Matteucci v. Greenberg, (2016) 384 B.C.A.C. 181 (CA)

• Judge: Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 04, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2016), 384 B.C.A.C. 181 (CA);2016 BCCA 116

Matteucci v. Greenberg (2016), 384 B.C.A.C. 181 (CA);

    663 W.A.C. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.026

David Anthony Matteucci (respondent/claimant) v. Jennifer Loree Greenberg (appellant/respondent)

(CA42031; 2016 BCCA 116)

Indexed As: Matteucci v. Greenberg

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.

March 15, 2016.

Summary:

Ms. Greenberg and Mr. Matteucci lived together for a period or periods of time between August 2007 and July 2012. They had one child born in 2010. They separated in June 2012. Mr. Matteucci commenced a family proceeding by notice of family claim in September 2012. He sought an order respecting parenting arrangements and the division of property and an accounting based on equity (unjust enrichment and trust principles). In the notice of family claim Mr. Matteucci asserted that the parties had lived in a marriage-like relationship commencing in July 2009 and ending in June 2012. Ms. Greenberg filed a response to the family claim in December 2012. She said that the parties began to live in a marriage-like relationship in August 2007. Ms. Greenberg filed a counterclaim in October 2013 claiming spousal support, child support, interests in certain property, and an equal division of family property and debts under the Family Law Act (FLA). The FLA received Royal Assent on November 24, 2011. It came into force on March 18, 2013 and replaced the Family Relations Act (FRA).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1434, dismissed Ms. Greenberg's claims for spousal support and a division of property. The trial judge found that the FLA did not apply to Ms. Greenberg's claims because the parties separated, at the latest, before the FLA came into force. He held that as an unmarried "spouse" Ms. Greenberg had no property claims under the FRA or under common law as she had not pled a trust. He found that any claim for spousal support under the FRA was out of time because of the definition of "spouse" in s. 1 of the FRA. In the result, the trial judge did not make any finding on whether the parties were in a marriage-like relationship or the duration of any such relationship. The trial judge allowed a claim for child support although he did not make any express findings on Mr. Matteucci's income during the period prior to trial. Ms. Greenberg appealed. She argued that the FLA applied to her claims for spousal support and the division of property.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge erred in finding that the FLA had no application in this case. It was therefore necessary for the court to consider the threshold questions of whether the parties were in a marriage-like relationship, and the period of any such relationship. In the court's view, the FLA should have been considered in respect of both Ms. Greenberg's claim for spousal support and property division, and the determination of Mr. Matteucci's income might have consequential effects for the amount of child support payable for the period leading to trial. The court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the questions of spousal support, retroactive child support for the period of January 2013 to October 2013, and property division.

Family Law - Topic 681

Husband and wife - Property rights during and after common law marriage or relationship - General - See paragraphs 24 to 62.

Family Law - Topic 1007

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Application of marital relations legislation - See paragraphs 24 to 62.

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - See paragraphs 56 to 62.

Statutes - Topic 6903

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Repeal - Preservation of rights acquired or accrued under repealed statute - See paragraphs 56 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 25].

Ciecierski v. Fenning (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 272; 351 W.A.C. 272; 258 D.L.R.(4th) 103; 2005 MBCA 52, not appld. [para. 33].

Dikranian v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 530; 342 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 33].

D.S. et al. v. S.J.T. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 274; 115 W.A.C. 274; 16 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Wiest v. Middelkamp et al. (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 228; 303 W.A.C. 228; 2003 BCCA 437, dist. [para. 43].

A.P.O. v. A.A.A., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1567; 2014 BCSC 1567, refd to. [para. 50].

L.J.R. v. S.W.R., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1344; 2013 BCSC 1344, refd to. [para. 50].

Walburger v. Lindsay, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 341; 2015 BCSC 341, refd to. [para. 50].

Jaszczewska v. Kostanski et al., [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 727; 2015 BCSC 727, refd to. [para. 50].

Williams v. Killey, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1846; 2014 BCSC 1846, refd to. [para. 50].

Trytten-Bradley v. Buckley, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2257; 2014 BCSC 2257, refd to. [para. 50].

Walsh v. Bona, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325; 297 N.R. 203; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 659 A.P.R. 273; 2002 SCC 83, dist. [para. 56].

Meservy v. Field, [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2378; 2013 BCSC 2378, refd to. [para. 62].

Howland Estate v. Sikora, 2015 BCSC 2248, refd to. [para. 62].

Newton et al. v. Crouch et al. (2016), 384 B.C.A.C. 164; 663 W.A.C. 164; 2016 BCCA 115, refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, sect. 1 [para. 12]; sect. 3 [para. 13]; sect. 81, sect. 104 [para. 14]; sect. 160, sect. 161, sect. 162 [para. 15]; sect. 198 [para. 16]; sect. 252 [para. 17].

Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238, sect. 8 [para. 18].

Counsel:

A. Schroeder, for the appellant;

N. Nasser, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 4, 2015, at Vancouver, B.C., before Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Savage, J.A., on March 15, 2016.