Canada Case Law

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

Bowden v. Rudy

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the balance of probabilities the respondent's allegations of physical and sexual assault and intentional infliction of mental distress were not proven due to credibility concerns, inconsistent and omitted evidence, failure to call independent corroborating witnesses and limited probative weight of recordings; property is divisible equally after crediting respondent's established excluded equity and valuing the family home at trial date; claimant entitled to a monetary award of CAD 301,967 representing his share after adjustments; costs each party bears own costs.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Battery
• Sexual assault
• Intentional infliction of mental distress
• Property division
• Excluded property

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

Ludwig v. Ludwig

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the facts the court found the parties' marriage-like relationship began by December 2004; Hatchery Road purchase price ($151,831.59) was excluded property of the claimant and the increase in value to its sale ($380,074.14 minus purchase price) is family property; Mr. Ludwig retained an excluded property claim to a one-half pre-relationship interest in Lots 6 and 8 valued at $247,000, claimant established excluded contributions to Lots 6 and 8 totalling $98,783.50, the mid-point of competing 2023 appraisals was used to value Lots 6 and 8 ($766,500), family property and debts were equally di…

Source excerpt

• Commencement of marriage-like relationship
• Excluded property
• Valuation of family property
• Equalization of family property and debt
• Spousal support entitlement and quantum
• Retroactive spousal support

Read case analysis

Falconer v. Cohrs

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to treat the respondent's admissions and the appellant's uncontradicted evidence as establishing either that the respondent assumed sole responsibility for the $500,000 mortgage or that $500,000 of the acquisition funds remained the appellant's excluded property under s.85 FLA; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the net equity apportionment is varied to $1,919,902.12 for the appellant and $297,388.76 for the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Excluded property
• Oral agreement
• Apportionment of net equity
• Mortgage liability
• Cohabitation agreement

Read case analysis

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

P.R.C. v. C.K.C.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

알 수 없는

• Reopening appeal
• Fresh evidence
• Functus officio
• Miscarriage of justice
• Excluded property
• Damages

Read case analysis

Anka v. Ross

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law trial on property division and spousal support. The court granted divorce, divided property equally, rejected an unpleaded exclusion claim, and ordered periodic support.

• Excluded property
• Equalization of family property
• Lump sum vs periodic spousal support
• Imputation of income
• Pleading and amendment
• Evidence and tracing

Read case analysis

Papadogeorgos v. McMullan

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal about excluded property and unequal division of a former family residence, upholding equal division.

• Division of family property
• Excluded property
• Unequal division
• Tracing and gifts
• Standard of appellate review
• Family-property-division

Read case analysis

Dhesi v. Dhesi

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court resolved family property, trust, and support issues arising from the Dhesi separation, upheld Maninder Dhesi’s 50% interest in the Mission property, and ordered equalization and lump sum spousal support.

• Division of family property
• Excluded property
• Reapportionment (s.95 fla)
• Resulting trust
• Constructive trust
• Occupational rent

Read case analysis