immigration, canada, immigrate to canada, immigration lawyer, immigrate, canadian, law,

Reported Decisions

IMG_6270

Our family law clients have enjoyed great success through the courts when attempts to settle matters reasonably and fairly outside the court system (our preferred way of resolving disputes) have failed.

Some of our Reported Decisions

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Borrero v. Rico, 2017 BCSC 84 (CanLII)

Cornett v. Woike, 2016 BCSC 2365 (CanLII)

T.K. v. R.J.H.A., 2013 BCSC 2112 (CanLII)

Sangha v. Van Bree, 2012 BCSC 2046

Ontario Court of Appeal

Hashemi v. Paraiso, 2008 ONCA 226 (CanLII)

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

D.K. v. M.K. and J.P., 2010 ONSC 4585

Soto v. Olivares, 2007 CanLII 43907 (ON SC)

Lopez v. Tarnocai, 2006 CanLII 44275 (ON SC)

Woo v. Chin, 2007 CanLII 50880 (ON SC)

Kernerman v. Kernerman, 2008 CanLII 56936 (ON SC)

Ontario Court of Justice

Padua v. Gordon, 2008 ONCJ 421 (CanLII)

 

Interesting Decisions

The state of family law evolves every day with decisions being released by the courts that interpret and clarify the current state of the law. Below are a number of recent decisions.

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

Marquez v. Zapiola, 2013 BCCA 433

Held:

The appeal: There was no evidentiary basis for imputing income to the appellant who had significant compensatory and non-compensatory claims for spousal support. There was an evidentiary basis for the judge’s deduction of 20% from the respondent’s gross business income for reasonable business expenses. The respondent’s bonus income, albeit not guaranteed but constant over the past several years should have been imputed to some extent in calculating his income. Reapportionment of family property in favour of a payee spouse does not by itself require an award of spousal support below the SSAG range.

The cross appeal: The older child is now an adult and the issue of custody has no merit. The respondent who was awarded joint guardianship of the children was entitled to reasonable access. The court has jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to impose a term that the children and respondent attend for a single counselling session. The appellant is required to share proportionately in the children’s extraordinary expenses based on the amount of her spousal support income.”

 

 

wordpress stat