Canada Case Law

Wood v. Wood

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Clause 33 applies to both the claimant's undisclosed Sun Life disability claim and the claimant's misrepresented Telus pension. The claimant is therefore deemed to own those assets equally with the respondent; respondent is entitled to one-half of the Sun Life settlement ($82,500) and one-half of the undisclosed portion of the Telus pension ($89,183.58) totaling $171,683.58, which is offset against the respondent's 2028 equalization payment, reducing it from $272,017.50 to $100,333.92 (interest to be recalculated accordingly). The court alternatively modifies the separation agreement under s.…

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Non-disclosure clause
• Equalization payment
• Variation under family law act s.93
• Pension division
• Spousal support

Read case analysis

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

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

Kamil v. Alnoor

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and a fresh evidence motion because the appellant remained in breach of court orders, the appeal lacked merit, and it was a collateral attack.

• Equalization payment
• Fresh evidence
• Breach of court orders
• Collateral attack
• Parenting orders
• Support arrears

Read case analysis

Lau v. Tao

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal corrected a $4,250 arithmetic error in equalization, but otherwise dismissed the appeal on tracing, RESP treatment, matrimonial home, and costs issues.

• Gifts and tracing
• Net family property
• Equalization payment
• Matrimonial home
• Registered education savings plan (resp) treatment
• Post-separation adjustments

Read case analysis

Aitken v. Doyle

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law enforcement ruling applying trial-date valuation and finality principles to require rollover documents, divide a mutual fund, and award fixed costs.

• Excluded property
• Equalization payment
• Spousal rollover (s.146(16) income tax act)
• Valuation date (trial date)
• Scott schedule
• Enforcement of final orders

Read case analysis

Jensen v. Guerster

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the parties cohabited from September 2002, divided family property equally, rejected excluded-property and unequal-division claims, denied spousal support, and granted divorce.

• Cohabitation date
• Excluded property
• Unequal division
• Equalization payment
• Asset tracing
• Credibility findings

Read case analysis

Giles v. Giles

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Separation Agreement satisfied statutory formalities and represented the autonomous bargain of the parties; no evidence established the applicant was vulnerable or that the respondent exploited any vulnerability, lack of independent legal advice did not render the agreement unenforceable because the applicant knowingly proceeded and misrepresented receiving advice, the spousal support waiver did not significantly depart from Divorce Act objectives or reflect unanticipated circumstances, the oral offset agreement regarding joint credit card charges was admissible as part of the parties' en…

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Spousal support
• Equalization payment
• Independent legal advice
• Disclosure
• Unconscionability

Read case analysis

Kaur v. Jammu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the respondents over two properties, but awarded Harvir Kaur $21,000 for a 9% Surrey Condo interest and granted the divorce.

• Resulting trust
• Family property (s.81 fla)
• Equalization payment
• Spousal support entitlement
• Divorce
• Adverse inference from non-production of documents

Read case analysis

Munroe-Unsworth v. Unsworth

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On a 15-year relationship with largely traditional roles, the respondent established compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support; her income was imputed to $36,000 due to available work history, producing significant disparity with the petitioner. Considering the parties' means, needs, the priority of children's needs, and SSAG ranges, periodic spousal support of $500/month (from April 1, 2025) and a retroactive lump sum of $9,800 from December 2022 were appropriate. Matrimonial assets were divided equally per the court's Schedule A; pension division was deferred until re…

Source excerpt

• Section 7 expenses
• Equalization payment
• Pension division
• Imputed income
• Retroactive spousal support
• Enforcement

Read case analysis