Pavlis v. Pavlis, [2000] B.C.T.C. 255 (SC)

• Judge: Meiklem, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2000] B.C.T.C. 255 (SC);2000 BCSC 565

Pavlis v. Pavlis, [2000] B.C.T.C. 255 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.015

Judy Lynne Pavlis (plaintiff) v. Tyler Joseph Pavlis (defendant)

(D108520; 2000 BCSC 565)

Indexed As: Pavlis v. Pavlis

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Meiklem, J.

April 7, 2000.

Summary:

A couple divorced. With the assistance of counsel and over a number of days, the parties negotiated a settlement dividing their matrimonial property. There was no uncertainty regarding its terms, which gave the wife approximately 30% of the marital property. The wife had second thoughts about the terms of the settlement and advised her lawyer's firm of that fact the day after the agreement was negotiated. The agreement was never signed by the parties. The wife sought variation of the oral agreement. A preliminary issue was whether the husband's interests in two companies that were incorporated after the separation but prior to the triggering event were family assets.

The British Columbia Supreme Court determined that the husband's interests in the companies were family assets. The court discussed the test to be applied in a variation application under s. 68 of the Family Relations Act, and held that, in the absence of the settlement agreement, the court would have awarded the wife only 5.8% more of the marital assets than she received under the settlement. The court held this variance was within the range where reasonable people might differ, and did not render the settlement unfair. The court dismissed the wife's claim.

Family Law - Topic 868

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Property subject to distribution - See paragraphs 15 to 23.

Family Law - Topic 876

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Family or matrimonial assets - See paragraphs 15 to 23.

Family Law - Topic 880.4

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Post-separation - See paragraphs 15 to 23.

Family Law - Topic 880.47

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Company shares, stock options, etc. - See paragraphs 15 to 23.

Family Law - Topic 3377

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Variation - Grounds for refusal - See paragraphs 27 to 67.

Family Law - Topic 3378

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Variation - Grounds - Unfairness - See paragraphs 27 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

Barnard v. Barnard (1987), 7 R.F.L.(3d) 163 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Casano v. Casano (1985), 49 R.F.L.(2d) 174 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Billingsley v. Billingsley (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 201; 9 W.A.C. 201; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Gold v. Gold (1993), 32 B.C.A.C. 275; 53 W.A.C. 275; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 41 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Gariepy v. Gariepy, [1996] B.C.J. No. 1644 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Von Poser v. Von Poser (1999), 18 B.C.T.C. 217 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Speed v. Speed, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2740 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

King v. King (1996), 26 R.F.L.(4th) 371 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Divinsky v. Divinsky (1971), 2 R.F.L. 372 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

T.(T.L.A.) v. T.(W.W.) - see Tyler v. Tyler.

Tyler v. Tyler (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 136; 128 W.A.C. 136; 24 R.F.L.(4th) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Gilpin v. Gilpin (1990), 29 R.F.L.(3d) 250 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Dal Santo v. Dal Santo (1975), 21 R.F.L. 117 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Goodman v. Goodman (1980), 23 B.C.L.R. 175 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Maricic v. Maricic (1981), 27 B.C.L.R. 157 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Stark v. Stark (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 425 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 41].

Saywell v. Saywell, [1993] B.C.J. No. 423, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 68 [para. 50].

Counsel:

Nicholas W. Lott, for the plaintiff;

F. Ean Maxwell, Q.C., for the defendant.

This case was heard between November 30 and December 3, 1999, in Vancouver, B.C., by Meiklem, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who released the following decision on April 7, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.