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 BCSC 782

Orrego v. Pearson

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Claimant is entitled to time-limited compensatory spousal support because she sacrificed greater earning potential to work in the family restaurant and lost salary on separation; respondent's disability claim lacks causal connection and sufficient evidence and is undermined by investigator evidence, so non-compensatory support is denied; two years' duration is sufficient and a retroactive lump-sum of $22,750 (after tax-benefit discount) is appropriate; property division is resolved by transferring claimant's PRG shares and her shareholder loan to respondent, claimant retaining the TD savings…

Source excerpt

  • Compensatory spousal support
  • Non-compensatory spousal support (disability)
  • Duration of support
  • Retroactive lump-sum support
  • Division of family property
  • Shareholder loan
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 171

Forrest v. Forrest

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred in law by treating part of the Richmond proceeds as family property because the appellant held no beneficial interest until sale (resulting trust presumption), which means the Mission Property net proceeds are excluded property; the judge also erred by deducting family mortgage debt from excluded property without s.96 analysis, by awarding retroactive spousal support without applying Kerr factors, and by making a palpable and overriding error in valuing certain chattels; the prospective spousal support determination and income finding were not disturbed.

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Excluded property
  • Resulting trust
  • Reapportionment of family property
  • Spousal support
  • Retroactive support
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 675

C.L.R. v. M.A.R.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Given the respondent's continuing active addiction, limited engagement in treatment, and unstable parenting history, the court awarded all parental responsibilities to the claimant and ordered supervised parenting time with testing and progressive increase; the respondent's income was imputed at minimum wage ($37,128) because he is intentionally unemployed and capable of working, resulting in child support of $561 per month commencing May 1, 2026 and retroactive child support of $9,537 from December 1, 2024; dividends received by respondent were family property and net proceeds and specified…

Source excerpt

  • Parenting time
  • Parental responsibilities
  • Supervised parenting
  • Drug testing
  • Imputation of income
  • Retroactive child support
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 595

Ganjian v Roberts

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found as a matter of fact that the parties did not live in a marriage‑like relationship for the requisite two years under s.3(1)(b) FLA, therefore dismissing the claimant's claims for spousal support and division of family property; the respondent is authorized to sell the jointly acquired vehicle (2021 Cadillac CT4) and to divide the sale proceeds as agreed, failing which a Registrar's hearing will determine division; the proceeds need not be placed in trust pending further order or appeal; propositions of case‑splitting are rejected and amendment of pleadings was properly authoriz…

Source excerpt

  • Spousal status (marriage‑like relationship)
  • Spousal support
  • Division of family property
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Case‑splitting and rebuttal evidence
  • Sale of shared asset
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 118

Janif v. Chander

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The phrase 'the duration of the relationship between the spouses' in s.95(2)(a) of the Family Law Act refers to the period from the beginning of the relationship to the date of separation; the trial judge erred in law by considering post‑separation interactions under s.95(2)(a), and the appeal is allowed and remitted for reconsideration of whether equal division is significantly unfair confined to that statutory period.

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Significant unfairness
  • Separation date
  • Valuation date
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 455

Fisher v. Timm

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court accepted the claimant's historic appraisal valuing Cameron Crescent at $416,000, ordered excluded value net of secured debt at $360,500, fixed the fair market value of Islewood Drive at $760,000 (split of two recent appraisals), calculated net unexcluded equity of $235,627, awarded respondent an undivided half interest of $117,813.50 reduced by the $30,000 interim distribution resulting in an equalization payment of $87,813.50; the court refused to depart from equal division under s.95 because unequal division was not shown to be significantly unfair and refused deductions for septi…

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Excluded property
  • Equalization payment
  • Valuation
  • Significant unfairness under s.95 fla
  • Interim distribution
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 97

Glioza v. Ardalani

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed in part because the trial judge misapprehended uncontested evidence that the appellant paid $43,149 of the child's private school fees from the Dempsey sale proceeds, warranting a reduction of the equalization payment by half that amount ($21,574.50); all other challenges failed because the judge's discretionary and factual findings (including admission of the jointly commissioned appraisal, refusal to account for speculative selling costs, income determinations and denial of spousal support) were supported by the record and not tainted by reviewable error.

Source excerpt

  • Equalization payment
  • Division of family property
  • Income determination for support
  • Expert appraisal admissibility
  • Misapprehension of evidence
  • Disclosure obligations
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 99

Glassen v. Glassen

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary property and parenting orders were supported by evidence and correct application of law; discretionary decisions were entitled to deference; statutory constraints on departing from equal division were properly applied; the dog award complied with s.97(4.2); and the proposed additional evidence failed the Palmer test and would not have altered the result.

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Parenting decision-making authority
  • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
  • Standard of appellate review
  • Family law act provisions on companion animals
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 287

Van Der Zee v. Borsboom

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

No binding separation agreement was formed. Of the $50,000 paid to buy the Condominium, $21,500 is excluded property and $28,500 is family property. Family assets net of family debt (line of credit at separation $8,016.36 and property tax arrears $2,943.46) yield $58,540.18 to be divided; respondent is credited occupational rent $16,800 (one‑half of assumed $800 monthly rent for 42 months) prior to division, leaving $41,740.18 to be split equally. Respondent must reimburse claimant $5,000 of instalments received. Claimant may buy out respondent by paying specified amounts within 30 days; othe…

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Excluded property (s.85 fla)
  • Unequal division (s.95 fla)
  • Occupational rent
  • Separation agreement
  • Enforcement of transfer of title
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 258

Ardakani v. Nourani

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court found separation occurred December 27, 2016; the 2009 transfer of legal title to the claimant was a contractual security/agreement (not a gratuitous gift) excluded the Ghorbani Property from equal division under s.92; claimant retained sole interest in Ghorbani and is entitled to half of rental income; Delta Property and its rental income are family property to be divided equally with adjustments for personal occupation and taxes; TD Loan was incurred after separation and is respondent's sole responsibility; spousal support varied to $2,450/month from April 24, 2023 with a ten year paym…

Source excerpt

  • Division of family property
  • Enforceability of marriage agreement (mehrieh)
  • Separation date
  • Family debt
  • Occupational rent
  • Browne v dunn rule
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.