Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law 2026 NSSC 134

AD v. ZS

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Divorce granted. Shared parenting was denied due to ZS's minimal and inconsistent involvement; the court ordered supervised reintroduction via a Veith House program with a phased schedule and retained AD as primary caregiver. On child support the court found ZS intentionally under-employed and that his tax filings underreported income; arrears were calculated and set, ZS was credited $2,750 from sale proceeds, and ongoing support was set based on imputed income of $70,450 at $593.87/month from Jan 1, 2026 with s.7 expenses to be shared proportionally. On property, exceptional circumstances (c…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting arrangement
  • Imputation of income
  • Section 7 expenses
  • Unequal division of matrimonial property
  • Supervised access (veith house)
  • Third party information order
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 106

Byrne v. Carlow-Byrne

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The motion to admit fresh evidence was dismissed because the proffered documents failed the Palmer test: the evidence was not relevant to any decisive issue (it was collateral), was not credible on the balance of probabilities, and even if believed would not have affected the trial outcome; therefore admission was unjustified.

Source excerpt

  • Fresh evidence
  • Palmer test
  • Collateral fact rule
  • Admissibility
  • Credibility
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 657

R.S.G. v. H.K.M.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a balance of s.37 factors and considering the Finlay report (admissible but to be weighed), a gradual interim increase in father's parenting time to Thursday 9:30 a.m. to Saturday 6:00 p.m. (effective May 7, 2026) is in the children's best interests because both parents are capable, the children have strong relationships with both families, the increase mitigates prior imbalance and is gradual to preserve stability.

Source excerpt

  • Parenting time
  • Best interests of the child
  • Interim variation under family law act
  • Section 211 assessor report admissibility
  • Family violence allegations
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 615

P. A. R. v. K. A. S.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Claimant failed to meet the burden to prove the adult son reverted to being a child of the marriage; Respondent's voluntary cash and expense payments from 2016–2022 met or exceeded likely guideline spousal support such that, given the subsequent material change (Respondent's retirement and health, Claimant's current income), it is grossly unfair to require payment of assessed arrears and they are cancelled; family property is to be divided equally under the FLA absent evidence of significant unfairness, subject to specific deductions for shared family debt and bailiff costs; divorce granted.

Source excerpt

  • Retroactive spousal support
  • Adult child support under divorce act s.2(1)(b)
  • Equal division of family property and s.95 significant unfairness
  • Cancellation of spousal arrears
  • Foreclosure and sale of family home
  • Family violence allegations and credibility
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 475

A.L.A. v. M.N.A.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court accepted the s.211 evaluator's findings and the father's credibility on financial evidence, found no proven physical abuse or coercive control, found an unhealthy mother-child alignment meriting remedial intervention, concluded shared parenting time equally after a staged transition is in the child's best interests, maintained joint guardianship while temporarily allocating exclusive decision-making for education/extracurriculars to the father for six months plus five weeks to monitor cooperation, found no divisible matrimonial assets of value at separation (law firm had no goodwill…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting time
  • Guardianship and decision-making
  • Parental alienation / resist-refuse behaviour
  • Coercive control
  • Psychological/section 211 assessment
  • Valuation of professional practice
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 471

A.M. v. I.V.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court concluded that the fairest determination was to include the Claimant Corporation's pre-tax income (with quantified add-backs for personal expenses) in the claimant's income and to average the relevant years under s.17 given fluctuation; it rejected imputation of additional income for 2023-24 due to demonstrated downturn, accepted specified add-backs to corporate income, determined the parties' Guidelines incomes (claimant $67,306 for each year; respondent $54,887 for 2023 and $80,801 for 2024), retroactively varied the Consent Order to reflect adjusted set-offs for child support, an…

Source excerpt

  • Section 7 expenses
  • Imputation of income
  • Schedule iii adjustments
  • Section 18 corporate income
  • Shared parenting
  • Retroactive variation
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 418

Ludwig v. Ludwig

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the facts the court found the parties' marriage-like relationship began by December 2004; Hatchery Road purchase price ($151,831.59) was excluded property of the claimant and the increase in value to its sale ($380,074.14 minus purchase price) is family property; Mr. Ludwig retained an excluded property claim to a one-half pre-relationship interest in Lots 6 and 8 valued at $247,000, claimant established excluded contributions to Lots 6 and 8 totalling $98,783.50, the mid-point of competing 2023 appraisals was used to value Lots 6 and 8 ($766,500), family property and debts were equally di…

Source excerpt

  • Commencement of marriage-like relationship
  • Excluded property
  • Valuation of family property
  • Equalization of family property and debt
  • Spousal support entitlement and quantum
  • Retroactive spousal support
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 400

Hewko v. Hewko

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the payor's application to terminate spousal support and to cancel arrears because the separation agreement award is primarily compensatory and the recipient remains economically disadvantaged; there was no evidentiary basis to impute $75,000 income to the recipient nor to exclude the payor's overtime; therefore spousal support remains $2,200 per month, the arrears are not cancelled, and the parties are granted a divorce.

Source excerpt

  • Review of separation agreement
  • Imputation of income
  • Effect of re‑partnering on support
  • Cancellation of arrears
  • Spousal support calculation
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 199

Sen v. Panwar

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court held that the spousal relationship commenced on May 7, 2017 (civil marriage) and separation occurred March 2, 2024 (service of Second NOFC after a reconciliation period). From the $87,708.86 net sale proceeds of the townhouse allowable family debts totaling $63,299.59 were deducted leaving $24,409.27 to be split equally ($12,204.64 each). Claims for unequal division were dismissed. Jewellery gifted to the Respondent is excluded property but appreciated value claims were dismissed for lack of reliable evidence and unclear possession; Indian bank account was excluded property; the Ban…

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Family debt
  • Excluded property (gifts)
  • Date of separation and commencement of spousal relationship
  • Undeclared assets and disclosure
  • Jurisdiction over foreign assets
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 41

MacDonald v. More

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Ms. More was the more successful party on the pivotal issues (family violence, relocation and supervision) and made reasonable, favourable settlement offers which Mr. MacDonald unreasonably refused; given the non-monetary nature and importance of the issues and comparable reasonableness of Ms. More's legal fees, a lump sum costs award calculated by applying 55% to fees incurred before the August 27, 2024 offer and 80% to fees incurred after that offer is principled, resulting in an award of $82,000 which Mr. MacDonald must pay within 45 days.

Source excerpt

  • Costs awards
  • Settlement offers
  • Litigation conduct
  • Lump sum costs approach
  • Hst on legal fees
  • Supervised parenting time
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.