O.K. v. V.K.

O.K. v. V.K.

Equal shared custody (existing 2-2-3 schedule) continued because both parents competent and shared custody is in children's best interests; sole custody denied. Ms. K retains her one-half interest in the Moscow District apartment despite it being a family asset because it was a gift and reapportionment under FRA...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 539
Parties
Claimant: O.K.; Respondent: V.K.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce, Child Custody, Support, Property Division / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment granting continuation of equal shared custody; denial of sole custody; division of family property and monetary orders as specified; spousal support and child support awarded; parties to calculate retroactive adjustments
Legal Topics
Shared Custody 2 2 3 Schedule, Reapportionment Under FRA S.65, RRSP Valuation and Division, CPP Equalization, Section 7 Special Expenses, Imputation of Income, Retroactive Support, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines
Source Language
english
Family Law Child Custody Spousal Support Child Support Property Division International/foreign Property Shared Custody 2 2 3 Schedule Reapportionment Under FRA S.65 +6 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O.K.

Claimant

V.K.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce, Child Custody, Support, Property Division / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sole custody should be granted or equal shared custody maintained
  2. 2 Whether foreign (Russian) property interests are family assets and whether reapportionment under FRA s.65 is required
  3. 3 Proper valuation and division of RRSPs and post-separation increments

Ratio Decidendi

Equal shared custody (existing 2-2-3 schedule) continued because both parents competent and shared custody is in children's best interests; sole custody denied. Ms. K retains her one-half interest in the Moscow District apartment despite it being a family asset because it was a gift and reapportionment under FRA s.65 makes an equal split unfair. RRSPs are divided by reference to separation value: Ms. K entitled to one-half of RRSP as of separation ($4,230) with repayment to Mr. K of $10,572 amortized over six years to reflect roll-over; Mr. K's Richmond condominium and his Moscow apartment are not family assets. Child support determined by set-off under s.9 of the Guidelines with an...

Court Disposition

Judgment granting continuation of equal shared custody; denial of sole custody; division of family property and monetary orders as specified; spousal support and child support awarded; parties to calculate retroactive adjustments

Orders

  • Parenting schedule: continue 2-2-3 schedule with specifics commencing November 16, 2015 (parents alternate as set out) and transition times at school start or 10:30 am; neither parent excluded from school/extracurricular activities; parties may vary by written agreement
  • Ms. K retains her one-half interest in the Moscow District apartment (no reapportionment to Mr. K)