Related Blog Posts
Select a category:
Search by keyword:
Wilson V. Fotsch, 2010 BCCA 226: Unjust Enrichment and Reciprocal Benefits
This case involved a common law relationship in which the parties were not married. The husband brought a claim for a declaration of constructive trust for a portion of the wife’s property. The common-law wife appealed from the husband’s successful application for a declaration of constructive trust. The parties began cohabiting in 1995 and separated in 2002. At the time the parties began living together, the wife owned a property with her mother, and her 50% interest was valued at $25,000. The wife subsequently purchased her mother’s interest and the parties lived in the home. The husband claimed to have made significant contributions, particularly in labour and improvements, to the property. He also worked in the wife’s janitorial business. In 2001 the wife sold the house for $129,900 and purchased a development property on Portage Road for $219,900. She obtained bank and other financing for the balance of the price. The husband claimed that he had contributed significant labour in improving the property and working on permits for subdivision. Throughout the relationship, the wife had worked two jobs and paid most of the family’s expenses. The husband was also employed, but his wages were not contributed to the family resources.
Importance of Properly Drafted Family Law Documents
Bill 16 has recently been introduced into the Provincial Legislature which proposes the introduction of the new Family Law Act. One of the dominant features of the new bill is how it changes the “best interests of the child” test in parenting decisions from the paramount consideration to the only consideration. The new Family Law Act created by the Bill could be in force as early as the Fall of 2012. In future entries we will be discussing how this new Act affects the law in British Columbia, and how it affects your family. Below we discuss a recent family law case which illustrates the confusion that can arise in the family law context as a result of a lack of specificity in drafting a court order.
Are You Married to Your Spouse? by Cristen Gleeson
Are you married to your spouse, or do you live in a common law relationship? In British Columbia, the answer to that question largely determines the property rights and financial rights of parties when their relationship breaks down. For married spouses, comprehensive statutes such as the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Relations Actprovide the starting point for division of property and other issues.
Pension Division Issues in Family Law
In Jarman v. Jarman, 2011 BCSC 1155, the Claimant was the former wife of the Respondent who was a retired Air Canada Pilot. The Respondent had an interest in two pension plans with Air Canada: the Air Canada Pension Plan for Pilots, and a Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “SRP”). Air Canada had a policy that no distribution would be made directly from the SRP and no direct settlement would be possible from the SRP.
Cross Border Issues: The Hague Convention and Child Custody
In the case of Medina v. Pallett (2010) B.C.S.C. 259, the petitioner father Medina was Honduran and the respondent mother Pallett was Canadian. Together they had one child who was born in Honduras in 2005. The child was left in Honduras with the child’s grandparents while Medina and Pallett attempted to settle in Canada. By the Spring of 2008 Medina’s ability to remain in Canada remained uncertain. He therefore no longer wanted to bring the child to Canada. Pallett argued that Medina signed the child’s Canadian passport application and Medina denied doing so. Without giving notice to Medina, Pallett went to Honduras and removed the child and brought the child to Canada. Pallett then commenced divorce proceedings in Canada and sought custody of the child and child maintenance. Medina brought an application to have the child returned to Honduras.
Formal Offers to Settle in Child Custody Trials
The Rules of Court allow for the service upon the opposing party of a formal offer to settle. If the party making the formal offer to settle receives a result at trial that is equal to or more successful than the formal offer, the offering party may receive his or her costs and may even argue for double costs following the trial result.