Canada Case Law

J.M.W. v. B.R.P.W.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court lacked jurisdiction under the Milman review clause and s.168 FLA to extend the duration of spousal support established at trial; the claimant failed to adduce admissible expert medical evidence to displace the imputed $30,000 income and therefore her imputed income remains; however, the respondent's substantial increase in gross (and tax-exempt) income and provision of rent-free housing constituted a material change of circumstances and nondisclosure that justified varying the quantum of child and spousal support, grossing up tax-exempt income under the Federal Guidelines and making…

Source excerpt

• Variation and review of support orders
• Retroactive support
• Income gross-up for tax-exempt income
• Imputation of income
• Disclosure/non-disclosure
• Admissibility of expert medical evidence

Read case analysis

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

Loehr v. Loehr

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imputed the respondent's 2024 Guideline income at $195,309 and his 2025 income at $180,000 (three-year average), imputed the claimant's Guideline income at $70,000, declined to grant the respondent a retroactive variation to January 1, 2024 or to terminate spousal support as of November 1, 2024, ordered spousal support payable in the SSAG mid-range based on imputed incomes from July 1, 2025 until June 2029, ordered child support to reflect the imputed incomes and the claimant's full-time parenting from February 1, 2024, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Variation/review of support
• Retroactive support
• Spousal support duration
• Parenting time impact

Read case analysis

Block v. Block

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Costs were ordered to run from preparation of the claimant's April 6, 2017 application because that is the genesis of the issues decided at trial; special costs were declined because the reprehensible conduct found by the trial judge principally related to pre-litigation conduct (2011) and post-2017 conduct did not meet the high threshold for special costs; the December 23, 2021 settlement offer met Rule 11-1 and ought reasonably to have been accepted, so double costs are awarded from January 4, 2022 to October 2, 2024; outside that window costs are awarded as a matter of more than ordinary d…

Source excerpt

• Special costs
• Double costs
• Misrepresentation
• Disclosure obligations
• Separation agreement set aside
• Retroactive support

Read case analysis

J.S.M. v. T.K.N.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim family-law reasons granting child and spousal support, imputing income to the claimant, ordering arrears, and limiting document production.

• Child support
• Spousal support
• Income imputation
• Interim orders
• Document production
• Retroactive support

Read case analysis

Edwards v. Edwards

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the interim application the court imputed $30,000 of additional employment income to Ms. Edwards effective June 1, 2025, otherwise accepted her declared guideline income for the purposes of the application; declines to impute further income based on alleged access to Merom sale proceeds or parental advances on the present record; adjourns determination of retroactive spousal support from Jan 1, 2022 to trial for full evidentiary record; awards interim spousal support effective July 1, 2025; grants divorce; parties bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Spousal support
• Child support
• Income imputation
• Disclosure
• Retroactive support
• Variation of consent order

Read case analysis

Xu v. Yao

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to make the interim awards retroactive to December 2023 and held the orders from the prior judgment are effective as of March 10, 2025, because the potential size of a retroactive lump sum, unresolved factual and income-imputation issues, the proximity of the scheduled trial (September 2026), and the state of the evidence weigh in favor of deferring retroactivity to the trial judge.

Source excerpt

• Retroactive support
• Income imputation
• Private school fees
• Commencement date of payments
• Prejudice and enforcement risks

Read case analysis

Ocean v Bennett

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the evidence and law the court found unjust enrichment in relation to the IP property but not the SB property; no juristic reason prevented recovery and a joint family venture was not established, so equal division of net equity of IP was ordered (value fixed at average of appraisals $732,000 less encumbrances and disposition costs yielding net equity $687,426 and equalization to applicant $343,713); family‑violence findings establish applicant (Ocean) as perpetrator and victim (Bennett) as recipient of abuse, the novel tort of family violence is not recognized here and assault/battery dam…

Source excerpt

• Unjust enrichment
• Spousal support
• Family violence
• Coercive control
• Assault and battery
• Property valuation

Read case analysis

Brooks v. Griggs

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applicant was entirely successful on all contested issues; Tariff A award of $14,250 is increased by $8,000 because of respondent's serious and repeated failure to disclose, the costs of securing disclosure, misuse of financial imbalance, and unnecessary litigation steps; disbursements and HST totaling $7,502.80 are recoverable; total costs awarded are $29,752.80 payable in 45 days. The court noted an alternative lump sum approach producing approximately 75% of fees would yield a similar result but the court affirmed the Tariff A-based calculation with uplift and disbursements.

Source excerpt

• Spousal support
• Variation of support
• Retroactive support
• Disclosure obligations
• Costs awards
• Tariff a

Read case analysis

B.M.S. v. M.D.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a family law summary trial in part, dividing McBride Property proceeds equally, imputing income, and ordering child and spousal support.

• Summary trial
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive support
• Section 7 expenses
• Security for support
• Family violence

Read case analysis