal property remains with current possessors; credit attributed to the plaintiff related to another debt and stands; and pension reapportionment was performed without accounting for investment returns because plan value was not in evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration denied in part; supplementary orders issued clarifying child support offset inapplicability and directing disposition of specified personal property and related procedural obligations

Orders

  • Section 9 offset of the Federal Child Support Guidelines not applied as parenting time does not meet the 40% threshold
  • If sale required, the Bigfoot Camper and Teak shares are to be sold and the net proceeds divided equally