Canada Case Law

M.A.L. v. V.G.A.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On credibility and best interests grounds the mother's evidence was preferred, the father was found not fully credible and responsible for escalatory conduct including a family violence incident (June 17, 2022); joint guardianship retained but the mother granted final decision-making for education and health; parenting time ordered on a 14-day rotation giving mother 9 nights and father 5 nights (approx 60/40) with specified summer and holiday arrangements; respondent's property and disclosure claims regarding Indian land and bank/mutual funds were dismissed for lack of reliable evidence; resp…

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Guardianship
• Decision-making authority
• Section 7 expenses
• Family violence
• Conduct orders

Read case analysis

Cornwell v. Cornwell

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Applying ss.183–184 of the Family Law Act and the statutory factors, the court found the evidence did not establish that family violence is likely to occur; isolated historic or non‑physical incidents and intemperate electronic communications were insufficient to justify continuation of the without‑notice protection order, so the protection order was set aside and a reciprocal conduct order limiting communications was imposed instead.

Source excerpt

• Protection order
• Without‑notice orders
• Risk assessment
• Coercive and controlling behaviour
• Conduct orders
• Evidence and hearsay

Read case analysis

T.Y.W. v. V.Y.W.L.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judge divided the interlocutory applications into two groups (support/disclosure and parenting/conduct). Mother was substantially successful on support and disclosure and is awarded costs in any event of the cause to be paid at the conclusion of the family case, assessed on more than ordinary difficulty for 1.5 days; father was successful on key elements of the parenting/conduct applications but under Rule 16‑1(9) remains entitled to those application costs only in the cause (i.e. at trial if awarded), assessed on ordinary difficulty for 2 days; additionally mother is awarded $500 for the pas…

Source excerpt

• Interlocutory costs
• Support and guideline income
• Disclosure
• Section 91 restraining orders
• Interim distribution
• Parenting orders and overnight parenting

Read case analysis

M.J.F. v. G.J.F.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court found BC could exercise jurisdiction over parenting because the children were physically present in BC and substantial evidence was available, but declined jurisdiction over divorce, property and support in favour of Washington on forum non conveniens grounds (more ties, property law and evidence in Washington, risk of multiplicity and conflicting orders); accordingly BC proceedings on divorce, property and support were stayed while BC retained jurisdiction over parenting and ordered reunification counselling and staged contact.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Forum non conveniens
• Habitual residence
• Guardianship
• Parenting arrangements
• Child support

Read case analysis

P.M. v. S.C.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Claimant failed to establish that the respondent's move significantly impacted his ability to spend time with J.C.; therefore the exchange location will not be varied. Claimant breached a conduct order by copying the child on litigation emails, warranting a nominal fine, and claimant must pay fixed costs to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Exchange location
• Relocation under family law act
• Conduct orders
• Costs
• Fines

Read case analysis

K.A.L. v. S.A.J.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the balance of probabilities the parties separated on September 15, 2021; that separation date triggers the two‑year limitation under s.198(2)(b) of the Family Law Act and therefore the claimant's Part 5/6 claims are time-barred; the children's best interests favor stability so they remain at their Maple Ridge school; equal shared parenting time on the existing 2-2-5-5 schedule (with rotation swapped) is appropriate; claimant's income is reasonably imputed to $53,000 commencing June 1, 2025 (12 months after birth) for child support purposes, producing specified retroactive and prospective…

Source excerpt

• Date of separation
• Best interests of the child
• School relocation
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive child support
• Parenting responsibilities

Read case analysis

N.A.J. v. L.S.B.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court enforced a without notice order returning three children to British Columbia, dismissed the respondent’s protection order application, and made interim conduct and parenting orders.

• Without notice (ex parte) orders
• Protection order
• Parenting time
• Conduct orders
• Disclosure/non-disclosure
• Costs

Read case analysis

M.D.S. v. K.D.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the evidence the court was not satisfied that Mr. S's marihuana use or past limited cocaine use created objective risk to the children; the best interests analysis favored a gradual increase to shared parenting on the applicant's staged schedule (with a modification increasing virtual contacts), change to the Horn guardianship model, and no conduct restriction or mandatory testing at this time; a review provision was ordered allowing either party to apply without proving a material change of circumstances on or after July 1, 2026.

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Guardianship model (joyce v horn)
• Best interests of the child
• Hair follicle drug testing
• Conduct orders
• Costs

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

Greschner v. Greschner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal allowed in part for procedural unfairness in a family-law parenting dispute. The court set aside parts of the provincial orders and ordered a future hearing with viva voce evidence.

• Parenting time
• Consent order
• Procedural fairness
• Affidavit vs viva voce evidence
• Relocation
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis