Disclosure is a material issue in many family law cases. Without a clear idea of each party’s assets, a fair division of property is nearly impossible. However, there are clear limits to what the courts are willing to grant in an order for disclosure. In general, an applicant must specify which individual documents or category of documents they are requesting, link their request to a live issue in the proceedings, and justify the need for the disclosure of these documents (Mossey v. Argue, 2013 BCSC 2078).

In a recent case, Etemadi v Maali, 2021 BCSC 1003, one of the parties applied for an order to force disclosure of a hard drive. A hard drive was found to have the same legal status as a bookshelf or a filing cabinet; to grant an application for disclosure of a hard drive would amount to an authorization to search, which is not in keeping with the purpose of the disclosure rules. The court, therefore, declined to grant the order for production, stating that the interest of protecting privacy and privilege outweighed the desirability of absolute disclosure in this case.

 

Custody and access to children are complex issues requiring consideration of which circumstances would best benefit the interests of the child. Often, one or both parents may desire a change in custody or access. This can be accommodated so long as they can prove that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the last order was made.

A change can be said to be “material” if the situation presently in force would have resulted in a different order originally being made. Requests for variation are resolved entirely based on what will benefit the child, rather than what either of the parents want (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC)).

Variation is permitted under section 17 of the Divorce Act, which further stipulates that a parent’s newly developed terminal illness or critical condition qualifies as a change of circumstance. A child’s increased age and expressed wishes to spend less time with a parent can also constitute a material change ( M. (S.M.) v. H. (J.P.), 2016 BCCA 284). Intensified and more frequent conflict, if egregious enough, can also serve as a material change (Friedlander v. Claman, 2016 BCCA 434).

Section 47 of the Family Law Act also gives authority for a court to change an order of custody or access. Section 216 of the Family Law Act allows the court to address interim orders (K. (B.) v. B. (J.), 2015 BCSC 1481). Again, the parent desiring the order’s variation must prove a material change in circumstances. The change cannot be one that was contemplated and addressed in the prior order (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC)), such as a foreseen adjustment to a child’s extra-curricular soccer schedule. Material change can be shown through, for example, a parent becoming mentally ill, a child desiring to have less or more time with a parent, or a parent successfully completing counseling and improving their ability to be a guardian.

Although less frequently invoked, the court also has jurisdiction to change an interim order even if there has neither been a change in circumstances or new evidence. The court may only do so if a change would be in the best interests of the child (R. (R.) v. L. (S.), 2016 BCSC 1230. If you have concerns about your family matters, please contact Heath Law LLP to book a consultation.

Through the Notice to Mediate (Family) Regulation, BC Reg 296/2007, a party to a family law proceeding may require the other spouse to participate in mediation with them. Mediation, if successful, can have many benefits including a shorter timeline, decreased cost, and lower conflict. It’s also much less formal than court, and private.

A notice to mediate can be served on the other party at any point that is 90 days’ time after the first response to the family claim is filed, and 90 days’ time before the date of the trial. The parties must agree on which mediator to select, and if they cannot, any party may apply to a roster organization that maintains a list of experienced mediators who would be sufficient. The roster organization will provide a list of options, and the Regulation then requires parties to eliminate certain mediators to which they object. The roster organization will make the final call on who the mediator will be, taking into account the parties’ indicated preferences, the mediator’s qualifications and fee, and scheduling availability.

The mediator is required to hold separate pre-mediation appointments with each party, where they’ll screen for potential power imbalance or abuse. If this appointment leads the mediator to believe that the process would be inappropriate or unproductive, they can conclude the mediation at that point and the parties will need to go through with litigation. Parties are not obligated to settle all or any of their issues at mediation but must attend and participate in good faith. Mediation requires parties to be reasonable, relatively calm, and open to negotiation. Considering how emotionally charged separation is for many individuals, mediation certainly isn’t the answer for everyone, but it may be worth an attempt.

 

Both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act give authority to change the amount of spousal support that must be paid, and although worded differently, both acts require a change in circumstances before the variation is warranted. It’s important to bring the variation application under the Act which the support order was originally made under; the Family Law Act cannot be invoked to change a support order made under the Divorce Act (Malbon v. Malbon, 2017 BCCA 427), and vice versa.

The factors for the court to consider when asked to change spousal support are set out in section 17 (4.1) of the Divorce Act and Section 167 of the Family Law Act. In case law, a substantial change of circumstances has been constituted by multiple scenarios including:

• A change in income;
• A change in expenses;
• Retirement;
• Re-partnering; and
• A change of residence for the child.

If parties presume the payor’s income will somewhat fluctuate, but instead it increases significantly, the situation will likely meet the requirement of a substantial change in circumstances (Jennens v. Jennens, 2020 BCCA 59). Purposeful, voluntary changes made to one’s life, such as taking a larger mortgage for a shorter amortization, will not lead to a change of support (Poon v. Poon, 2005 BCCA 60).

A foundational principle of the spousal support obligation is that payor’s must compensate their spouses when that spouse’s contributions to the family allowed the payor to obtain the high income they later benefit from (Judd v. Judd, 2010 BCSC 153).

Voluntary retirement is typically more carefully analyzed by the courts than forced retirement. When considering if retirement justifies changing support obligations, the courts will look at age, background, employment opportunities, and the objectives of the support order (Brouwer v. Brouwer, 2019 BCSC 274). In Cramer v. Cramer, 2000 BCCA 272, the payor was forced to retire due to a health condition, the estate had been split equally originally, and the payee spouse had failed to follow through with educational plans that would have led to financial self-sufficiency. The payor’s retirement constituted a change in circumstances and the spousal support was terminated entirely.

Remarriage or re-partnering alone is not sufficient to trigger a material change in circumstances (Morigeau v. Moorey, 2013 BCSC 1923). But when combined with other factors such as an increase in the payee’s workplace earnings, the requirement can be met (Clarke v. Clarke, 2014 BCSC 824). A change in the children’s residence, meaning an increase in expenses for the parent who is primarily caring for them, can constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to vary spousal support (Aspe v. Aspe, 2010 BCCA 508). . If you’d like assistance with resolving any family matters, please contact Heath Law LLP to book a consultation.

When relationships dissolve, parties often become concerned that their property will be disposed of or encumbered against their wishes. Property division will be addressed and ultimately resolved as separations move forward, but until agreements are finalized, it may be beneficial for spouses to take certain interim measures. The three types of entries often registered against the title of a property with the Land Title Office are:

• A certificate of pending litigation;
• A Land (Spouse Protection) Act entry; and
• A caveat.

While a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”) does not create rights to the property which the party did not have before, it does provide notice to would-be creditors or buyers that an interest in the property is being claimed. This dissuades the vast majority of creditors or buyers, with the affect that the property is protected from disposition or encumbrance. The CPL is registered against the title of the property and can be filed against property owned by either or both spouses. A CPL may only be registered once the family law proceedings have begun.

If the property is held in the sole name of one spouse, the other spouse may make a Land (Spouse Protection) Act entry against it. Entries may not be made if the property is held in joint tenancy. The entry will prevent the property from being disposed of without consent. Entries can be made before court action has been commenced but must be made within one year of the spouses residing together in the home. The Land (Spouse Protection) Act has specific forms for the entry application and affidavit. Spouses must have been married or have been in a marriage-like relationship of at least two years.

Finally, if it’s not possible to apply for a CPL or Land (Spouse Protection) Act entry, a caveat may be used. A caveat is a temporary measure registered against the title of property owned by the other spouse. Caveats must be applied for through the correct form offered by the Land Title and Survey Authority, and lapse two months after their registration.
Not anyone can apply for the entries listed above; only people who are spouses or parties to the family law case may apply. If you have concerns about your property or family matters, please contact Heath Law LLP to book a consultation.

Religious-based contracts, such as a Maher, can create increased complexity for the family justice system. A Maher is a contract which some Muslim couples will enter into upon marriage. The Maher can have the effect of requiring the husband pay the wife a specified amount of money if divorce occurs. The value can often be extravagant, such as hundreds of gold coins.

In Kariminia v. Nasser, 2018 BCSC 695, the court ordered that an Islamic marriage contract should be upheld such that the husband was required to pay the wife the value of 114 Bahar Azadi gold coins, equivalent to $49,020 CAD, upon the breakdown of their marriage. The court held that, as per Bruker v. Marcovitz, [2007] S.C.J. No. 54, a dispute can be addressed in the judicial atmosphere even if it has a religious aspect.

Further, people can freely choose to transfer moral obligations related to their religious orders into legal obligations. In upholding the Maher, the court further noted that Canadian law acknowledges cultural diversity (Nathoo v. Nathoo, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2720 (B.C. S.C.)). Ultimately, the Maher in Kariminia was an amount which the husband could realistically pay, the document was signed by both parties, and could be upheld as a valid marriage contract.

On multiple other occasions, the courts have also interpreted contracts for Maher by considering if they’re enforceable “marriage agreements” under family law legislation. In M. (N.M.) v. M. (N.S.), 2004 BCSC 346, the court held that the husband was aware of and understood the amount stipulated in the Maher. He recognized that the Maher was a legally binding document, and wished to marry in compliance with it and the Ismaili faith. The wife in M. (N.M.) was entitled to $51,250. In Amlani v. Hirani, 2000 BCSC 1653, a Maher was again upheld as a valid marriage contract under the Family Relations Act. As a note, the current Family Law Act would apply to marriage contracts entered into after March 2013.

Both the current Family Law Act and the prior Family Relations Act give the courts power to set aside agreements regarding property division on the basis of unfairness. And in Delvarani v. Delvarani, 2012 BCSC 162, the court did just that. The Maher was for the amount of 3000 Bahar Azadi gold coins, which equated to $750,000 CAD. The court held that the husband likely didn’t agree to this payout, especially on top of the financial obligations he’d already have to abide by under BC law. There was no connection between this exorbitant amount of money and the short duration of the marriage, the needs of the wife, nor the husband’s ability to pay.

 

In certain circumstances, a party required to pay child support may need to claim undue hardship under section 10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”).This means that the party would be caused to suffer unduly if made to pay the full amount of support originally required. If the party shows the court why they’re unable to pay the amount of support determined under the Guidelines, the court may reduce the value they’re obligated to pay.

Circumstances that may cause a party to suffer undue hardship include:
• The spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debt reasonably incurred to support the spouses and their children prior to the separation or to earn a living;
• The spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising parenting time with a child; or
• The spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessities of life due to an illness or disability.

The party claiming undue hardship must also prove that they have a lower standard of living than their ex-spouse. It’s typically very difficult to prove undue hardship because it’s viewed as unfair for one spouse to pay less than the Guideline requirement of support.

In Kelly v. Kelly, 2011 BCCA 173, the judge made it clear that future courts must very carefully exercise their discretion to order a different amount of support (para. 35). The objectives of the Guidelines should not be circumvented; predictability and consistency in support obligations are key components of our family justice system.

If you have any questions, please call Heath Law LLP to book a consultation.

While will-makers have flexibility regarding how they dispose of their assets upon death, if they fail to adequately provide for a surviving spouse or child, their will may be varied by the Court. Section 60 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act of British Columbia authorizes a court to order compensation that it finds adequate, just, and equitable, out of the will-maker’s estate. Only spouses and children of the testator may seek a variation and must commence an action within 180 days from the Grant of Probate. Spouses include common-law partners, with whom the will-maker was in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. Case law has excluded stepchildren not adopted by the will-maker and birth-children adopted by third parties from being proper applicants of a will variation claim.

The seminal case regarding wills variation is Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807 (“Tataryn”), where the Court held that a will-maker must meet both their legal and moral obligations to surviving children and spouses. The legal obligations are those which would have been imposed if property division and support were considered during the will-maker’s lifetime. Moral obligations represent society’s reasonable expectations of what should be done in the circumstances and are linked to community standards. While the Court in Clucas v. Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, 1999 CanLII 5519 (BC SC) held the will-maker’s autonomy should only be interfered with to the extent statute requires, there are some factors which often lead to variation, even in the situation of adult children who are financially independent.

The standard of living which the will-maker allowed a Plaintiff to become accustomed to will influence their level of moral obligation. In Wilson v. Lougheed, 2010 BCSC 1868, the Court considered the large size of the estate (nearly $20 million), the daughter’s current financial circumstances, and how the will-maker had historically treated her very generously when deciding to vary the will. While there is a general principle that Plaintiffs should continue to be maintained in a manner which they’ve become accustomed to, it is balanced against the estate’s ability to meet competing claims. Adult children who have financially contributed to their parents’ estates, but who are then not adequately provided for in the will are often successful under wills variations claims. This was seen in Wilcox v. Wilcox, 2000 BCCA 491, where the Court varied a mother’s will in favor of the daughter who’d made contributions to the financial purchase and running of the mother’s house. The years which the daughter had cohabitated with her mother, and the mother’s promise that the daughter would inherit the house portion of the estate also had weight in court.

The case law regarding when will-makers can limit or disinherit is ever-evolving and hinges around many factors. Will-makers’ wishes to limit inheritance may come into conflict with the moral obligations set out in Tataryn, specifically when a will-maker’s reasons might not be sufficient under community standards of what a judicious parent would have done. This was seen in Lamperstorfer v. Lamperstorfer Estate, 2018 BCSC 89, where the Court held that the will-maker’s mental health challenges and reclusiveness from society prevented him from meeting his moral obligation to his sons. Absent reasons otherwise, there’s an expectation that adult children will share equally in their parents’ estate, as seen in Laing v. Jarvis Estate, 2011 BCSC 1082. Yet reasons can be various, and the Court is hesitant to interfere with a will-maker’s wishes so long as they were made with a sound mind. In particular, Williams v. Williams Estate, 2018 BCSC 711, where a father arranged his affairs to leave all but approximately $5,000 of his estate to his favorite son, Brent, to the detriment of the other son, Ron. The will-maker had a much stronger relationship with Brent, and Brent also had dependants to support. Further, the will-maker had entirely lost contact with Ron for several years. Despite how the prevailing son Brent was financially stable before his father’s passing, and how the financial outcome was unequal, the Court refused to vary the will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happens to spousal support when the person making the payments (the “Payor”) passes away?  Does the spousal support die along with the Payor or does the obligation survive, binding the estate of the Payor?

When married or common-law couples end their relationship, sometimes spousal support arises.  Spousal support is payment from one spouse to the other in recognition that one of the parties to the relationship may have sacrificed their own financial independence to help the overall landscape of the relationship whether that was providing care to the children of the marriage or giving up opportunities they would have otherwise been able to pursue had they not been supporting their partner.  Spousal support is usually paid pursuant to a separation agreement or a Court order.

Pursuant to s. 170(1)(g) of the Family Law Act of British Columbia (the “Act”), an order respecting spousal support can provide for payment after the death of the Payor.  S. 171(1) of the Act provides the elements that have to be present before a Court will order spousal support after the death of the Payor:

  • that the person receiving child support or spousal support has a significant need for support that is likely to continue past the death of the person paying child support or spousal support;
  • that the estate of the person paying child support or spousal support is sufficient to meet the need referred to in paragraph (a) after taking into account all claims on the estate, including those of creditors and beneficiaries; and
  • that no other practical means exist to meet the need referred to in paragraph (a).

If there was an agreement or order in place that provides for spousal support after death, then those provisions will have full force and effect and will bind the Payor’s estate until the period of payment provided for in the agreement or order expires.  To end the spousal support payments before the agreement or order expires, the Personal Representative of the Payor’s estate can apply under s.171(2) of the Act to set aside the agreement or order.

If the agreement or order for spousal support is silent as to whether spousal support survives death, the person receiving support can apply under s.171(3) of the Act to get an order requiring the Payor’s estate to continue to pay spousal support.

What about spousal support payments that are in arrears at the time of the Payor’s death?  Any spousal support payments in arrears at the time of the Payor’s death, will constitute a debt of the Estate: L.S.M.K. v. J.W.K., 2019 BCSC 2025.

Please contact Heath Law LLP at 250-753-2202 if you have any questions regarding spousal support or have any other Family Law related concerns.

 

The Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) and Cost Awards

The purpose of this blog will be to provide a brief overview of the purpose behind the FMEP as well as discuss the type of cost awards the FMEP will enforce.

The FMEP is a free service provided by the BC government. The FMEP enforces support orders and agreements on behalf of the person who is owed support (“Creditor”).  Once someone is enrolled in the FMEP, all support payments must be sent to the FMEP. The FMEP processes the payments and sends them on to the Creditor.

To enforce a support order or agreement, the FMEP can take all legal steps the Creditor could take on their own. The FMEP can also take other steps the Creditor cannot, like restricting the driver’s licence of the person who owes support (the “Debtor”) or taking away their passport.

If support payments are missed and arrears are owed, the enforcement steps the FMEP takes depend on how much arrears are owed, the current situation of the Debtor, and the actions the FMEP thinks have the best chance of success in the circumstances.

The FMEP can garnish wages, redirect money from government institutions, file liens on the Debtor’s property, place restrictions on the Debtor’s licence or passport and even put the Debtor in jail.

As can be seen from the above the FMEP can be a very forceful tool in enforcing payments under maintenance orders.  However, what type of court costs will the FMEP enforce?

First, what are court costs?  There are costs associated with going to court.  They can include court filing fees, legal bills, attendance at court, “disbursements” (i.e., photocopy charges, printing etc.) and other related matters.  The general rule of costs is that absent any special circumstances or considerations, a successful litigant can obtain an order for his or her costs.  This means that if you win your case, the other party may have to pick up a significant portion of your court costs.

The FMEP will enforce maintenance payments and included in the definition of maintenance under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act is fixed costs awarded under the regulations in favour of the director or a creditor.  Section 15 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Regulations (the “Regulations”) say that the court can award costs if the court believes the default under the maintenance order could have been avoided.  This would lead to the conclusion that the FMEP will only enforce court costs that stem from s.15 of the Regulations.