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 family law’

What Family Property is Shared when we Divorce? BC Family Assets Defined

Friday, April 9th, 2010

When you divorce BC family asset property like the “Wedding Van” above can be divided, most often equally, if they fit the following criteria in one or more of the following ways:

1.s. 58(2)— BC family asset property ordinarily used for a family purpose;

2.s. 58(3)(e)—a venture which fits the BC family asset definition to which the spouse has directly or indirectly contributed; and

3.s. 59—property used primarily for a business towards which a direct or indirect contribution was made by the other spouse to the operation of the business which makes it a divisible BC family asset.

The British Columbia legislation is broad and will capture most property in a marriage but not all. The onus is one the spouse alleging it is not a family asset to prove it is outside the scope of the above factors.

Call us if you have questions on what assets are or are not to be divided upon marriage breakdown. Note different rules apply to unmarried spouses.

BC Separation Law for Divorcing and Separating Common Law and Unmarried Spouses

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Lorne MacLean Vancouver BC Family Lawyer


We as British Columbia family law and BC divorce lawyers as well as lawyers acting for unmarried couples are often asked to explain the differences in law that applies to divorcing as opposed to separating unmarried couples.

There are several differences between the legal rights of individuals separating from a marriage versus those that are separating from a Common Law relationship. In this article a very brief synopsis of some of the most significant differences will be highlighted. Please note that this should not to be considered as legal advice that is necessarily relevant to your own situation. Should you be considering a separation or are in the midst of a separation we urge you to seek legal advice as soon as possible.

In British Columbia you must cohabit 2 years in a marriage-like relationship before you are considered as being in a common law relationship. If the common law nature of a a relationship is disputed by one party, the Court will embark on a consideration of all factors regarding the relationship to establish whether it fits under this definition. The facts considered will include but not limited to the sexual involvement of the couple, their economic codependence, roles played by each party (ie. homemaker and breadwinner) and whether there are any children borne of the relationship.

1. Property

When married couples separate, no matter how long the marriage, pursuant to section 56 if the Family Relations Act the parties have a presumptive one-half interest in all family property. While under section 65 of the Family Relations Act one or both separating couples may request a reapportionment of assets in their favour, the fact is that the Courts must be persuaded to depart from the presumptive equal splitting of property. This means that with married couples, upon separation property division is somewhat simplified in quantum percentage save for the rare time when there is evidence to suggest that it would be unfair to proceed with the equal division.

All of the assets, property and debt in a marriage are presumed to be family assets and up for division. A party must demonstrate that the exclusion of an asset, property or debt in the division (or reapportionment) is appropriate or else it will be thrown into the pot for consideration.

Conversely, when common law couples separate, there is no presumptive equal split of family assets. As a matter of fact, there are no “family” assets per say, but rather a bundle of assets or property in one or both parties’ names which must be plodded through to determine the quantum of ownership that is appropriate in a given situation. One (or both) parties must claim their stake in the assets or property by arguing that the other party has been unjustly enriched by their own contribution. In basic terms, what needs to be established is that one spouse has been enriched, there is a corresponding deprivation to the other spouse, and there is no legal reason for the enrichment.

This argument can attach to all sorts of assets or property, including but not limited to real property (ie. land and home), vehicles, RRSP’s, pensions and bank accounts.

In common law separations the equitable relief of quantum meruit is generally sought alongside unjust enrichment and roughly translates from Latin as “reasonable value of services”. The approach when arguing this relief usually takes the form of establishing the fair market price for such services as housekeeping services, cooking and child rearing, which in some cases can be attached to the trust claim for unjust enrichment as a means of strengthening it or used in the alternative to such a claim (ie. 10 years at $2000 a month average services rendered established and then this claim settled by a portion of the proceeds of sale of the home).

What is disturbing to many common law parties who apply to Court to enforce their legal rights is that unlike married couples, they may have to first prove the common law nature of their relationship (using the factors listed above) and then they must prove their contribution to assets and property which they always were assured of or assumed they had an equal share in. The Court process may include providing proof from a non-title party to a home of the following services rendered when it comes to the home: gardening services, renovations undertaken, money invested and maintenance services. It can get as tedious as reviewing bills for renovation supplies to see who paid them and having 3rd parties testify to who they saw sweeping the deck and clearing the bushes every Saturday and also what might be charged for such services.

2. Spousal Support

As mentioned above, a common-law partnership is only established in British Columbia after 2 years of a marriage-like relationship. It is only after this two-year mark that upon separation one party can claim spousal support from the other. It is important to note that unlike in marriages, the decision to seek relief of spousal support in Court must be made within 1 year of separation. There is no such deadline upon marriage separation nor is there a minimum length of marriage before one party can receive spousal support from the other. In theory, while rare, a party that was only married for a few months and did not cohabit prior to marriage can request and receive spousal support from the other.

The amount and length that one party receives spousal support from the other is determined in identical fashion in the breakdown of common law relationships and marriages.

3. Child Support

There are no significant differences in basic child support received by parties who were in common law relationships versus those in marriage. The amount and length are determined in identical fashion in the breakdown of common law relationships and marriages.

4. Custody and Access

There are no differences between the manner in which these issues are determined in common law relationships versus those in marriages. The determining factor is the best interests of the child(ren).

BC CHILD CUSTODY AND INTERNATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY LAW HAGUE CONVENTION

Friday, March 19th, 2010

NEW BC CHILD CUSTODY AND HAGUE CASE FROM THE BC COURT OF APPEAL

The BC Court of Appeal recently released the decision BC child custody and guardianship decision of Kubera v. Kubera 2010 BCCA 118 wherein the Court considered the meaning of the phrase “settled in” pursuant to Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Article 12 allows exceptions to the “return rule” of the Hague Convention where a Court can determine that a child, although wrongfully removed from his or her home can be permitted to stay in their new country of residence. The purpose of the “settled in” exception is to prevent further disruption to a child’s life in the new home environment. The Court held that each consideration would be very fact specific to the child in question, taking a “child-centric” approach. Both the “physical element” of a child’s established community and the “emotional element” of a child’s security and stability has to be considered.

The main concern this case raises is the Court’s comments with respect to the timing of the consideration as to when the child can be considered “settled in” to the new environment and whether the Court should consider the circumstances when the child was wrongfully removed or at the date of the hearing. The Court held that all of the circumstances had to be considered but that the current situation of the child was very important. This statement leads to the concern that abductor parents will try to delay the expeditious hearing of a return application in order to create a more settled in situation for the child. The more delay there is the better the chances they will be permitted to stay. Given the Court’s decision, parents seeking the return of their children have to be even more vigilant about pursuing their rights under the Hague Convention as quickly as possible.

If your child has been abducted or you have questions about international child custody, contact Shawna Specht of our office and book your appointment today.

BC DIVORCE AND VANCOUVER FAMILY LAW LAWYERS MANAGING PARTNER LORNE MACLEAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTIN WERB

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

lnmjw1

SMART BC DIVORCE TIPS # 6 WINNING BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT ADVISORY GUIDELINES VIDEO RELEASED

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

BC Spousal Support and the applicability of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for separated spouses is a complex and highly contentious area. Lorne MacLean BC Family Law and BC Divorce Lawyer provides crucial tips to help you avoid common BC spousal support and BC Spousal Support Advisory Guideline mistakes. Do not waive BC spousal support and maintenance or fail to consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines on quantum and duration of support, on the with and without child support formula, on attributed income in disputed spousal support cases, on shared and split custody and on what happens when one party remarries or repartners.

WATCH THE WINNING BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE

SMART BC DIVORCE TIPS #5 WINNING BC CHILD SUPPORT STRATEGY VIDEO RELEASED

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Learn from Lorne MacLean, BC Divorce lawyer, how to win your BC Child Support case both basic British Columbia child support and special and extraordinary section 7 child support expense case by watching this BC child support video critical video. Don’t make the key mistake of accepting the basic BC child support table guideline amount has the correct figure, it is the floor of BC child support not the ceiling.

Learn that self employed persons personal tax returns are frequently not a correct measure of their real income but that the real income to be used can be higher or lower depending on the profitability of the company after the draws are taken by the owning spouse.

Learn that the guidelines were increased in May 1, 2006 and that the guidelines are designed to be reviewed each year. If your income has gone down because of the recent poor economy call us immediately to have support reduced and ensure that you obtain the fair amount of support that your children deserve.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO BECAUSE YOUR CHILDREN DESERVE IT
img_59681

Smart BC Divorce Tip #3 – Protect Yourself At All Times

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Lorne MacLean, Vancouver BC Family Law Lawyer, at the MacLean Family Law Group is delighted to announce Smart BC Divorce Tips # 3 is now available at our youtube channel called Protect Yourself at All Times-Winning the Financial Aspects of your Divorce and Family Law Case has just been released to positive reviews. These tips are critical if you are involved in a BC Divorce, BC Child custody, BC Child Support, BC Spousal Support and BC Family Asset Division case.

Step 1 – Obtain Proof of all assets and Debts and All Income and Expenses

Copy tax returns, credit card statements, bills, business information and anything that might help you determine how much money you will need to live on and what marital assets you are entitled to. Go through the garbage or install spyware on a computer, if necessary. Tax returns don’t always show the real income to be used for your case so make copies of all company financial documents as well. Store these documents away from the Home and redirect your sensitive mail to a safe location.

Protect Your Money and Assets

Take half of the money from a joint account, and put it in your own name. If your spouse tries to clean out the account, you won’t be able to access that money until a judge says so. This way, you will have access to money, but make sure that you keep a record of how you spend it and this is not an excuse to try to get rid of or hide assets, so act honestly. Consider a restraining order to freeze assets, closing joint credit card accounts and lines of credit to prevent them being run up by your soon to be ex-spouse.

Be Patient

With joint marital assets like homes and stocks probably worth much less than they were a few years ago, some couples are agreeing to stay together until the financial tide turns. If a moneyed husband pushes for divorce because the economy makes it less expensive for him to cash out now, press him for an upside by asking for a bonus for giving up access to a potential gain or by remaining in as a joint owner of the asset.

Lorne MacLean High Net Worth Divorce Lawyerimg_5802

Smart BC Divorce Tips #2 – Winning your Divorce Case by Putting your Best Foot Foward

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Today’s Smart BC Divorce Tips #2 video from the BC Divorce and BC high net worth family law firm of MacLean Family Law Group points out a successful strategy to be used to help win their BC Divorce and BC Family Law Child Custody, Child Support, Spousal Support, and Property Division Case.

One of the most important things Lorne MacLean tells his clients when they first retain his law firm is that it is imperative that they do not write or say anything that they would not be proud to have the judge hearing their case know about because rest assured that judge will.

Click Here to see video -> Smart BC Divorce Tips #2

MACLEAN FAMILY LAW GROUP ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF SMART BC DIVORCE TIPS AND WEB BCFAMILYLAWTV.COM SHOW

Monday, January 18th, 2010

Lorne MacLean BC divorce and family law lawyer is excited about the ability to educate BC divorcing couples on their BC divorce rights and obligations with his launch of series of new High Definition Video clips called Smart BC Divorce Tips and on their forthcoming BCFAMILYLAWTV.COM webcasts which will go live in the Spring of 2010.

Click here for the free video -> SMART BC DIVORCE TIPS VIDEO – DO NOT LEAVE THE MATRIMONIAL HOME

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 spousess 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 payors 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…)