P.L.D. v. R.M.D.

P.L.D. v. R.M.D.

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the s.57 declaration because a triggering event already existed from the 1988 Separation Agreement, granting a new triggering event now would improperly create two coexisting triggering events and would unfairly upset the status quo and prejudice the respondent; the plaintiff may renew the application only if the Separation Agreement is subsequently declared void at trial.

Citation
2003 BCSC 607
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: P.L.D.; Defendant/respondent: R.M.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce/separation / Application for Declaration Under S.57 Fra; Interlocutory; Pre Trial (trial Set July 2003)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Triggering Event, Separation Agreement, Reconciliation Clause, Reapportionment of Family Assets, Spousal Maintenance, Unconscionability, Duress, Financial Disclosure
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Contract Law Equity Triggering Event Separation Agreement Reconciliation Clause Reapportionment of Family Assets +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.L.D.

Plaintiff/applicant

R.M.D.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce/separation / Application for Declaration Under S.57 Fra; Interlocutory; Pre Trial (trial Set July 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a s.57 declaration that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation
  2. 2 Whether a new triggering event should be recognized when a prior triggering event (1988 separation agreement) exists
  3. 3 Whether granting the declaration would prejudice the respondent by upsetting the status quo and exposing intervening assets to disclosure and division

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the s.57 declaration because a triggering event already existed from the 1988 Separation Agreement, granting a new triggering event now would improperly create two coexisting triggering events and would unfairly upset the status quo and prejudice the respondent; the plaintiff may renew the application only if the Separation Agreement is subsequently declared void at trial.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for a declaration under s.57 of the Family Relations Act is dismissed.
  • If, following trial, the Separation Agreement is declared void and the earlier triggering event is thereby expunged, the plaintiff may reapply for a s.57 declaration.