Property Division:

Greenwood v Greenwood, 2010 BCSC 153          

In this important decision, we represented the Plaintiff and were successful in having the Court set aside a contract between the parties. The contract was written in a way that favored the Defendants. 

We successfully argued that the intent of the contract was different than the wording in the contract, which resulted in a more favourable judgment for our client.

Duncan v Duncan 1997 CANLII 1562 (BCSC)  

In this case we acted for the Respondent who had a history of wrongfully disposing family assets. The Petitioner asked for reapportionment (more than 50%) of the family assets as compensation for the wrongful disposition of assets. 

We successfully obtained an equal division of the family assets, and also an award of costs against the Petitioner for failure to promptly pay funds to our client.

Custody, Guardianship and Access:

K.R.H. v C.J.H. E029195 April 10, 2014          

In this case we represented the Claimant in a custody dispute against the Respondent, who had been the primary caregiver for the children for many years.

Through disclosure Orders and the tenacious pursuit of documents and information, we gathered sufficient evidence to change custody from the Respondent's care into our client's care.

A. v U., F29497 March 24, 2009    

In this case we represented the Respondent who was opposed to the Claimant having any access to the child. The Claimant had a history of drug addiction, relapses and criminal activity. Even in such circumstances, it is difficult to obtain an Order that a parent not have any access (even supervised access).

At the trial, however, the Judge sided with our client and our arguments resulted in an Order that the Claimant have no access.

D.A.H. v S-S.H., 2003 BCSC 1228

In this case, we were successful in assisting the Defendant in changing an earlier Order which limited the client’s access to the children.  The case required twelve days of trial given the comprehensive and detailed evidence. In the trial, a psychologist (expert testimony) provided an opinion that our client's access should be less than fifty percent.

A key element of our success was challenging the expert to reconsider his opinion, which after cross-examination, he did. In the result, our client’s objectives were achieved in obtaining equal custody and access.

Spousal Support:

RMB v TCB, E035376, February 28, 2012

In this high wealth case, the Payor was under representing his income. This case required a detailed analysis of corporate financial documents including analysis of dividends and retained earnings. 

In the first application we were successful in obtaining an Order of Spousal Support in the sum of approximately $6,000 per month.  When the youngest child was emancipated a further application was made increasing spousal support payable to our client to approximately $7,000 per month. Of course, significant dividends were still payable to our client.

Judicial Review:

OCC v AC, 2013 BCSC 682

In this case, our client (the Payor) did not have a lawyer when he attended a Hearing in which he opposed an application to increase child support. The Judge simply accepted the statements of the Recipient without allowing the Payor a chance to ask questions of the Recipient through cross examination. The Order made against the Payor resulted in a Child Support Order greater than the Payor’s total income. The Payor then retained us.

We immediately filed an application for Judicial Review and we were successful in getting the support Order set aside.


Mehrhoff v Mehrhoff, 2003 BCCA 595

In this case we represented the Respondent in an Appeal by the Appellant to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Appellant who was unsatisfied with the trial decision favouring our client, sought to set aside a Judgment requiring her to pay our client significant monies.

The Court of Appeal sided with our client and dismissed the appeal and awarded our client costs.