To reach us at any time, call our toll free number: 1-877-602-9900

  • MacLean Family Law Group - Vancouver

  • Suite 3103 - 1077 West Cordova Street
  • Vancouver, BC
  • V6C 2C6
  • Tel: 604-602-9000
  • Fax: 604-682-0556
  • MacLean Family Law Group - Fort St. John

  • 9503 100th Avenue
  • Fort St. John, BC
  • V1J 4N4
  • Tel: 250-262-5052
  • Fax: 250-262-5053
  • Search BC Family Law

Archive for January, 2010

BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT REVIEW ORDERS AND ATTRIBUTED AND IMPUTED INCOME TO RECEIPIENT SPOUSE AND ONUS AT BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT HEARING REVIEW HEARING

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Lorne MacLean Founding Partner and Divorce Lawyer MacLean family Law Group
The Supreme Court of Canada defined the limited situations when a BC spousal support review can be ordered on BC spousal support awards in the Leskun. The British Columbia spousal support review order is still used as a tool to encourage a reluctant spouse to take steps to move in part or in whole towards self- sufficiency.

The recent decision of Reggelsen v. Reggelsen, 2009 BCSC 1790 – 2009/12/29 follows a line of cases that uses BC spousal support reviews to encourage a spouse to work toward self sufficiency when the spouse is hesitant or refuses to do so without the court nudging them towards this goal by way of reducing a BC spousal support award at the review on the basis of the spouses’s lack of effort to reenter the workforce.

The cases can specify the terms of review and can place the onus on one spouse to show they have made reasonable efforts to reenter the workforce. The problem remains however in setting the income level a spouse who has refused to enter the workforce can earn. The court must look at the education, work skills and work history as well as evidence of existing jobs the spouse could get and then attribute and income to them pursuant to section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (they apply to spousal support too!).

Although the Supreme Court of Canada established that reviews should rarely be ordered, the courts in BC have continued to use reviews as a useful tool to allow a court to deal with future issues related to spousal support at a time when the actual living arrangements and income and expenses of the parties will be able to be correctly determined. It is often difficult to predict a career path for a spouse who is reentering the work force after a long period of time or who has health issues that impact on their ability to work or how a payor’s career might be impaired by a poor economy or changes in the marketplace. The case of Reggelsen applied the review principals to reduce spousal support by a few hundred dollars a month but the court refused to terminate support as the husband requested.

We provide the key case extracts below:
(more…)

BC FAMILY ASSETS AND BC PROPERTY DIVISION AND BC FAMILY ASSET VALUATION ISSUES IN SPECIE DIVISION OF FAMILY ASSETS

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

img_5968
Many BC Family Law and British Columbia divorce clients who have BC family assets and who are dividing BC family assets may be missing the boat on getting their fair share of BC family assets or other or BC business assets when an asset at the time of trial or division in a separation agreement has no current value but which BC family asset has the potential to increase in value in the future. Where a BC commercial property or BC business asset or BC patent asset currently has no value a good BC Family Law lawyer should ensure that you do not simply transfer your one half share in this BC family asset to the other spouse for no value. We recently settle the case by ensuring that our client obtained an in specie division meeting a division of the asset itself for example on a property rather than simply transferring your one half share to your other spouse for no money consider trying to stay in as a half owner so that you can participate in the gain in the future. Of course you have to consider seriously the upside and downside of staying in on a asset which currently has no value. You should also consider what contribution you may have to make in the future as a partner in this asset and you should also consider if it’s appropriate for ex-spouses to continue to work together after they are divorced or separate.

A recent example of an in specie division of an asset with potential upside was made in Smith v Smith 2008 BCCA 245. We provide the extract from the reasons below.
(more…)