Balic v. Balic, 2007 BCCA 530

• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 26, 2006
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2007 BCCA 530;(2007), 247 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA)

Balic v. Balic (2007), 247 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA);

    409 W.A.C. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.008

Loredana Gloria Balic (respondent/plaintiff) v. Stjepan Balic also known as Steven Balic (appellant/defendant)

(CA031304; 2007 BCCA 530)

Indexed As: Balic v. Balic

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A.

October 31, 2007.

Summary:

A husband appealed from a decision rendered with respect to the division of the parties' assets.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 228 B.C.A.C. 250; 376 W.A.C. 250, allowed the appeal. The court's order provided in part "that the appellant be given 90 days from the filing of the order in which to notify counsel for the respondent in writing of his intention to purchase all the shares allocated to the respondent for the respective prices per share determined in accordance with these reasons". On November 10, 2006, the order was submitted to the Registry and stamped with the November 10 date. The order was entered on November 21, 2006. On February 19, 2007, the husband gave notice of his intention to purchase the wife's shares pursuant to the order. The wife responded that the notice was out of time because the order had been "filed" on November 10. The husband contended that the term "filing" in the order was synonymous with "entry" and the notice to exercise the option was given within the 90 day period. The parties made written submissions on the matter.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the order was not "filed" until November 21, 2006. The notice to exercise the option was therefore given within "90 days from the filing of the order". The court directed that the parties complete the share transfer as contemplated by the court's judgment.

Family Law - Topic 4191

Divorce - Practice - Judgments and orders - General - [See Practice - Topic 5419 ].

Practice - Topic 5419

Judgments and orders - Entry of judgments and orders - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed a husband's appeal from a decision rendered with respect to the division of the parties' assets - The court's order provided in part "that the appellant be given 90 days from the filing of the order in which to notify counsel for the respondent in writing of his intention to purchase all the shares allocated to the respondent for the respective prices per share determined in accordance with these reasons" - On November 10, 2006, the order was submitted to the Registry and stamped with the November 10 date - The order was entered on November 21, 2006 - On February 19, 2007, the husband gave notice of his intention to purchase the wife's shares - The wife responded that the notice was out of time because the order had been "filed" on November 10 - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that only when the order was entered did it become part of the file - The order was therefore not "filed" until November 21, 2006, and the notice to exercise the option was given within the 90 day period - The court also stated that "to the extent the term is ambiguous, it would not be appropriate to adopt a technical or narrow meaning of the word used. Rather, we should adopt a reasonable meaning that reasonable parties would understand to reflect our intention ... a reasonable interpretation of 'filing' in these circumstances is 'entry', because entry is what gives formal legal effect to our orders after they are pronounced".

Practice - Topic 6136

Judgments and orders - Interpretation of - Ambiguity - Procedure to resolve - [See Practice - Topic 5419 ].

Counsel:

J.S. Harvey, for the appellant;

H. Wiebach, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on May 26, 2006, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Written submissions were received on March 26, August 28, September 28 and October 5, 2007. The Court of Appeal delivered the following supplementary reasons for judgment on October 31, 2007.