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 spousal support advisory guidelines’

Kelowna, Vancouver, Surrey, Fort St John Spousal Support Lawyers and Spousal Alimony Guidelines 2011 Update

Monday, May 30th, 2011

Vancouver Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Maintenance and Alimony Lawyers


The BC spousal support and alimony lawyers at the MacLean Family Law Group want divorcing BC spouses to be aware of the most recent maintenance law in British Columbia concerning spousal support and spousal alimony cases and we look forward to meeting you at any of our four spousal support law office locations in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, or Fort St. John British Columbia. Call us toll free 1-877-602-9900 as delay may prejudice your case. You cannot afford to ignore the issue or be in the dark about your spousal support rights.

As you may or may not be aware, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG), although advisory only, and as such are not binding on B.C. courts have come to be routinely applied by our Courts. (This is in contrast to the child support guidelines which have been legislated.) B.C. Courts are applying SSAG more and more regularly when deciding the duration and quantum appropriate for spousal support. Recently in Domirti v. Domirti 2010 BCCA 472, the Court of Appeal adhered strictly to the guidelines, overturning a chamber judge’s award of indefinite support following a 16 year marriage, finding that, according to the guidelines a duration of between 8 and 16 years would be appropriate. The Court of Appeal found the chambers judge had erred in applying the guidelines, and stated that “to maintain spousal support within the range for the amount of support but ignore the range for the duration of the award is effectively to make an award contrary to SSAG.”

Under SSAG, the “Rule of 65” indicates that if the age of the spouse entitled to receive support, when added to the length of the marriage, is equal or greater than 65, the appropriate duration of the support payments may be “indefinite.” The Court of Appeal in Domirti cautions that it must be the age of the spouse at the date of separation, and not the age at the date of review, and notes this calculation mistake was made by the chambers judge resulting in an inappropriate award. Although under the Rule of 65, as well as for marriages of 20 years or more, the guidelines indicate that “indefinite” awards may be appropriate, it is important to be aware that indefinite does not mean permanent! While there will be situations where life-long maintenance of a former spouse is appropriate, there will also be situations where it is not.

Despite being applied with increasing frequency, there remain times when strict compliance with the guidelines is not appropriate, as was the case in Munro v. Munro, 2006 BCSC 1758. Although the marriage in this case lasted for 18 years, it was not found to be a traditional marriage, as both parties worked throughout the majority of the marriage. Brine J. found that “that it is not, in the circumstance of this case, appropriate to apply the Advisory Guidelines.” After taking into consideration factors such as “the limited or no economic disadvantage to the defendant from the marriage, the defendant’s delay in pursuing her obligation to become economically self-sufficient, and the reapportionment of debt and assets in the defendant’s favor,” Brine J. found it appropriate to award an amount outside of the guideline recommendations.

In conclusion, at this point the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are more than just suggestions but less than strict law. The key point being that the guidelines are not awarded unless entitlement can be shown, however the guidelines themselves that use a “Robin Hood” type formula that uses income differentials to create a range of monthly payment sums can in themselves cause a finding of entitlement that may not at law truly be justified. They are used regularly by courts, and as demonstrated in Domirti, can be confusing to apply. If you are receiving or paying spousal support, and have not already done so, it is in your best interest to speak with a lawyer well versed in applying the guidelines, who will also be equipped to recognize when and where exceptions to the general guidelines are appropriate.

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 SEPARATION AGREEMENT WIN FOR MACLEAN FAMILY LAW GROUP IN ENFORCING A PROPERTY AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Lorne MacLean BC Separation Agreement and Family Law Lawyer


The MacLean Family Law Group are delighted to have just won an enforcement of a BC separation agreement case for Ms Bayne where the separated BC parties had negotiated a Vancouver separation agreement and reduced the separation agreement to writing by way of letters but once the agreement was converted to a Consent Order for the husband to sign he refused to do so. You can see how the prompt, fair and ethical negotiation took place between the parties, with BC Family Law Lawyer, Lorne MacLean acting on behalf of the wife and the husband acting for himself but who apparently had an unspecified legal advisor in the background assisting him.

It was a nice win for the MacLean Family law Group and we also appreciate the BC Supreme Court’s comments on Lorne MacLean’s diligent work in negotiating the end to a very lengthy and difficult high net worth settlement.

This issue happens frequently in negotiations and it is an important case on what you must prove to enforce a settlement.

The Court Held:
[23]I am satisfied on the evidence that as of December 30, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Bayne were ad idem with respect to the terms upon which their dispute was to be resolved. To put it simply, there was an
agreement that the family assets consisted of those listed by Mr. MacLean in his draft order. There was an agreement as to how those assets were to be divided between the parties. In particular, there was
an agreement that Ms. Bayne would pay $150,000 to Mr. Bayne and would give up any claim to spousal support, RSP reapportionment, and a division of Mr. Bayne’s pensions, in return for all of which she
would have full title to the matrimonial home. In this way, their agreement met basic contractual requirements, was intended to have legal effect with respect to the couple’s rights and obligations, and be
final and determinative of the significant issues between the parties: see Lahaise v. Lahaise, 2006 BCSC 1052 at para. 12.

29] Ms. Nordlinger pointed out that Mr. MacLean had never said anything to Mr. Bayne about representing only Ms. Bayne and not acting for Mr. Bayne, until the final letter of January 5, 2010. But Mr. MacLean had made it quite clear in November of 2006 that he was acting for Lorraine Bayne. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Mr. Bayne was under any illusion to the contrary.

[30] Ms. Nordlinger then asserted that the change in format set out in Mr. MacLean’s letter of August 18, 2009, was significant, and of a sort that would not be evident to a layperson. The significance, she submitted, is that if everything is set out in a separation agreement, the court can assess its fairness pursuant to the provisions of the Family Relations Act, and, if appropriate, order a reapportionment of assets. To put those terms in a court order, however, insulates them from later variation by the court – except for the mutual waiver of maintenance, which was to be in the form of an agreement. In this, Ms. Nordlinger relied on Schlenker v. Schlenker (1999), 72 B.C.L.R. (3d) 203. These changes, she asserted, favoured the claimant.

[31] If that is so, then surely that is what lawyers are expected to do: attempt to resolve things in a manner as favourable to their clients’ interests as possible. Not only was it open to Mr. Bayne to obtain legal advice about this change, but he expressly stated that he was going to do so. Mr. MacLean can hardly be faulted for the fact that he did not. But in the circumstances of this case, I do not think the proposed change in format matters very much.

In the end Ms Bayne retained the home, its appreciation in value and the security it provided to her while Mr Bayne received the certainty that he had dealt fully and fairly with the issue of spousal support given his much greater employment income.

If you have a complex separation agreement issue give us call at 1-877-602-9900 as we act throughout BC.

How is BC Spousal Support Calculated? BC SSAG- BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

BC Spousal Support lawyer-Lorne MacLean


The British Columbia courts award British Columbia spousal support guideline support under either of the Divorce Act or BC Family Relations Act and both Acts also rely in part on BC spousal support legislation called SSAG-Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines advisory calculations that are designed to help spouses and courts come to the right amount of spousal support and the right amount for how long BC spousal support is paid. In longer marriages the support paid might well equalize incomes but we also want to ensure we equalize efforts of both spouses by ensuring each spouse is working to their capacity. When I was in the Supreme Court of Canada on the Leskun v Leskun case I argued Canada as a nation required paying spouses to work to their full capacity and not try to pay less than their fair share of support while at the same time making sure that the receiving spouses did not try to work less to get more than their fair share of support.

Many lawyers and parties forget the SSAG has a number factors that push the amount up or down in the range and this makes a huge difference to what you pay or receive. Here are factors for you to consider and get proper legal advice from a lawyer. Too many people try to be heroes and waive support only to become destitute later!

Location within the Ranges:

The SSAG discuss many factors to be considered in determining the appropriate placement of
support within the range generated by the formulas.

The following factors may favour a support award at the higher end of the range:

a. The recipient has a strong compensatory claim (eg. recipient moved/gave up employment for
payor’s benefit; recipient funded payor’s education/training; recipient sacrificed
employment opportunities because of child care).
b. The recipient has limited income.
c. The recipient has limited earning capacity.
d. The recipient has compelling needs and standard of living.
e. The recipient is older.
f. The recipient will be undertaking retraining or education in the immediate future which is
aimed at promoting self-sufficiency.
g. The recipient has primary care of very young children, several children and/or special needs
children (ie. age, number and needs of the children can restrict the custodial parent’s ability
to work).
h. The marriage is long term.
i. The marriage is short with young children and a stay-at-home custodial parent.
j. There is no property to be divided.
k. The recipient is carrying significant family debts (but not severe enough to fall within debt
payment exception).
l. There are local or regional differences (eg. parts of Ontario, especially 416 and 905 area
codes).

The following factors may support an award at the lower end of the range:

a. The recipient has a weak compensatory claim.
b. The payor has limited income.
c. The payor has limited earning capacity/ability to pay.
d. The recipient does not have significant needs (eg. recipient has solid employment/income;
recipient has reduced living expenses (ie. subsidized housing; mortgage free matrimonial
home; shared housing costs)).
e. The recipient has remarried/repartnered.
f. The payor has significant needs.
g. The recipient is younger.
h. There is an unequal division of property in favour of the recipient.
i. The recipient holds sizeable exempt or excluded assets after division of property.
j. The payor is carrying significant family debts (but not severe enough to fall within debt
payment exception).
k. In the case of a traditional marriage, the payor has costs associated with going to work, in
contrast to the non-working recipient.
l. An incentive for the recipient to make greater efforts towards self-sufficiency is needed
(although imputing income can also address this factor).
m. There are local and regional differences (eg. Atlantic provinces).
n. The payor has significant direct access costs (especially important when the payor is at the
lower end of the income spectrum).
o. The payor makes mandatory deductions for pension contributions (especially important
when the payor is at the lower end of the income spectrum).

New BC Family Relations Act Definition of BC Spouse Changes BC Common Law Spousal Support and BC Property Rights for BC Unmarried Persons

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010

MacLean Discusses Changes to Common Law Rights with BC AG Lawyers


If you are a BC unmarried person in a BC common law- also called a BC marriage-like relationship- the rules of the game for British Columbia spousal support and for BC property division are about to radically change. The definition of “spouse” that controls the rights you have to spousal support have been expanded due to the following change in wording to the definition:
“spouse” means a person who
(a) is married to another person,
(b) lived with another person:
(i) in a marriage-like relationship for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) in a marriage-like relationship of some permanence if the persons are together the parents of a child

and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender.

This wording change means spousal support may be payable if a child is born of the relationship and the relationship is of some permanence (no one is sure what this means yet!) as opposed to the current requirement that you must have lived together continuously for more than 2 years. Can a one night stand where a child is born be of some permanence or is 30 days enough or what will it it take to meet this new test?

Similarly, although the Supreme Court of Canada has said BC common law couples should not be treated the same as married persons, the British Columbia government has decided to treat common law couples who meet this new definition of “spouse” the same for purposes of property division. To make matters even more confusing the British Columbia government has decided to change the rules of the game for married persons as well. To find out what these new rules are for property division, go to our article on the new changes by clicking here.

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.

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

BC Case Alert-Unmarried Couples, BC Marriage Like Relationship and BC Spousal Support

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Lorne MacLean Vancouver BC Divorce lawyer


P.P.W. v. R.S.L.B., 2010 BCSC 58 – 2010/01/15
Is an interesting BC unmarried couples, BC common law and BC marriage like relationship case where the BC Supreme Court had to determine if unmarried parties lived in a “marriage like relationship” for a period of two years sufficient to justify entitlement to a spousal support award. The court viewed the evidence of separate residences, some overnights together, sexual exclusivity, vacations together, no joint bank accounts although there were financial benefits provided tithe Plaintiff as well as the dysfunctional relationship and held while the alleged “wife” wanted there to be a “marriage like relationship the Defendant alleged “husband” did not and the Court dismissed the alleged “wife’s” claim for support and property division under trust law. The Court reviewed the key cases on what needs to be proven to succeed on a common law support claim.

96] The FRA also provides the definition for spouse:
“spouse” means a person who
(a) is married to another person,
(b) except under Parts 5 and 6, lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years if the application under this Act is made within one year after they ceased to live together and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender,
(c) applies for an order under this Act within 2 years of the making of an order
(i) for dissolution of the person’s marriage,
(ii) for judicial separation, or
(iii) declaring the person’s marriage to be null and void, or
(d) is a former spouse for the purpose of proceedings to enforce or vary an order.
[97] The law concerning the definition of spouse under the FRA is quite settled, with Gostlin v. Kergin (1986), 3 B.C.L.R. (2d) 264 (C.A.), remaining the authority on the matter. The focus of the analysis is on the parties’ subjective intentions to live in a marriage-like relationship, looking to objective factors to assist in this determination. Absent clear evidence of the intention of the parties, no one objective factor is determinative. For the most part, each case is factually unique, and therefore must be judged on its own circumstances.
[98] In Gostlin v. Kergin, the Court of Appeal stated at 267 that upon marriage, individuals assume the support obligations contained in the FRA, and that absent marriage, these obligations should not be thrust upon individuals unless they live together for at least two years as husband and wife in a marriage-like relationship.
[99] Lambert J.A. stated at 269 that when it comes to determining whether an individual is entitled to spousal support under the FRA, it is an all-or-nothing examination:
If the relationship had the characteristics of a true marriage throughout the period of at least two years that is required by the definition of “spouse”, then the parties lived together as husband and wife and there is an entitlement to claim maintenance or support. If the relationship did not have those characteristics, there is no entitlement. And there is no middle ground where the relationship has only some of the characteristics of a true marriage with the result that there is a diminished entitlement. [Emphasis added.]
[100] Takacs v. Gallo, [1998] 9 W.W.R. 235 (B.C.C.A.), provides useful direction to a court in determining if a common-law relationship exists between the parties. Newbury J.A., for the majority, states at para. 53:
The starting point in this province for the analysis required in cases of this kind is the judgment of this court in Gostlin v. Kergin (1986) 3 B.C.L.R. (2d) 264, and in particular, the comments of Lambert J.A. at 267-8 which are quoted in Madam Justice Huddart’s judgment. I read those comments as focusing first on the intentions of the parties to live “as husband and wife”, or in a marriage-like relationship. Such an intention may or may not include financial dependence. The various “objective indicators” referred to in Gostlin were advanced as a means of divining those subjective intentions where the latter “prove elusive”. By the same token, of course, subjective or conscious intentions may be overtaken by conduct such that whilst a person living with another might not say he or she was living in a marriage-like relationship, the reality is that the relationship has become such. [Emphasis added.]
And continued at para 55:
In both Gostlin and Fitton, the question of whether persons were living together as spouses notwithstanding that they were not legally married involved the court in an examination of their intentions and not simply an objective assessment of whether their financial and living arrangements were “intertwined”. If the Legislature had intended the latter, it would have been an easy matter to so state. Objective factors will of course be relevant to determine the parties’ intentions as Lambert J.A. noted in Gostlin but those factors will rarely be determinative in and of themselves. Many combinations of people may live together and meet many of the criteria set forth in Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980) 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), but without intending or in fact entering the kind of psychological and emotional union that one associates with marriage. [Emphasis added.]
[101] Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, is often cited for confirming that despite the change in the wording of the definition of spouse under the FRA, the Gostlin inquiry remains the authority and that other cases are helpful in determining whether a spousal relationship exists, but each case must be judged on its own facts.
[102] This is the legal framework often employed in determining the existence or not of a common-law relationship under the FRA.
[103] In order to establish an entitlement, the plaintiff must prove that she and the defendant lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least two years prior to the commencement of her claim.

We recommend you contact us immediately if you are considering entering into a marriage like relatiuonship or are in one that is breaking down as there is a1 year time limit to apply for relief.

WHAT INCOME IS USED FOR BC SPOUSAL AND BC CHILD SUPPORT FOR A SELF EMPLOYED BC OWNER OF A BUSINESS?

Sunday, April 11th, 2010

Warning-Pre tax profits are the default guideline income for spousal and child support.

We often warn our family clients involved in a BC spousal or child support case that the tax return of a BC self employed spouse does not present an accurate picture of the income that the court will use for determining guideline income for BC child and BC spousal support. Recent cases presume that pre-tax profits are available to pay child support or spousal support from the company the paying spouse owns unless that spouse proves a need to keep profits in the company to advance legitimate company objectives.

In the recent case of Purvis v. Purvis 2009 BCSC 1794 the husband successfully overcame the presumption that pre-tax corporate income will be imputed to a payor when they own or control a company.

This case involved an action by the husband for a review and retroactive variation of a 2002 order for child and spousal support payments. The husband unilaterally decreased the support payments in 2003. The wife claimed that the husband had failed to make accurate financial disclosure for the annual review, which was a term of the Mediated Settlement Agreement incorporated into the 2002 order. She sought payment of outstanding arrears for support and that the husband’s income include pre-tax corporate profits from his holding company. The husband’s 2007 and 2008 income were the years in dispute.

Retained earnings or funds needed to operate?
The husband claimed that for the purpose of tax planning, the company Praetorian Construction Management (Praetorian) paid annual dividends to its shareholders to reduce its retained earnings. The dividends were paid as income to the husband’s holding company Tukcon Holdings Inc. (“Tukcon”). The court examined the pre-tax earnings and the retained earnings for Tukcon, the latter showing a shareholder loan for $730,916 owing from Praetorian. The husband said that Praetorian was not in a position to repay the shareholder’s loan to Tukcon and therefore Tukcon could not pay out the retained earnings balance to its shareholder (the husband).

Application of the law
In applying Section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines the court mentioned Hausmann v. Klukas, 2009 BCCA 32, where it had been held that if there is any evidence of legitimate calls on corporate income for the purpose of continuing the operations of the business the income will not be included in determining annual income thereby “not killing the goose who lays the golden egg” (Baum v. Baum [1999] B.C.J. No. 3025 B.C.S.C.)). The court in Hausmann (supra) said that where a corporation is owned and controlled by the payor spouse, there is a presumption that pre-tax corporate income will be available to a payor in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Control of the company
In determining who controlled the holding company, Tukcon, the court found that the husband did not present evidence to reveal the extent to which the previous non-voting shareholder (his ex-common law spouse) was involved in the company pre-2009 and that from 2009 he was Tukcon’s only shareholder. Tukcon was one of the 3 companies who owned Praetorian, for whom the husband was the President and the key employee for obtaining new contracts,

Retained earnings required to continue operations
Applying Hausmann (supra), the court found that the husband had to rebut the presumption. On the evidence submitted by the husband’s accountant, the court found that the amount of $700,000.00 in 2007 was legitimately retained by Tukcon to enable Praetorian to continue operations and was not imputed as income to the husband. However, the evidence did not defeat the presumption that the remaining pre-tax profits for 2008 and the pre-tax profits for 2007 and these amounts were imputed as income to the husband.

Support applied retroactively
On another issue, the court cited case law that supports the proposition that retroactive awards should not reach back farther than three years from the date of notice to the payor parent, unless there is blameworthy conduct on the part of the payor D.B.S. v. S.R.G. 2006 SCC 37. The effect of not disclosing a material change in circumstances (his increased income) resulted in the husband having to pay support retroactively to the date when his circumstances changed in 2003. The wife had the reasonable excuse for not bringing her claims earlier of caring for the children and making attempts to become self-supporting.

It is important you call us for advice if you have a support case involving a shareholder, director, or owner of a company.

JP


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