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

Posts Tagged ‘BC child support’

Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John BC Retroactive Child Support Lawyers

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

We as Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John child support, divorce and family lawyers have handled a number of spousal and child support retroactive cases including an interim retroactive support award case called J v J . Our client was ecstatic when we obtained one of the highest interim awards of spousal and child support for our client which approached $30,000 per month combined, together with substantial retroactive child support.

We have also represented numerous clients where we have sought to retroactively correct child support upward to reflect increases in the paying spouses incomes as well as to retroactively correct downward support based on a paying spouse’s lower income on the basis that the paying spouses should pay support on the proper income under the guidelines.

If you want to correct spousal or child support retroactively call us at any of our 4 offices province wide or fill out our contact form so we can begin to assist you.

A good summary of the obligations each spouse has in this area can be found at the Justice Canada website:
(more…)

New BC Family Law, Criminal Law and Personal Injury and Immigration Law office Opening in Surrey, BC

Saturday, March 26th, 2011


MacLean Law Group’s Ethnic diversity expands to allow us provide family law, criminal law, personal injury ICBC and immigration legal services in Punjabi, Hindi and Farsi as well as in English!

Lorne MacLean, BC Divorce and family lawyer is proud to announce the location of the MacLean Family Law Group’s new Surrey British Columbia office located at the corner of Number 10 Highway and 152nd Street in Surrey, BC where clients from Langley, Surrey, White Rock and Delta BC as well as the Fraser Valley who speak Punjabi, Hindi as well as English will be helped. Mr. MacLean is delighted to have hired a new law associate who will start work in April 2011, namely Sumit Ahuja a lawyer, vakeel who speaks fluent Punjabi and Hindi as well as support staff who will also be able to help Punjabi speaking clients who need help in the areas of Divorce and Family law matters involving child custody and support, spousal support, property division and common law relationship issues. Sumit Ahuja will also assist with immigration law matters.

We have also hired two new associates who will handle Surrey family law, divorce and criminal law matters in all three of our offices namely Mike Jakeman and Ari Wormeli (May 22, 2011) and who look forward to assisting our clients in the Fraser Valley, Vancouver and in Fort St John BC.

Finally, we will soon add Ronak Yousefi a Farsi speaking Persian articling student who will become a lawyer in July 2011 working at our downtown Coal Harbour, Vancouver office who will help us with Persian and Farsi family law and immigration law clients who are more comfortable speaking Farsi when they seek our legal assistance.

We provide this link to Punjabi articles related to family law to assist our Surrey, Langley, Delta and White Rock Bc family law and divorce clients.

BC High Conflict Child Custody Parental Alienation- Levels of Alienation

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

Lorne MacLean, BC Child Custody Lawyer, in Victoria BC handling a parental alienation case


Lorne MacLean and Ari Wormeli are just finishing week 4 of a highly contested BC parental alienation and or estrangement case. These cases require a tremendous amount of work to uncover which aspect and or parent is causing the children to ally with one against visiting the other parent. Such cases are heartbreaking below we set out what types of alienation can exist as well as what types of alienating parents may be involved.

LEVELS OF SEVERITY OF PA

When parental alienation is mild, the child resists contact with the alienated parent, but enjoys his relationship with that parent once parenting time is underway. The child may have a strong, healthy relationship with both parents, even though the child recites criticisms of the alienated parent.

When parental alienation reaches a moderate degree of severity, the child strongly resists contact and is persistently oppositional during parenting time with the alienated parent. The child is likely to have a mildly to moderately pathological relationship with the preferred parent.

When parental alienation is at a severe degree of intensity, the child strongly and persistently resists contact and may hide or run away to avoid seeing the alienated parent. The child’s behavior is driven by a firmly held, false belief that the alienated parent is evil, dangerous, or worthless. The child is likely to have a strong, severely pathological relationship with the preferred parent, perhaps sharing a paranoid worldview.

What are the levels of intensity of alienating behavior?
 
In his book, Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children from Parental Alienation, Douglas Darnall (1998) proposed a three-tier classification system, now in common use, that distinguishes between naïve, active and obsessed alienators:

Naïve alienators make negative comments about the other parent but without serious intent to undermine the child’s relationship with that parent. Their negative comments tend to be careless remarks, and, in general, naïve alienators support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
 
Active alienators are more consistent and determined in their alienating behaviors. There is an intentional desire to criticize and undermine the targeted parent. Deep down, however, active alienators realize that what they are doing is wrong and potentially harmful to the child.

Obsessed alienators are determined to destroy the child’s relationship with the targeted parent. Obsessed alienators are extremists. They pressure the child to adopt their own negative view of the targeted parent, put much pressure on the child to emphatically reject the targeted parent, and cannot tolerate a good relationship between the child and the targeted parent.

What are the recommended treatments for parental alienation?
 
When parental alienation is properly recognized, that condition is preventable and treatable in many instances. The appropriate treatment is determined partly by the severity of the parental alienation manifested by the child and partly by the intensity of the alienating behaviors manifested by the alienating parent.
 
If the parental alienation is mild, the treatment can be accomplished by a parenting coordinator who helps the parents communicate in a constructive manner and gives them specific advice regarding their approach to the child’s activities with the alienated parent.
 
If the parental alienation is moderate, the treatment typically includes more intensive therapy for the child, mother, and father, as well as meetings with the parenting coordinator. If there are multiple therapists involved with the divorced family, they must agree regarding the nature of the problem and the goals of the treatment (Darnall, 2010).

If the parental alienation is severe, traditional forms of psychotherapy may not be effective. As time goes on, children with parental alienation become intractable in their false beliefs and their mental condition resembles that of individuals with delusional disorder. If the parental alienation is severe, it has usually been induced by an obsessed, alienating parent. Also, in some cases of moderate parental alienation, the cause of the condition is an obsessed, alienating parent. In both moderate and severe cases of parental alienation – when it is caused by an obsessed, alienating parent – it is necessary to greatly reduce or even eliminate the child’s exposure to that parent. See Gardner (2001), Darnall (2010), Warshak (2001, 2010), and Warshak and Otis (2010).
 
In such cases – when the parental alienation has been caused by an obsessed, alienating parent – it is necessary to transfer the children’s custody from the alienating parent to the custody of the alienated parent or perhaps to the temporary custody of a neutral caregiver. Once the child has been removed from the influence of the alienating parent, it is possible to help the child re-establish a comfortable, healthy relationship with the alienated parent. After that has occurred, it should be possible to allow contact gradually with the alienating parent, although that parenting time may need to be supervised. The ultimate goal is for the child to have a good relationship with both parents.

BC WISHES OF THE CHILD IN BC CHILD CUSTODY AND BC PARENTING TIME CASES BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT UNDER NEW BC LEGISLATION AND NEW CHILD CUSTODY DECISION

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

Photo of Lorne MacLean managing partner at MFLG and the Attorney General lawyers For the New BC Family Legislation

In earlier blog posts we have discussed how BC child custody decision making has evolved from excluding the child to protect them from stress to a new regime of believing children do better after marriage breakdown in child custody cases if they are involved. Of course the concern of how a child’s wishes have been influenced and the maturity of the child as well as whether the child wishes to refrain from telling the court their view must be weighed carefully. Further, what happens if a child changes there wishes 2 weeks after the hearing and then back again and so on. Will this new approach lead to parents frantically lobbying their children to live with them?

Here is the latest decision from Judge Martinson which amplifies her earlier decisions she has given in this regard.

Take note of how these wishes may be obtained including the Judge meeting directly with the children something which many judges are not comfortable with.

Click here for the full decision

BC DIVORCE and Holiday Season Financial Stresses and Child Custody

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

BC DIvorce Lawyer Lorne MacLean in Kelowna BC


Here is an article we feel relates well to BC divorcing parents who face BC child custody and BC child and spousal support challenges that we obtained from social worker Gary Direnfeld in a past post which we felt appropriate at this time of year.

Happy Holiday Season Depends on Family Financial Planning

Many kids have parents convinced that life will just be a bust without the latest video game or hottest cell phone. With the recession looming large though, parents are struggling to shelter the children from their financial and employment woes, yet bestow upon them a memorable Christmas.

As parents withhold their concerns, their children continue to up the ante for this year’s Christmas take. The risk is either a disappointing Christmas or overwhelming New Year’s bills.

The challenge is for parents to resist the incoming tide of subtle and not so subtle expectations.

To reduce the risk of Christmas gift disappointment and overwhelming bills, try some family financial Christmas planning with these strategies:
Be honest and forthright with teenaged children about your financial and employment concerns, without trying to instill fear. Let your children know of your plans to survive the economic meltdown including cutting back on the Christmas gift-giving budget. This may actually put them to ease despite their upset at the impact of the current economic situation too.

Inform your children of your budget and ask them for their gift preferences in line with the budget. When expectations are clear on both sides, there is less room for disappointment.

Involve your children in cost-cutting decisions and making plans for Christmas celebrations. It just may be that if included, they come up with some good ideas. Being part of the planning process, they will then likely enjoy what you mutually determine.

Pool resources. You may not be able to afford that one special gift yourself. However, if you go in on it with a few relatives, it may then be affordable. So the answer may not be how many gifts are given and received, but how many people contribute to that one special present

Children typically respond and adjust better to change when they are part of the process. The recession is real and discussing it with them can help them to cope better and you to feel better. Children may be initially disappointed and that would be normal and reasonable. However, they too must learn to live within their means and make the best of life and circumstances. A memorable Christmas may just be one where everyone comes together with a workable plan to enjoy the day.

New BC Family Relations Act Reform 2010 BC Family Law White Paper-Lorne N. MacLean interviewed on CKNW AM 980 on the Proposed BC Family Law Act

Monday, July 19th, 2010

New BC Family Law changes- BC Family Relations Act Reform 2010 and the BC Family Law Act White Paper provides dramatic BC Family Law reforms to BC spousal support, BC family property division, BC common law property division, BC child custody-Lorne N. MacLean will be interviewed on the BC Family Relations Act Reform Law , tonight at 5:30PM on CKNW AM 980. Mr. MacLean will be talking about important new changes to the Family Relations Act. The new act will be called the Family Law Act and the deadline for written input/comment on the white paper will be October 8, 2010. Some of the proposed changes to Family Relations Act reflect issues that Mr. MacLean has addressed before the Supreme Court of Canada in Young v. Young [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 and in the Leskun v. Leskun [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920 decision. Some of the proposed changes will address the property rights of married and common-law couples; guardianship of children and decision-making about children; the enforcement of access orders; mobility and relocation issues; spousal support; and, parenting coordination, arbitration and mediation. Below is the executive summary, for the report click here.

New Family Relations Act Reform 2010 Changes Coming


White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

British Columbia’s Family Relations Act has not been comprehensively reviewed since its introduction in the late 1970s. Since 2006, the British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General has been researching and consulting on how best to modernize this important area of the law. The draft legislation discussed in this white paper reflects the results of its policy review.

The main features of the proposed new family statute are:

TOPIC RECOMMENDED POLICY
Overall Approach Promote co-operation to the extent possible. For example:

  • Structure the law so that court is not the only implied starting point.
  • Promote a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options.
  • Adopt a conflict prevention approach to family law disputes.
  • Increase the law’s ability to deal with family violence and safety issues.
  • Use less adversarial terminology.
  • Meet the overall goals of the Family Relations Act review.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution and Agreements

Promote non-court dispute resolution. For example:

  • Require family justice professionals to provide early information to clients on dispute resolution options.
  • Enable parenting coordination by agreement or court order.
  • Amend the Commercial Arbitration Act to address family arbitrations.
  • Provide for regulation-making authority to define practice standards/qualifications for family dispute resolution practitioners, as and if required.

Encourage agreements by providing greater clarity regarding when and how an agreement may be set aside:

  • Parenting agreements may be set aside if they are not in the best interests of the child.
  • Child support agreements may be set aside if they fail to comply with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
  • All agreements may be set aside for lack of procedural fairness, such as significant failure to disclose or where one party has taken unfair advantage of the other.
  • Property and support agreements can be set aside for non-procedural reasons in limited circumstances where it would be clearly unfair.

Legal Parentage
Include a comprehensive scheme to determine a child’s legal parents, including in situations where reproductive technology has been used.

Children’s Best Interests

  • Make children’s best interests the only consideration in parenting disputes and identify children’s safety as an overarching objective of the best interests of the child test.
  • Add further best interests factors, including the history of the child’s care, family violence, and consideration of civil or criminal proceedings relevant to the safety or well-being of the child.
  • Provide for consideration of a child’s views unless it would be inappropriate  to encourage greater inclusion of children’s views

Guardianship- Enact reforms to the Act’s treatment of guardianship, including the following:

Replace the terms custody and access with guardianship and parenting time.
Define guardianship  through a list of parental responsibilities that can be allocated to allow for more customized parenting arrangements.

Provide that parents retain responsibility for their children upon separation if they have lived together with the child after the child’s birth. (Note: this does not mean that the law presumes an automatic 50-50 split of parental responsibilities or parenting time.) If they have not, the parent with whom the child lives is the guardian.
Consolidate guardianship of children into the new law by including testamentary and standby guardianship.

When Orders or Agreements for Time with a Child are not Respected

Include a new range of tools and remedies to address non-compliance with orders and agreements for time with a child:
Remedies range from moderate to extraordinary remedies depending on the facts of the situation and history of non-compliance.
Provide different remedies for failure to allow parenting time/contact and failure to exercise parenting time/contact.

Relocation

Introduce a relocation regime that aims to increase certainty and predictability of the law of relocation, the highlights of which are:
Include a mandatory 60-day notice-of-move provision, to provide an opportunity for parties to try to resolve any disputes about the proposed move.
List factors that must be considered (e.g. the reasons for the proposed move and whether the proposed move is likely to enhance the general quality of life of the child and the guardian planning the move) and factors that must not be considered (e.g. whether the guardian would be willing to move without the child in any event).
Include presumptions to be applied where the proposed move is contested.

Children’s Property
Add provisions relating to children’s property that would:

  • Enable a child guardian(s) to manage property below a certain monetary threshold without a court order.
  • Provide court oversight of larger children’s trusts, including the appointment of private trustees.

Property Division

Enact major reforms to the law of property division regime, that would:

  • Extend it to common-law spouses who have lived together for two years in a marriage-like relationship or who are in marriage-like relationship of some permanence and have children together.
  •  Exclude certain types of property (e.g. pre-relationship property, gifts, and inheritances) from the pool of family property to be divided 50-50.
  •  Limit judicial discretion to reapportion family property or to divide excluded property to circumstances where it would be clearly unfair not to do so.
  • Provide that debts are subject to equal division.
  •  Set as defaults: the date of separation as the triggering event and the date of the court order or agreement as the valuation date.
  • Limit the ability of judges to set aside or change property division agreements.
  •  Enable interim orders, including for the distribution of property for the purposes of funding litigation or dispute resolution.
  • Enact conflict of laws provisions to address property outside of British Columbia.

Pension Division

Enact most of the major and housekeeping recommendations made by the British Columbia Law Institute in its 2006 report on the division of pensions.
Extend the pension division scheme to unmarried spouses who meet the definition of spouse.
Support Minor changes to the child support provisions to ensure consistency with new Act’s language and
structure.

Minor changes to spousal support provisions:

  • Align provincial spousal support factors and objectives more closely with the Divorce Act.
  • Explicitly permit periodic reviews.
  • Permit variation applications in light of the spousal support objectives and factors where there has been a change in circumstances, new evidence or a failure to make full and frank disclosure.
  • Limit consideration of a spouse’s alleged misconduct to that which œarbitrarily or unreasonably affects the need for support or the ability to provide it.
  • Provide that spousal support obligations continue after the death of the paying spouse unless otherwise agreed or ordered.
  • Clarify that spousal support should be awarded only where spousal support objectives have not already been met through property division.
  • Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines will not be referred to in the Act and will remain advisory.

Eliminate parental support obligations.

Case Management and Enforcement Tools

Include a broader range of case management and enforcement tools for judges. In particular:

  • Provide for a new type of order called “conduct orders” and corresponding remedies for non-compliance to manage behaviour and facilitate resolution, for example, through referrals to a service, program, counselling or non-court dispute resolution process,
  • providing for a party to pay the other’s reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the non-compliance, and limiting frivolous or vexatious litigation.
  • Establish a general duty to disclose information, and provide for a greater range of remedies for failure to comply with an order to disclose.

Protection Orders

Replace existing family law restraining orders with protection orders enforceable under the Criminal Code.

Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters

The new family statute will carry forward many of the jurisdictional provisions from the Family Relations Act. Proposed procedural changes include the following:

  • Lawyers must certify that information about non-court dispute resolution options has been provided prior to filing court documents.
  • Family cases are to be conducted, to the extent possible, in a way that minimizes delay, cost and formality, reduces conflict and promotes co-operation, protects those involved, and is proportionate to the dispute.
  • Children who are 16 or older or who are parents, spouses or former spouses will be able to conduct court cases without a litigation guardian.

Transition

Where a court action has been started but not yet resolved before the effective date, the Family Relations Act applies unless the parties enter into a written agreement stating that the new Act governs. Cases that have already been time-barred under the Family Relations Act are not revived by the new Act.
Where a court action has been started on or after the effective date, the new Act applies.
Orders and declarations made under the previous law continue in force according to their terms, but subsequent applications made on or after the effective date (e.g., to vary or enforce) are governed by the new Act.

Key Canadian Tax Decision Allows Deduction of Divorce and Family Law Legal Fees Related to BC Child Support

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Lorne MacLean -New Tax Deduction for Legal Fees to Claim BC Child Support

A new Tax Court ruling affecting BC child support legal fee deduction could help you save thousands provided your BC family law counsel is aware of this important development. Come see The BC child support lawyers at MacLean Family Law Group to learn more about how this important ruling affects you. In short a new case has expanded the class of people able to deduct legal fees to claim BC child support.

If you are seeking child support from you former spouse you are entitled to a CRA tax deduction of those legal fees against your income tax payable thanks to Trignani v. The Queen [2010] TCC 209.

In this case, the separating parent’s August 2000 agreement stipulated joint custody for the child and the appellant was to pay child support of $350/month. In May 2001 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that the appellant would have sole interim custody of the child with the spouse having interim access 50 percent of the time with supervision. And, the appellant was to continue to pay $350/month in child support.

For the majority of the time the appellant had physical custody of the child because appropriate supervision at the spouse’s residence was not available.

The Honourable Justice Judith Woods in her decision dated April 9, 2010 notes that as long as the person seeking, or pursuing child support against the other parent does not abandon their claim for child support before the relevant legal services were provided; and, that it has not been determined by a court that you do not have a pre-existing right to child support because that right was extinguished by a court order, then you are entitled to the deduction in computing your income.

It has generally been accepted that legal expenses incurred to obtain child support are deductible in computing income: Wakeman v. The Queen, [1996] 3 CTC 2585; McColl v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 2148; Sabour v. The Queen, [2002] 1 CTC 2585 (in obiter at para 9); and Rabb v. The Queen, [2006] 3 CTC 2266. This principle is also accepted by the Canada Revenue Agency, as evidenced by Interpretation Bulletin IT-99R5, at para 17.

With respect to child support, legal expenses have been considered to be on current account on the basis that there is a pre-existing right by virtue of a legislative obligation on each parent to support their children.

A note of caution must be raised: The person seeking child support or pursuing a claim for child support must be making a bona fide claim that is not frivolous, and must have a reasonable prospect of success. You will also need to have your lawyer keep track what portion of fees related to child custody and get a letter from them that sets out the correct amount.

BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines-SSAG- BC Support Success Story for MacLean Family Law Group-Pre Tax Profits Used For High Support

Sunday, June 13th, 2010

Lorne MacLean Vancouver BC spousal support guideline award and SSAG spousal support guidelines lawyer


Lorne MacLean BC SSAG support and spousal support guidelines lawyer, using the with child support spousal support advisory guideline formula, recently succeeded in obtaining a lucrative BC Spousal Support Advisory guideline ” SSAG” and BC child support guidelines award on behalf of his client, the wife, in a complex and high net worth BC spousal support guidelines and BC child support guidelines proceeding where a BC child support award of $8771 retroactive for 13 months (plus private school and extracurricular fess of roughly $3000 monthly) and a BC spousal support advisory guidelines award of $17714 was ordered meaning the combined monthly payments of spousal support advisory guidelines support and child support approached $30,000 per month. The award ranks as one of the highest court BC spousal support awards in BC since the SSAG spousal support calculations came into effect. Mr. MacLean succeeded in having the court use all of the companies pre-tax profits for the SSAG calculation based on BCCA law from the cases of Klukas and Teja, defeating the husband’s spousal support claim that double dipping applied to BC spousal support and a lower BC spousal and BC child support payment should thus be paid, blocking any $350,000 cap argument where BC spousal support is not increased on high salaries above $350,000 per year and finally in having the child support portion of the order made retroactive so a large lump sum payment was received for the children’s benefit. We were delighted to have achieved such a generous BC spousal support and BC child support result for our BC family law client.

For privacy reasons the case is referred to as A.R.J. v. Z.S.J. [2009] B.C.J. No. 2393, B.C.S.C. The brief facts are:
-Married for 16 years.
-Two children.
-Husband, a surgeon, was sole director and equal shareholder in his professional services corporation.
-A personal services corporation unlike a company involved in a riskier or more capital intensive maunufacturing business, generally speaking, does not require significant injections of capital in order to operate.
-Citing our Appellate case authority Mr Justice Savage determined that in the absence of legitimate calls on the pre-tax corporate income of a company, children and a spouse are entitled to support based on the full income available to the payor spouse.
-The double-dipping argument was rejected as it was the income earning capacity of the payor that gave rise to the assets in the company and this argument was not valid.
-No $350,000 cap would be used for the husband’s income which would have drastically lowered the wife’s support.

We look forward to helping high net worth spouses involved in complex family law cases.

A Happy Client gives Lorne MacLean a Great Birthday Cake

BC Law on Varying or Setting Aside Unfair BC Separation Agreements or BC Marriage Agreements 2010 Update

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

We are often asked to review BC separation agreement or BC marriage agreements with a view to setting the BC separation or BC Marriage agreement aside and Shelagh Kinney of our BC Family Law office had a nice win recently in a case on behalf of the wife in L v. L, a BC Supreme Court separation agreement variation 2010 decision.

Our Supreme Court in the Brandsema decision warned spouses that fair agreements made with full disclosure between spouses on an equal footing will be protected but unfair exploitive agreements will not be sanctioned. In Brandsema the Court focussed on non-disclosure by the husband and varied the agreement to give the wife more money on the following basis:

Abella J., speaking for the majority, stated (at paras. 1–6):

“This court has frequently recognized that negotiations following the disintegration of a spousal relationship take place in a uniquely difficult context. The reality of this singularly emotional negotiating environment means that special care must be taken to ensure that, to the extent possible, the assets of the former relationship are distributed through negotiations that are free from informational and psychological exploitation.

…

This appeal, therefore, attracts a spotlight to the duties owed by separating spouses during the process of negotiating and executing a separation agreement for the division of matrimonial assets. In Miglin, based on the inherent vulnerability of spouses during negotiations, this Court stated that in order to safeguard a separation agreement from judicial intervention, a spouse must refrain from using exploitative tactics. It held that the failure to do so, particularly if the agreement fails to materially comply with the objectives of the governing legislation, could well result in the agreement being set aside.

The circumstances of this case move us to consider the implications flowing from Miglin for the deliberate failure of a spouse to provide all the relevant financial information in negotiations for the division of assets. In my view, it is a corollary to the realities addressed by this court in Miglin that there be a duty to make full and honest disclosure of such information when negotiating separation agreements.

The husband’s exploitative conduct, both in failing to make full and honest disclosure and in taking advantage of what he knew to be his wife’s mental instability, resulted in a finding of unconscionability. The trial judge accordingly ordered that the wife be compensated in an amount representing the difference between her negotiated equalization payment and her entitlement under British Columbia’s Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128. On the facts and law, I see no reason to disturb his conclusion.”

Spouses need to approach the settlement negotiations frankly and ensure the opposing party gets independent legal advice. Home made agreements are unlikely to protect either side and a little money and effort spent doing it right the first time will ensure savings on expensive legal fees after the fact.

Lorne MacLean

MacLean Family Law Group Layers and Articled Students

Adultery and Misconduct in BC Divorce and British Columbia Separation

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Lorne MacLean- Divorce Lawyer- brings a Fresh Perspective to Your Case


Many BC divorce and British Columbia Separated parents involved in a BC child custody case think their chances of receiving child custody, more or less support, or a larger share of the family property will change if their spouse has had an affair.

In reality an affair has little if any impact on the issues surrounding marriage breakdown. In the infamous case of Leskun we acted for husband who had had an affair and we were successful in the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the principle that a spouse’s affair was irrelevant to the issues of spousal support unless it could be proven, supported by medical evidence, that the affair had a negative financial impact the other spouse that prevented them from earning what they normally would have earned. The ability of one spouse to sue the other spouse or mistress for damages for an affair or for “alienation of affection” was long ago abolished in British Columbia. While there still is the ability to sue for damages for physical and mental abuse in British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada has narrowed the scope of this claim in their decision of Frame v. Smith.

We warn our spouses that a new relationship during the end of a shaky marriage or immediately after the marriage has broken down can negatively impact a child custody claim if it is shown that the new person is introduced too soon into a relationship or that the new relationship distracts the separating spouse from focusing on their children and putting their children’s interests ahead of their own. A new relationship can also impact and reduce a receiving spouse’s claim for support under some circumstances. We want people to go slow as it is imperative people do not “jump from the frying pan into the fire”.The existence of a new relationship often will not help promote a quick settlement so this is a critical factor to consider as well!

Some people argue that Canada should return to the old fault days of divorce where misconduct resulted in negative consequences to the offending spouse. As an example of what might happen if Canada were to return to the antediluvian days of fault we point to the recent decision in United States below.

Wife’s $9m victory in adultery case warns mistresses to ‘lay off’: Cynthia Shackelford, 60, was awarded the unprecedented sum by a jury in the United States for damages to her feelings under an obscure 19th century adultery law; North Carolina is one of seven states in America where the so-called “alienation of affection” law is still in force. It evolved from common law under which women were classes as property of their husbands. As property, they were something that could be stolen. The award was made against Anne Lundquist, 49, an administrator at a private school, who was accused of having an affair with Allan Shackelford, a 62 year-old lawyer who had been married to Mrs. Shackelford for 33 years. The jury awarded her $5 million compensation and also awarded $4 million in punitive damages to be paid by Miss Lundquist. Miss Lundquist, who is now the dean of students at Wells College, in Aurora, New York, did not attend the court hearing and said she had not even been told it was happening. She is appealing. She said: “I’m so caught off guard by everything. I don’t have a lot of money, so where this $9 million comes from is kind of hysterical.” “My main message is to all those women out there who might have their eyes on some guy that is married to not come between anybody,” Ms. Shackelford told “Good Morning America”. “I wanted other people to understand, before they do it, how much it hurts.” Lee Rosen, of the Rosen Law Firm in North Carolina, said the state has around 200 “alienation of affection” claims a year. He said: “If your spouse is going to cheat, you really would like them to cheat with somebody who has a lot of money.”
As reported in:
Coffee Break – North, Fort St. John, Vol. 1.23 March 27-April 4, 2010


MacLean Family Law Group Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).