Tuner v. Turner

Tuner v. Turner

The separation agreement of 14 August 1991 is valid and enforceable; there was no fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or unconscionability and it is not unfair under s.68; Ms. Turner is found to be economically self-sufficient and there are negating factors relevant to spousal support, therefore claims for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 770
Parties
Plaintiff/petitioner: Welideniyalage Chandrawathie Menike Turner (also known as Julie Turner); Defendant/respondent: Daniel William Brendan Turner
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Corollary Relief / Trial and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims for property relief and spousal support dismissed; separation agreement upheld; custody awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Separation Agreement, Spousal Support, Division of Family Property, Undue Influence, Unconscionability, Variation Under Family Relations Act S.68, Custody and Access
Source Language
english
Family Law Contract Law Equity Separation Agreement Spousal Support Division of Family Property Undue Influence Unconscionability +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Welideniyalage Chandrawathie Menike Turner (also known as Julie Turner)

Plaintiff/petitioner

Daniel William Brendan Turner

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Corollary Relief / Trial and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity and enforceability of the 14 August 1991 separation agreement
  2. 2 Allegations of misrepresentation/fraud and non-disclosure by respondent
  3. 3 Allegation of undue influence and unconscionability

Ratio Decidendi

The separation agreement of 14 August 1991 is valid and enforceable; there was no fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or unconscionability and it is not unfair under s.68; Ms. Turner is found to be economically self-sufficient and there are negating factors relevant to spousal support, therefore claims for property division and spousal support are dismissed and custody is awarded to Mr. Turner with specified visitation rights for Ms. Turner.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims for property relief and spousal support dismissed; separation agreement upheld; custody awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • Custody of the child, Brandon Jiya Turner born 29 September 1986, awarded to Daniel William Brendan Turner
  • Visitation for plaintiff as specified: if child resident >200 km from plaintiff then not less than six consecutive weeks between 21 June and 21 September each year and ten consecutive days between 15 December and 15 January; if child resident <200 km then one weekend each month (second Friday to Sunday), four...