Canada Case Law

Paletar v. Paletar

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge correctly applied s.95 of the Family Law Act, considered the origin of the family property and all s.95(2) factors together, found the appellant retained the value of his excluded property and that equal division would not be 'significantly unfair', and the Court of Appeal, applying a deferential standard, found no error of law or principle warranting appellate interference and dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Division of family property
• Excluded property
• Significant unfairness under s.95
• Reapportionment
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

A.N.K. v. E.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Supplementary reasons in a family law case corrected asset valuations, set-offs, and support wording, and allowed further evidence on distributive taxes for two businesses.

• Valuation of family assets
• Set-offs and crediting
• Distributive tax adjustment
• Reconsideration and clarification
• Retroactive spousal support tax treatment
• Conduct orders

Read case analysis

Jourabchi v. Masbough

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In this post-trial family law costs decision, the court found divided success and ordered each party to bear their own costs of the action.

• Costs
• Equalization of family assets
• Excluded property
• Valuation of corporate shares
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Offers to settle

Read case analysis

F.N. v. R.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered equal shared parenting, divided decision-making, rejected an inheritance-based claim to exclude the family home, and declined to enforce an Iranian judgment.

• Best interests of the child
• Parental responsibilities and parenting time
• Family violence considerations
• Excluded property/inheritance claim
• Enforceability of foreign judgments
• Loans versus compensation

Read case analysis

J.A.T.P. v. H.M.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court adjourned a peremptory family trial after co-counsel withdrew, finding exceptional circumstances and unfairness if the claimant had to proceed unrepresented.

• Adjournment of peremptory trial
• Withdrawal of counsel and ethical withdrawal
• Section 211 family report
• Expert evidence deadlines
• Jurisdiction over embryos located outside canada
• Interim variation of parenting arrangements

Read case analysis

P.M.Z. v. D.J.T.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law trial granting divorce, relocation to Stratford, Ontario, supervised parenting only, retroactive and lump sum support, equalization, sale of the home, and special costs.

• Relocation of children
• Guardianship and parenting responsibilities
• Child support (retroactive and lump sum)
• Spousal support (compensatory and lump sum)
• Equalization of family property
• Protection orders and family violence

Read case analysis

Healey v. Healey

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to award double costs on a post-trial family law application, finding the settlement offers were not unreasonably rejected and that the parties’ finances weighed against the award.

• Double costs
• Offer to settle
• Reasonableness of refusal
• Financial disclosure
• Imputed income
• Rule 11‑1(5) and 11‑1(6)

Read case analysis

Bogdanic v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In chambers family-law application addressing disclosure, interim distribution, parenting, passport travel, car insurance, and embryo storage fees.

• Interim distribution
• Financial disclosure orders
• Parenting schedule
• Passport/travel consent
• Embryo storage and destruction
• Insurance payment

Read case analysis

K.S.P. v. J.T.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law application partly granted. The court ordered limited anonymization and targeted records and expert orders, but refused bifurcation, adjournment, and extra discovery time.

• Bifurcation
• Adjournment
• Anonymization
• Medical records production
• Discovery time limits
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

E.D.N. v. E.C.N.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an application for an updated s. 211 Family Law Act assessment, finding it was not yet clear the report was required to assist with the children’s needs.

• Section 211 family law act assessment
• Supervised parenting time
• Protection order
• Support arrears
• Expert reports
• Delay and costs

Read case analysis