Source: http://bcfamilylawresource.blogspot.com/2016/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 17:27:35
Document Index: 542636113

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art\n5']

JP Boyd on Family Law Blog by Collaborative Divorce Vancouver: 2016
BC government’s Civil Policy and Legislation Office has released two Discussion Papers on issues pertaining to BC’s Family
Law Act. Their website explains that:
The Family Law Act came fully into force on March 18, 2013, replacing
the Family Relations Act. The
new act significantly changed the way guardianship and parenting arrangements
are conceptualized within family law in British Columbia, introducing new
terminology as well as a new framework for determining parents’
responsibilities towards their children. The Family Law Act also reformed the division of property, listing
the types of property that are excluded from family property and generally will
not be divided up after the parties separate. Whenever new legislation is enacted, it
is anticipated the courts will provide guidance on how the new legislative
provisions are to be interpreted as cases are decided using the new law. There are now three years of case law interpreting the Family Law Act. Feedback received
by government suggests that this is an opportune time to consider particular
issues that have been raised related to guardianship and division of property
Discussion Paper covers issues pertaining to the guardianship provisions,
including “the intention underlying those provisions; how the default
guardianship provisions have been interpreted in recent case law; and potential
guardianship models suggested in response to concerned feedback.”
The “Guardianship Issues under the Family Law Act” Discussion Paper poses the following
the FLA be clarified with respect to guardianship in situations where the
parents never lived together, or lived together but separated before the child
regular care a useful basis for establishing the guardianship status of a
parent that has never lived with their child?
it is a useful basis, does regular care need to be more clearly defined within the
diagram on page eight is a visual depiction of the options and some of the
questions that flow from them. Does one of these options represent a clearer,
more effective way to understand and apply guardianship in the absence of an
Discussion Paper covers the presumption of advancement. It highlights many of the issues raised in
the BC Court of Appeal decision V.J.F. v.S.K.W., 2016 BCCA 186, summarized on page six of the Discussion Paper as “whether
excluded property always remains excluded property; the impact of applying the
presumption of advancement to Part 5 of the FLA; the interpretation of ‘derived
from’ in section 85 (1) (g) of the FLA; and the impact of section 104 (2) of
the FLA on the operation of Part 5 of the FLA.”
it more consistent with fairness between spouses for the FLA to provide that
gifts of excluded property between spouses transfer beneficial ownership or to
allow excluded property to always retain its excluded status? Consider the
example of RRSP’s or other investments purchased with the excluded property of
one spouse and registered in the name of the other spouse? Should the value of
the excluded property be returned to the transferor spouse or treated as family
property under Part 5 of the FLA?
BCCA decision in VJF suggests that a spouse who wants to rebut the presumption
of advancement can enter into an agreement that sets out that property
exchanged between them is not a gift. Is this a practical way for spouses to
consideration be given to amending the legislation to explicitly abolish the
presumption of advancement for the purposes of Part 5 of the FLA entirely? Or,
should consideration be given to adopting the approach used in other provinces?
the presumption is not abolished for purposes of Part 5 of the FLA, should the
FLA be clarified to ensure that the presumption also applies to those
non-married spouses to whom Part 5 of the FLA applies?
Court of Appeal decision suggests that section 85(1)(g) can be used to retain
the status of excluded property only if: the test of the presumption of
advancement is met; and there is property or some other benefit returning to
the transferor spouse. Because section 85(1) (g) applies only between spouses,
are there scenarios in which a transferor spouse will receive a benefit from
the transferee spouse such that section 85(1)(g) can apply? For example,
assuming a finding that the test of the presumption of advancement was met, if
the facts of VJF were that the purchased property was registered in the joint
names of the spouses rather than the sole name of the wife, would that
difference have constituted a returning ‘benefit’ to the husband?
BCCA decision in VJF alludes to the usefulness of the presumption of
advancement to ensure fairness between spouses. If the presumption of
advancement continues to apply to matters under Part 5 of the FLA, does section
95 of the FLA provide sufficient flexibility to allow a Court to address any
alleged unfairness caused by excluded property being converted to family
the presumption of advancement is specifically abolished regarding matters
under Part 5 of the FLA, does section 96 of the FLA provide sufficient
flexibility to allow a Court to address any alleged unfairness that results
from the tracing of excluded property?
there other “rights under equity or any other law” that may interact with Part
5 of the FLA which require examination?
CBABC Family Law Working Group has prepared two surveys on these issues to
assist them in drafting their submissions to the government. They are seeking input from lawyers and
non-lawyers. The deadline for responding
to their first survey on the presumption of advancement is this Wednesday,
September 21st. The deadline for responding to their second survey on guardianship is Friday, September 30th. Posted by Jennifer Woodruff
MediateBC is looking for more information from British Columbia family law lawyers as well as from people who have been involved in a family law dispute anywhere in Canada, and invites you to complete a survey that you can find on their website. One survey is provided for family law lawyers, another for families. Please help MediateBC gather the data they need for this important initiative and take the time to complete their survey.