As with all of my work, you are free to copy, reproduce and redistribute this information as you wish, providing that you don't do so to make money and providing that you credit my blog as the source. However, be cautioned that this summary is not comprehensive (I have ignored much of Part 10 and all of Parts 6, 11 and 12, for example, and I have not included cases which are, in my respectful view, perhaps wrongly decided) and that my description of a case may not be accurate. You must read the cases themselves to make sure I've got it right.
Most of the links to the cases referred to were automatically generated by CanLII's extremely cool hyperlinking tool. (Thank you CanLII!) However, I have made errors here and there in the spelling of the citation of cases which has caused CanLII to link to cases other than the ones I intended. If you spot an error, please post a comment to this post and I'll fix it as soon as I can.
Part I: Interpretation
M.W.B. v A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885
Demeaning remarks, blaming parent to a child qualify as family violence
D.N.L. v C.N.S., 2014 BCSC 1417
Derogatory outbursts, demeaning comments qualify
D.N.L. v C.N.S., 2013 BCSC 809
Threats, minimal physical contact qualify
K.L.L. v D.J., 2014 BCPC 85
Litigation abuse, failure to cooperate qualify
M.W.B. v A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885
Behaviour causing financial hardship and stress, threats to cause financial hardship qualify
Hokhold v Gerbrandt, 2014 BCSC 1875
Deliberate failure to pay child support intended to inflict emotional harm or control behaviour qualifies
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297; S.N. v E.C., 2014 BCPC 82
Meservy v Field, 2013 BCSC 2378
Parties living together for less than two years but have a child are spouses, even if separated before Family Law Act came into force
C.A.M. v M.D.Q., 2014 BCPC 110
Merely living together doesn’t mean a relationship is marriage-like
Matteucci v Greenberg, 2014 BCSC 1434; Trudeau v Panter, 2013 BCSC 706
Part II: Resolving family law disputes
J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274
Imposes mandatory obligation to provide full and true information
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297
M.J.H. v C.D.S., 2013 BCSC 2232
May be appointed when future disagreements are foreseeable
Rashtian v Barghoush, 2013 BCSC 994
…if there is “considerable conflict”
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297
… if there is “inability to achieve rational compromise ”
R.M. v N.M., 2014 BCSC 1755
If no ambiguity in parenting order, shouldn’t be appointed
McBeth v Lakey, 2014 BCSC 735
- Duties of family dispute resolution professionals, s. 8
- Duties of parties, s. 9
- Confidentiality of information, s. 11
Part III: Determining parentage
- Void and voidable marriages, s. 21
- Donor not automatically parent, s. 24
- Parentage without assisted reproduction, s. 26
- Parentage with assisted reproduction, s. 27
- Parentage with surrogacy, s. 29
- Declarations of parentage, s. 31
Part IV: Parenting
Hadjioannou v Hadjioannou, 2013 BCSC 1682
Each of the s-s. (2) factors must be separately considered but “in the end the evidence has to be considered as a whole”
M.W.B. v A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885
Assessment of impact of family violence is mandatory
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297
N.C.R. v K.D.C., 2014 BCPC 9
Expert evidence may assist court’s analysis
Keith v MacMillan, 2014 BCSC 1352
S.T.H. v R.M.G., 2013 BCPC 114
Court needn’t make an order declaring someone who is a guardian by definition to be a guardian, court simply acknowledges the fact
K.L.L. v D.J., 2014 BCPC 85
However some judges “appoint”
M.J.A. v R.D.A., 2014 BCSC 1222
…others make declarations confirming status as guardians
T.T. v J.M.H., 2014 BCSC 451
…others just simply say that parents “are” guardians
K.B. v A.S.R., 2014 BCSC 1642
M.W.B. v A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885
There are no presumptions of equal time
Henderson v Bal, 2014 BCSC 1347
A person who is not guardian cannot have parental responsibilities, only contact
C.L.T. v S.L.R., 2014 BCPC 131; M.A.G. v P.L.M., 2014 BCSC 126
J.D.S. v D.Y.C.P., 2014 BCSC 1577
…may also simply order joint exercise of parental responsibilities per s. 40(2)
Shier v Shier, 2014 BCSC 998
…may conclude necessity of consultation is unreasonable and may assign responsibilities as best suits child’s best interests
S.T.H. v. R.M.G., 2013 BCPC 114
…may give views of primary caregiver more weight as they are more familiar which child’s needs, but giving such weight must not be presumed
K.L.G. v D.J.T., 2013 BCSC 1684
C.A.J. v N.J., 2014 BCSC 279; M.S. v G.S., 2013 BCSC 1744
…may assign primary care to one parent, with sharing of rest
McCaw v Hawkey, 2014 BCSC 765
…may order “equal parental responsibilities”
Wafa v Faizi, 2014 BCSC 1760
…may impose terms on sharing of parental responsibilities similar to Joyce and Horn models under Family Relations Act
J.L. v L.D., 2013 BCPC 201; Van Koten v More, 2013 BCSC 1076
…may require sharing but give one parent right to decide in the event of impasse with no other terms
L.A.R. v E.J.R., 2014 BCSC 966
…may assign all to one guardian
K.M.M. v D.R.M., 2014 BCSC 569
A.B.Z. v A.L.F.A., 2014 BCSC 1453
Court may order that parental responsibility of day-to-day decision-making and care and control of child be vested solely in a guardian during his or her parenting time
K.B. v A.S.R., 2014 BCSC 1643
T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
If application for parenting time is brought in context of a plan to change residence, s. 46 applies
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
Only consideration is best interests per s. 37
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
L.A.M.G. v C.S., 2014 BCPC 172
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
If existing order is for contact only, there is no order on “parenting arrangements” and s. 46 applies
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
Section doesn’t apply if guardian has already moved
De Jong v Gardner, 2013 BCSC 1303
Test: determine the parenting arrangements in the best interest of the children, based on each of s. 37(2) factors, plus the reasons for the change of residence; cannot consider whether guardian would move without child
S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
Relocation test under s. 69 “involves a more nuanced approach”
A.J.D. v E.A.E., 2013 BCSC 2160
Gilmour v Herrick, 2013 BCSC 1591
Applicant bears burden of proving change in needs or circumstances of child
M.R. v L.J., 2014 BCPC 39
Intervention of child welfare authorities, child’s election not to see a parent qualify
J.L. v L.D., 2013 BCPC 201
…taking child out of school, mental health issues, family violence qualify
T.D. v E.D., 2013 BCPC 135
…moves within the province where the parents already lived far apart may not qualify
McNaught v Friedman, 2013 BCSC 1836
…breach of court order, parent’s discussion of adult issues with children, parent obtaining live-in caretaker may not qualify
D.J.S. v J.M.D., 2013 BCSC 2302
…change in applicant’s financial circumstances may not qualify
M.R. v L.J., 2014 BCPC 39
L.J.P. v D.L.B., 2014 BCPC 104
L.A.M.G. v C.S., 2014 BCPC 172
Interim order may be made to provide person with standing of guardian for purposes of an application if in the best interests of child and in the interest of the administration of justice
T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217
D. v D., 2013 BCPC 135
Test: first see whether with redistribution of parental responsibilities it remains in child’s interest that person remain a guardian; person ceasing to be guardian loses all parenting responsibilities and rights
D. v D., 2013 BCPC 135
“By allocating or reallocating parenting responsibilities to a more capable parent as opposed to terminating guardianship, a child may safely retain the benefit of having a parent remain a significant part of his or her life”
M.A.G. v P.L.M., 2014 BCSC 126
J.W.K. v E.K., 2014 BCSC 1635 is a good summary case
C.L.T. v S.L.R., 2014 BCPC 131; S.J.F. v R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812
L.A.M.G. v C.S., 2014 BCPC 172
Shaw v Shaw, 2014 BCSC 984
Court should not consider evidence of incidents beyond 12 month limit
Shaw v Shaw, 2014 BCSC 984
Court cannot impose prospective sanctions in anticipation of future breach
S.G. v M.G., 2014 BCPC 6; D.J.S. v J.M.D., 2014 BCSC 1143
Compensable expenses may include loss of income, increased living costs, travel costs, but applicant must prove the expenses claimed to have been incurred
L.S. v G.S., 2014 BCSC 187
“Missed parenting time should be assessed on a qualitative rather than a quantitative basis. Access days should not be totted up and traded back and forth like poker chips.”
K.L.K. v E.J.G.K., 2013 BCSC 2030
Applicant must prove children missed a special event or activity, should provide plan or schedule for make up time
K.L.K. v E.J.G.K., 2013 BCSC 2030
D.N.L. v C.N.S., 2014 BCSC 1417
Attempted use of force on the child to exact the scheduled parenting time or contact may justify withholding on basis of family violence
D.N.L. v C.N.S., 2014 BCSC 1417
S.J.F. v. R.M.N., 2013 BCSC 1812; A.J.D. v E.A.E., 2013 BCSC 2160
Division applies to separation agreements
S.B. v N.L., 2013 BCPC 233
Berry v Berry, 2013 BCSC 1095
S.B. v N.L., 2013 BCPC 233
Notice can be provided by letter from lawyer
S.B. v N.L., 2013 BCPC 233; Klyne v Gardner, 2014 BCSC 1332
… by letter from guardian
S.N. v E.C., 2014 BCPC 82
… by notice of motion
Hokhold v Gerbrandt, 2014 BCSC 1875
Only a guardian has standing to object to relocation
S.J.F. v R.M.M., 2013 BCSC 1812
Court may prohibit relocation despite expiry of 30-day period, court should consider length of delay in filing objection, reasonableness of explanation for late filing, prejudice to moving guardian if hearing allowed; prejudice relates to date of move and planning already undertaken
S.B. v N.L., 2013 BCPC 233
L.J.R. v S.W.R., 2013 BCSC 1344
Test: good faith requires proof that not moving for improper reasons and that move will enhance child’s or guardian’s quality of life; reasonable arrangements means preserving child’s relationship with guardian, not augmenting or enhancing; best interests require analysis of each s. 37(2) factor
T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217
J.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 168
- Referral of questions to court, s. 49
- Agreements on guardianship, s. 50
- Appointment of testamentary guardian, s. 53
- Appointment of standby guardian, s. 55
- Agreements for contact, s. 58
- Changing orders for contact, s. 60
- Failure to exercise time or contact, s. 63
- Non-removal orders, s. 64
- Order prohibiting relocation is not a change in circumstances, s. 71
Part V: Property and debt
Stonehouse v Stonehouse, 2014 BCSC 1057; Joffres v Joffres, 2014 BCSC 1778
Entitlement under s. 81 rests on the definition of spouse, and entitlement commences on separation
Meservy v Field, 2013 BCSC 2378
The presumption of equal entitlement to family property and equal responsibility for family debt is the “starting point”
Remmem v Remmem, 2014 BCSC 1552
Williams v Killey, 2014 BCSC 1846
Family property is all property owned, or in which there is a beneficial interest held, by either spouse at the date of separation, and includes property acquired after separation with family property
Dhillon v Gaba, 2014 BCSC 1474; H.C. v H.P.C., 2014 BCSC 1775
Where parent of spouse provides funds for the spouse’s home, the funds are presumed to be a gift to both spouses and is therefore family property
Cabezas v Maxim, 2014 BCSC 767
Bressette v Henderson, 2013 BCSC 1661
Property acquired by a spouse before the relationship began, and property derived from that property, are excluded from family property
Cabezas v Maxim, 2014 BCSC 767
A spouse “has no right” to property that is not family property
Remmem v Remmem, 2014 BCSC 1552
Inheritances received by a spouse are excluded property
Thomson v Young, 2014 BCSC 799
G.M.W. v D.P.W., 2014 BCSC 482
A contingent reduction in debt does not alter the value of the debt to be shared between spouses
K.M.J. v J.H.D.N., 2014 BCSC 1895
H.C. v H.P.C., 2014 BCSC 1775
Interim distribution, s. 89
L.L.J. v E.J., 2013 BCSC 1233
Cash advanced to fund litigation where parties have disparity in income and “proceed toward and into trial in very unequal circumstances”
M.A.L. v N.A.L., 2014 BCSC 203
Longo v Longo, 2013 BCSC 1578
Applicant must show that shared use of home is a “practical impossibility” and that he or she should be preferred occupant on balance of convenience, applying Family Relations Act case law
Ferguson v Ferguson, 2014 BCSC 216; Bateman v Bateman, 2013 BCSC 2026
Conclusion that family violence has occurred will influence decision given Family Law Act’s emphasis on the issue
J.R.E. v. 07----8 B.C. Ltd, 2013 BCSC 2038
P.N.K. v C.L., 2013 BCSC 1856; Thomson v Young, 2014 BCSC 799
Asselin v Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681
This provision is inapplicable to actions commenced under the Family Relations Act
H.J.S. v K.C.S., 2013 BCSC 998
Family Law Act attempts to codify the law enunciated in Miglin and Rick v Brandsema
H.J.S. v K.C.S., 2013 BCSC 998
Court may only set aside an agreement on property under s-s. (3) if there is evidence demonstrating one or more of stated circumstances
Forest v Forest, 2014 BCSC 1862
Court will only set aside an agreement on property under s-ss. (4) and (5) “if the division agreed to would be ‘substantially different’ from the division that the court would order and ‘significantly unfair’ to one of the spouses”
Thomson v Young, 2014 BCSC 799
Family Law Act recognizes rights of parties to enter into agreements “but provides for the setting aside and variation of agreements if they are unfairly constitutes or the result is significantly unfair”
Asselin v Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681
Heid v Breland, 2013 BCSC 2412
Remmem v Remmem, 2014 BCSC 1552
“Significant unfairness” is a “caution against a departure from the default of equal division … only when an equal division brings consquences sufficiently weighty to render and equal division unjust or unreasonable should a judge depart from the default equal division.”
L.G. v R.G., 2013 BCSC 983
- Rights and remedies of third parties, s. 82
- Protection of property, s. 91
- Division of excluded property, s. 96
- Donor of gift is party to agreement, s. 102
Part VII: Child support and spousal support
D.M.P. v G.E.A., 2013 BCPC 117
D.Z.M. v S.M., 2014 BCPC 198
Qualifying stepparents have a duty to pay support
C.L.P. v N.D., 2014 BCPC 154
Purpose is to ensure children have consistent and reasonable standards of living; primary responsibility lies on parents and if parents can adequately provide stepparents are exempt, if parents cannot provide stepparent may be ordered to contribute
C.B. v M.B., 2014 BCPC 75
Old case law from Family Relations Act and Child Support Guidelines s. 5 on stepparents applies
Henderson v Bal, 2014 BCSC 1347
Amount of stepparent’s obligation is determined under Child Support Guidelines s. 5 along with new Family Law Act factors of length of relationship and standard of living
C.L.P. v N.D., 2014 BCPC 154
…may result in stepparent paying no child support
C.L.P. v N.D., 2014 BCPC 154
…may result in stepparent paying full amount
S.S. v P.W., 2014 BCPC 177
…may result support obligation terminating before stepchild reaches age of majority
Bouzane v Martin, 2014 BCSC 1690
See also U.V.H. v M.W.H., 2008 BCCA 177
D.Z.M. v S.M., 2014 BCPC 198
Child’s refusal to visit does not amount to voluntary withdrawal
Henderson v Bal, 2014 BCSC 1347
Child who is incarcerated for more than a year has voluntarily withdrawn
M.A. v F.A., 2013 BCSC 1077
Young v Young, 2013 BCSC 1574
D.J. & K.J. v C.K. & T.K., 2013 BCPC 197; C.L.L. v D.K.L., 2014 BCSC 1020
Thibault v White, 2014 BCSC 497
Child Support Guidelines are unchanged by the Family Law Act, and old law on child support under Family Relations Act continues to apply
S.M.L. v R.X.R., 2013 BCPC 123
S.M.L. v R.X.R., 2013 BCPC 123
Applicant must show that significant, long-lasting change occurred, that the change was real and not one of choice, and that every effort was made to earn money
K.B. v J.O., 2014 BCPC 212
Test to retroactively reduce child support under s. 152 is different than test to cancel arrears under s. 174 because of “more stringent” test of gross unfairness
A.B.Z. v. A.L.F.A., 2014 BCSC 1453
However, there are strong policy reasons to apply same standard to retroactive variation
P.L. v J.D.L., 2013 BCSC 1492
Quaife v Quaife, 2014 BCSC 1418
A duty to pay support only exists where entitlement exists, taking into account the s. 161 objectives
S.S. v P.W., 2014 BCPC 177
Rathlou v Haylock, 2014 BCPC 59
Outcome will be the same whether under Divorce Act or Family Law Act
Sinclair v Sinclair, 2013 BCSC 2400
Hutchen v Hutchen, 2014 BCSC 729
Peterson v Lebovitz, 2013 BCSC 651
Cause of failure of relationship not a factor to be considered
Bateman v Bateman, 2013 BCSC 2026
M.K.M. v P.S.M., 2013 BCSC 579
A.B.Z. v A.L.F.A., 2014 BCSC 1453
Joffres v Joffres, 2014 BCSC 1778
Orders charging payor’s estate are not indefinite or incapable of discharge as payor’s personal representative can apply to change or cancel the order
P.K.C. v J.R.R., 2014 BCSC 932
Life insurance, s. 170
R.M. v N.M., 2014 BCSC 1755
S.S. v P.W., 2014 BCPC 177
Jensen v Jensen, 2013 BCSC 1373
Case law under Family Relations Act applies under Family Law Act, including Earle, Van Gool and Semancik
B.F. v J.F., 2014 BCSC 1892; Beavis v Beavis, 2014 BCSC 422
- Child support if parentage at issue, s. 151
- Agreements on spousal support, s. 163
- Setting aside agreements on spousal support, s. 164
- Reviews of spousal support, ss. 168 and 169
- Post mortem support applications, s. 171
Part VIII: Children’s property
- Guardian not automatically entitled to receive child’s property, s. 176
- Delivery of small property to child, s. 178
- Appointment of trustee, s. 179
- Delivery of large property to child, s. 181
Part IX: Family violence
D.J.K. v J.J.K., 2013 BCPC 223
Person is not an “at-risk family member” if not “physically threatened” and family violence not alleged
Whitelock v Whitelock, 2014 BCSC 1184
Hughes v Erickson, 2014 BCSC 1952; Cabezas v Maxim, 2014 BCSC 767
“Even a single act” of physical violence may suggest that violence is likely to occur in the future, “likely” should be interpreted bearing in mind the potential gravity of the violence
Dawson v Dawson, 2014 BCSC 44
History of psychological and emotional abuse constitutes risk supporting protection order, even when probation order is in place
N.P. v I.V., 2013 BCSC 1323
Evidence of interference with property and trespassing may support protection order, even without proof as to identity of perpetrator
Pellowski v Wright, 2014 BCSC 753
Chancellor v Chancellor, 2013 BCSC 1519
Court must have evidence of one of s. 184 risk factors to determine if family violence likely to occur, applicant’s assertion of risk or fear not sufficient
Hughes v Erickson, 2014 BCSC 1952; Whitelock v Whitelock, 2014 BCSC 1184
- Additional considerations where child is a family member, s. 185
- Without notice orders, s. 186
- Changing or cancelling protection orders, s. 187
- Enforcement of protection orders, s. 188
- Conflict between orders, s. 189
- Extraprovincial orders, s. 191
Part X: Court processes
Meservy v Field, 2013 BCSC 2378
Cannot amend an existing claim brought within the Family Relations Act time limits to claim property under the Family Law Act if separation occurred more than two years of the Family Law Act coming into force
P.N.K. v C.L., 2013 BCSC 1856
C.P. v B.C., 2013 BCPC 112
… to support levying of fine for non-disclosure
J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274
… to support relaxing rules of evidence
D.M.P. v G.E.A. 2013 BCPC 117
… to support court’s refusal to allow further adjournment of trial
McDermott v McDermott, 2014 BCSC 1238
K.L.K. v E.J.G.K., 2013 BCSC 2030
M.J.S. v A.D., 2013 BCPC 230
See Freldman v MacGarvie, 2012 BCCA 109 on the issue
T.N. v J.C.N., 2013 BCSC 1870
Threshold justifying order for assessment is “quite low”
Smith v Smith, 2014 BCSC 61; Keith v MacMillan, 2014 BCSC 1352
Useful where conflicting evidence on parenting qualities, assessment helpful to obtain insight into parenting, child’s wellbeing
C.M.L.S. v F.C.M.S., 2014 BCSC 1450
… where parents’ dysfunction leaves them unable to objectively perceive child’s best interests
Keith v MacMillan, 2014 BCSC 1352
… where views of child report needed
M.J.A. v R.D.A., 2014 BCSC 1222
... where objective view of child’s best interests is needed
M.M. v C.J., 2014 BCSC 6
… where necessary to determine child’s preference as to residence
Fox v Fox, 2013 BCSC 691
… where necessary to determine child’s preference as to parenting schedule
L.I.W. v T.R.W., 2014 BCSC 1748
Court may “place much reliance on the findings and recommendations”
M.M. v C.J., 2014 BCSC 6
However, assessor must not decide ultimate question or recommend orders for parenting time
T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217
Court may draw its own conclusions from information collected by assessor
T.C. v S.C., 2013 BCPC 217
Enforcing disclosure, s. 213
J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274
Severity of order depends on degree of non-disclosure, reasons for non-disclosure and date when disclosure finally made
J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274
Court should not make anticipatory orders
Crerar v Crerar, 2013 BCSC 2244
Fine of $500, disclosure of complex information made before hearing
J.D.G. v J.J.V., 2013 BCSC 1274
…of $2,880 for failing to disclose basic income information, aggravated by wish to avoid child support; reduced from $4,000 because of limited financial resources
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297
…of $2,500 because of delay of 11 months and failure to take even preliminary steps toward producing financial statement
Cully v Cully, 2013 BCSC 2457
…of $500, as disclosure made prior to hearing and respondent’s lawyer’s cause of some of delay
Doman v Ciccozzi, 2014 BCSC 866
…of $2,000 ordered where information provided was “incomplete, false and misleading”
MacGrotty v MacGrotty, 2014 BCSC 317
…of $500 ordered where respondent breached order with deadline
M.L.D. v K.J.E., 2014 BCPC 221
Respondent must be given notice of intention to seek fine before a fine will be ordered
T.M.T. v J.P.T., 2013 BCPC 352
K.L.J. v E.J.G.K., 2013 BCSC 2030
Relief more limited than under Supreme Court Act s. 18 as cannot generally bar legal proceedings, just within an existing proceeding, but test is less stringent because doesn’t require proof that respondent has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings
Dawson v Dawson, 2014 BCSC 44
Order made against grandparents interfering the litigation, “resulting in extended litigation and numerous frivolous applications to the court,” plus $2,000 fine
M.J.S. v A.D., 2013 BCPC 230
… against party repeatedly attempting to revisit an issue, amounting to a misuse of process
Dawson v Dawson, 2014 BCSC 44
… against both parties where litigation had lasted for four years and trial could have been completed in less than 20 days
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 297
Ferguson v Ferguson, 2014 BCSC 216
Consent order restricting communication to text or email
Hughes v Erickson, 2014 BCSC 1952
Order on court’s motion prohibiting direct communication and restricting to email on child-related subjects
L.D.M. v R.H.M., 2014 BCPC 98
J.R.E. v 07----8 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 2038
K.L.K. v E.J.G.K., 2013 BCSC 2030; Crerar v Crerar, 2013 BCSC 2244
Singh v Singh, 2014 BCSC 651
After parent removing child from daycare to accommodate work schedule without consent of other parent, parent ordered not to further remove child and arrest order made in event of breach
A.L. v K.H., 2013 BCSC 1943
Applicant given liberty to apply under s. 231 in event of future breach of orders restricting respondent’s communication with applicant’s counsel
Dawson v Dawson, 2014 BCSC 44
- Provincial Court enforcement of Supreme Court orders, s. 195
- Lawyers’ compliance with s. 8(2) duties regarding family dispute resolution processes, s. 197
- Legal capacity of children, s. 201
- Receipt of children’s evidence, s. 202
- Guardianship of treaty first nations children, ss. 208, 209
- Property disputes involving treaty first nations land, s. 210
- Orders respecting agreements, s. 214
- Orders on behalf of child, s. 220
- General enforcement provisions, s. 230
Part XIII: Transitional provisions
J.C.P. v J.B., 2013 BCPC 94
Order on primary residence not addressing custody or guardianship does not disturb s. 39 presumption of guardianship
S.T.H. v R.M.G., 2013 BCPC 114
Ex parte interim order for sole custody and sole guardianship under Family Relations Act makes party child’s only guardian under Family Law Act until varied
L.A.M.G. v C.S., 2014 BCPC 172
Order for sole custody with no reference to guardianship deprives parent without custody of status as guardian under Family Law Act
P.A.G. v M.S., 2014 BCPC 158
Coming into force of Family Law Act not a change in circumstances justifying setting aside of agreement for sole custody
A.J.H. v L.C.H., 2013 BCSC 900
G.M.W. v D.P.W., 2014 BCSC 482
This provision does not apply to persons who are not spouses under the Family Relations Act
Meservy v Field, 2013 BCSC 2378
However, unmarried spouse with action for unjust enrichment started prior to coming into force of Family Law Act must amend pleadings to claim division of property under Family Law Act for Family Law Act to apply
McKenzie v Perestrelo, 2014 BCCA 161
Spouses can agree to have Family Law Act apply to property proceedings commenced under the Family Relations Act
Asselin v Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681
A party cannot amend Family Relations Act property proceeding to claim under the Family Law Act contrary to s. 252, without consent of other spouse
G.G. v M.A., 2013 BCSC 1834; Yucson v Yucson, 2014 BCSC 1614
K.H.M. v J.M.F., 2013 BCPC 56
Other noteworthy cases
Know of any other helpful cases? Please post a comment with the name of the case and a short description of what the court had to say about the Family Law Act.
