Chapman v. Chapman, 2024 BCCA 372

This appeal case was about the jurisdiction for a judge dealing with dividing family property to change course from a sealed bid process between the former spouses to a joint conduct of sale process.

One party argued that the completed sealed bid process should be upheld and implemented. The other party argued that there were defects in the process and the passage of time dictated that it would serve the interest of justice to move forward with the parties having joint conduct of sale with respect to two valuable commercial properties.

The outcome of the appeal was to uphold the joint conduct of sale order.

*This case has been cited 5 times in other court judgments.

Moazzen Ahmadi v. Ahmadi Far, 2021 BCCA 126

This interesting case dealt with a simple but important concept regarding support. Does the court have the jurisdiction to order repayment of support following a retroactive adjustment following a variation application?

One party argued that there was in fact no authority to order repayment while acknowledging this seemed illogical. The other party argued that there was in fact jurisdiction to do so.

The outcome of the appeal was confirmation that the authority to order repayment of support exists in Section 17 of the Divorce Act and in the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

*This case has been cited 12 times in other court judgments.

Nordeen v. Nordeen, 2013 BCCA 178

This case is about access to justice for survivors of family violence.

This case addressed the question of when a young adult older than the age 19 threshold ceases being a “child of the marriage” for the purposes of child support under the Divorce Act.

One parent argued that the taking of a gap year combined with less than full time attendance at university meant that child support should have ended at age 19. The other parent argued that the gap year was with the blessing of both parents and that the health issues faced by the daughter should be taken into account when assessing the vigor of the university program.

In the end, the appeal court confirmed the lower court decision accepting that child support remained payable after the daughter’s 19th birthday and would terminate upon her 22nd birthday.

*This case has been cited 72 times in other court judgments.

Stav v. Stav, 2012 BCCA 154

This case involved the challenging subject of a relocation ruling by which one parent was initially authorized to relocate with two children to a foreign country. After the trial of the matter, the authorized parent relocated with the children while the other parent proceeded with an appeal process in BC.

The Court of Appeal considered that the trial judge seemed to have correlated the best interest of the children with the best interest of the mother. The Court also considered that the father was caught in a double-bind situation with an implicit assumption by the trial judge that the father would move to the foreign country to be with the children if the relocation by the mother was authorized. However the Court of Appeal noted that for a proper analysis of the best interests of children in mobility or relocation cases, it may in fact be wise to assess the willingness and feasibility of one parent relocating with the other parent.

In the final result, the relocation order was reversed and it was ordered that the children return to Vancouver.

*This case has been cited 103 times in other court judgments.

Domirti v. Domirti, 2010 BCCA 472

This case addressed support variation and support review. The result included the termination of spousal support payments.

One party argued on appeal that the first judge was mistaken in holding the payor parent to a standard requiring a material change to be shown when the basis for the application was a review clause in the existing support order.

The Court of Appeal elaborated on the difference between a variation application and a review. The Court noted again that review clauses are intended to be the exception and should be quite specific rather than simply stating that a review may be held regarding duration or entitlement and duration.

*This case has been cited 105 times in other court judgments.