Wallace v. Wallace, 2000 BCCA 81

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hall and Saunders, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 18, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2000 BCCA 81;(2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 175 (CA)

Wallace v. Wallace (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 175 (CA);

    217 W.A.C. 175

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.009

Janet Elizabeth Wallace (petitioner/respondent) v. Christopher Stirling Wallace (respondent/appellant)

(CA025139; 2000 BCCA 81)

Indexed As: Wallace v. Wallace

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hall and Saunders, JJ.A.

February 2, 2000.

Summary:

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. C40, granted a divorce, settled custody and access issues by agreement and divided family assets 70 percent to the wife and 30 percent to the husband. The court fixed spousal and child maintenance and ordered the husband to pay increased costs at 75 percent of special costs. The husband appealed the inclusion of two items as fam­ily assets, the quantum of maintenance and costs.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court allowed the appeal respecting the family assets issue. The court remitted the questions of spousal and child maintenance to the Supreme Court and reduced the wife's increased costs.

Family Law - Topic 876

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Family or matrimo­nial assets - A $63,000 cash residue remained from the sale of the matrimonial home - This was paid by agreement to the husband, on the wife's understanding that he would use it to buy furniture (which he did, for about $15,000), and pay off family debts (which was not done) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that this amount was not a family asset - See para­graphs 6 to 10.

Family Law - Topic 876

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Family or matrimo­nial assets - For eight months before the parties separated, the husband was employed - When he left that employ­ment, he had to sue for unpaid wages - He recovered $40,000, incurring legal fees of $4,000 - These settlement monies were not an identifiable asset at the triggering date or at trial - The husband supported his estranged wife and four children for four years before trial - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the net balance of the settlement monies was not a family asset - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Family Law - Topic 880.7

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Award or settlement of damages - [See second Family Law - Topic 876 ].

Practice - Topic 7110.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Con­duct of opposite party - In a family law matter, the husband was ordered to pay increased costs at 75 percent of special costs - 75 percent of special costs exceeded $50,000 - Tariff costs would be about $50,000 - The trial judge found no reprehensible conduct in the course of the litigation - The British Columbia Court of Appeal did not feel increased costs were warranted, but rather than put the parties to the expense of a further application, the court reduced the wife's increased costs to 50 percent of special costs - See para­graphs 22 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Billingsley v. Billingsley (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 201; 9 W.A.C. 201; 36 R.F.L.(3d) 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Bell v. Bell (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 300; 208 W.A.C. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Steven N. Mansfield, for the appellant;

Gary M. Harasym, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hall and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 18, 2000. The decision of the court was delivered on February 2, 2000, by McEachern, C.J.B.C.