Prystay v. Prystay, 2006 BCSC 495
| Judge | Warren, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Case Date | March 28, 2006 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2006 BCSC 495;[2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 229;[2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 229 (SC) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 practice notes
-
Kurytnik v. Javid, [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. A27
...The Respondents' submissions [24] The respondents rely upon the following cases: Hearn v. Hearn , 2002 BCSC 927; Prystay v. Prystay , 2006 BCSC 495; Moss v. Hooper , [1994] B.C.J. No. 346 (S.C.)(Q.L.); D.J.W. v. M.M.W., 2002 BCSC 160; Ward v. Ward , [1999] B.C.J. No. 2009 (S.C.)(Q.L.); Sorg......
-
Cao v. Chen, 2018 BCSC 831
...decided prior to the enactment of s. 89 of the FLA provided that courts should be “very cautious”, see para. 15 of Prystay v. Prystay, 2006 BCSC 495, and granting an interim advance was an “extraordinary order and one that must be weighed carefully and approached with reticence”, see para. ......
-
Van den Dungen v. Van den Dungen et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1273
...advance is not whether it is required for one spouse to fund his or her lawsuit against the other": p. 36. (See also Prystay v. Prystay, 2006 BCSC 495 at paras. 14-15.). The experts have been jointly retained to provide the necessary valuation evidence and thus address the main dispute betw......
3 cases
-
Kurytnik v. Javid, [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. A27
...The Respondents' submissions [24] The respondents rely upon the following cases: Hearn v. Hearn , 2002 BCSC 927; Prystay v. Prystay , 2006 BCSC 495; Moss v. Hooper , [1994] B.C.J. No. 346 (S.C.)(Q.L.); D.J.W. v. M.M.W., 2002 BCSC 160; Ward v. Ward , [1999] B.C.J. No. 2009 (S.C.)(Q.L.); Sorg......
-
Cao v. Chen, 2018 BCSC 831
...decided prior to the enactment of s. 89 of the FLA provided that courts should be “very cautious”, see para. 15 of Prystay v. Prystay, 2006 BCSC 495, and granting an interim advance was an “extraordinary order and one that must be weighed carefully and approached with reticence”, see para. ......
-
Van den Dungen v. Van den Dungen et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1273
...advance is not whether it is required for one spouse to fund his or her lawsuit against the other": p. 36. (See also Prystay v. Prystay, 2006 BCSC 495 at paras. 14-15.). The experts have been jointly retained to provide the necessary valuation evidence and thus address the main dispute betw......