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’

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 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 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

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

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

HIGH INCOME BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES CALCULATION AND GROSS UP FOR LOWER TAXES

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

img_5989BC spousal support and child support awards start with a proper calculation of the BC paying spouses spousal and child support guideline income which can be taken from tax returns, financial statements showing pre- tax corporate earnings. In cases of the paying spouse earning a foreign income, a figure that may be grossed up to reflect a Canadian equivalent income for exchange rate differences and to take into account the income may be received on a tax free basis or on a reduced tax basis compared to the prevailing rates in Canada. Income will often also include bonuses, severance pay and overtime.

The recent Court of Appeal decision of Gonabady-Namadon v Mohamadzadeh dealt with an appeal from a trial judges’s finding that the husband had failed to disclose his true assets and income and had provided no proof of the taxes he paid on income he earned as a resident of Iran nor any proof of what tax rates in Iran were. The trial judge made negative findings against the husband but fixed his income at $250,000 per annum and found that despite the 13 year marriage where the wife had a child she was not entitled to spousal support. The wife was awarded full recovery of her legal fees for the husband’s steadfast refusal to disclose his true income and assets.

The wife appealed and was successful in increasing the guideline income for the husband from $250,000 to $350,000 per annum based on a gross up for lower tax rates in Iran meaning the husband’s available income was much higher than an equivalent similar gross income in Canada. Further, despite the fact the wife was a doctor with the ability to earn a good income the Court of Appeal held she was entitled to spousal support for the low end of the duration being 6 years on a marriage length of 13 years at a monthly payment of $2300.

I have extracted the key paragraphs from the decision below.
(more…)

BC Common Law Relationships, BC Cohabitation Spousal Support and BC Unmarried Couples Property Division

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Lorne MacLean BC Family Lawyer in the Boardroom

Lorne MacLean BC Family Lawyer in the Boardroom

More BC spouses live in BC common law relationships or marriage like relationships and when they separate the law that applies for spousal support and property division can be different than for married persons.
Recent BC family law articles in the Globe and other papers indicate that more people are choosing to live together without getting married. In BC we call these relationships “marriage like” but most people call them common law relationships. You need to know the differences between property division rights compared to married persons and you also need to know about how and when common law spousal support and child support obligations arise both for BC spousal support and BC child support.

We are often surprised by the lack of information that has been available to our common law family law clients who are more correctly termed to be in a marriage like relationship in BC under our Family Relations Act.

You are in a common law relationship if you live as a committed couple but are not married. Indicia of commitment might be referring to your partner as my wife or my husband, sharing a joint account, raising children together, taking vacations together and committing to care for the other if they became ill or incapacitated.
(more…)

BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and BC Child Support 2009 Update- Beninger 2009 BCCA 458

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

fsj-petunia-office
Lorne MacLean

An interesting BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines SSAG- with child formula- decision was handed down by our Court of Appeal recently. The BC Spousal Support and BC Child Support case dealt with an appeal by the wife in a long marriage from a variation of spousal and child support application that left her with slightly more or slightly less than half of the lawyer husband’s income depending on what figure he earned depending on bonuses and expenses. The court dealt with recent disclosure by the husband and concluded he had been frank and honest with the court contrary to the allegations of his ex-wife, although in prior proceedings his disclosure had been inadequate. The court dismissed the wife’s appeal which argued she received less than a strict application of the guidelines demanded and interestingly pointed out that while a judge must give reasons for departing from the Child Support Guidelines the court need not give reasons if it chooses to depart from the BC spousal support advisory guidelines.

The BC Spousal Support appeal pointed out that caution should be used in applying the SSAG guidelines automatically in variation proceedings and in cases where the paying spouses income exceeds $350,000 per year. To read the court’s comments click below.
(more…)

BRITISH COLUMBIA SEPARATION AND MARRIAGE AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND BC VARIATION UPDATE-JUST BE FAIR WITH ME

Friday, October 30th, 2009

img_5817
A critical new British Columbia Separation Agreement enforcement and BC separation agreement case was released recently in Rick v. Brandsema [2009] S.C.J. No. 10
If you are about to enter into a BC separation agreement or consider a British Columbia separation or separation agreement or marriage agreement you have signed to be unfair or unconscionable call us at 604-602-9000. The summary below was prepared by one of our very capable articled stdents, namely Jaqua Page who works out of our Vancouver and North Peace office.

This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, to set aside an award made to the wife by the trial judge, ordering the husband to pay damages in the amount of $649,680.00 on the grounds that the separation agreement signed by the parties was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

The parties married in 1973 and separated in February 2000 after a long and difficult marriage. There were five children to the marriage. During the course of the marriage the parties acquired assets and real property, including a dairy farm the value of which was the subject of the appeal.

The parties continued to live together for a number of months after the separation. They signed a separation agreement in December 2001, which was drafted with the intermittent assistance of two different lawyers, the services of two mediators, advice from tax accountants and other professionals. They were divorced in January 2002 and the wife brought an action a year later to set aside the separation agreement on the grounds the agreement was unconscionable or in the alternative that there should be a reapportionment under Section 65 of the B.C. Family Relations Act. The husband was found to have severely undervalued the property and concealed funds.

The SCC emphasized the importance of recognizing that the area of family law creates a uniquely difficult and vulnerable environment. To ensure fairness, the court found that there is “a duty to make full and honest disclosure of all relevant financial information in order to protect the integrity of the resulting agreement” when separating parties are in the process of settling an agreement. The case also represents the creation of the new term “psychological exploitation”, which is established when one party takes advantage of the other party’s mental state during negotiations of familial matters. In this case, there was evidence the husband was well aware of the wife’s mental fragility and that he had falsely exaggerated the dairy farm’s debts as well as claiming inappropriate tax deferment, decreasing the wife’s value of the company, when there was no evidence of a future sale.

The appeal court, applying Miglin, rejected the findings of fact of the trial judge that there was a power imbalance between the parties due to the wife’s mental vulnerability and regardless found that any disparities were cured by the wife’s access to professional assistance. The SCC respectively disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the test in Miglin in relation to the weight that should be given to professional assistance. The court held that the mere presence of professional advice does not extinguish the potential negotiating abuses that can occur in reaching an agreement, stating that a genuine bargain can only be reached when both parties are fully informed of the relevant information.

The SCC said that the “duty” flows from the judgment in Miglin with the acknowledgment that legal issues surrounding the breakdown of a marriage take place in highly emotive situations. As a result special care must be taken to ensure that negotiations between spouses are free from “informational and psychological exploitation”. The court stated that the degree of dishonesty will determine whether a separation agreement is open to judicial intervention.

The court was entirely supportive of the trial judge, affirming the principle that an Appellate Court should not reverse the findings of fact made by a trial judge unless there was a palpable and overriding error. In addition, a trial judge has discretion when considering tax deferment in relation to the division of assets, concluding that either damages or s66(2)(c) of the Family Relations Act that may include ordering a spouse to ‘pay compensation’ to the other spouse ‘for the purpose of adjusting the division.’ were suitable remedies when the terms of the separation agreement substantially deviated from the intent of the legislation.


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