Pushor Mitchell lawyers successfully defended the firm’s client against all five grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant. In its recent judgment, the BC Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, rejecting the Appellant’s claims.
The Appellant advanced several grounds of appeal including that the trial judge made:
- errors of law with respect to the Appellant’s unequal division of family property and unjust enrichment claims;
- an error of law in his joint family venture analysis; and
- a palpable and overriding error of fact in assessing the value of the “Sidhu Assets”.
The BC Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the trial judge’s reasoning for any of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal.
A notable point from the judgment is the Court’s recognition that personal rights of property, even those which can only be claimed or enforced by action rather than taking physical possession (i.e. choses in action) can be considered family property within section 84(2)(b) of the Family Law Act. For example, a spouse can seek to establish that the other spouse has a beneficial interest in a partnership, association, organization, business, or venture by way of an unjust enrichment claim which should be valued as family property, if that claim for the beneficial interest is supported by sufficient evidence (see paras 82 to 87 of the judgment). The Court noted that it was open to the Appellant to establish that the Respondent had a beneficial interest in one or more ventures of the Sidhu enterprise, and that such interest could be included as family property (as a chose in action). However, the Appellant had failed to establish this on the evidence. This leaves the door open for future litigants to include a chose in action as family property in disputes where the facts and evidence warrant such an approach.
The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of clear evidentiary support when advancing complex equitable claims in family law and highlights Pushor Mitchell’s continued success in navigating complex cases both at first instance and on appeal.
A link to the BC Court of Appeal judgment is here.
Taryn M. Moore represented the Respondent at first instance trial
Alison M. Memory and Liz J. Hatcher represented the Respondent on appeal