Trial & Chambers Decisions
Garry K. Thomas has appeared as lead counsel in many important decisions in BC Family law, including trial and appeal successes involving custody, income, support, division of assets and estate litigation. Several cases below demonstrate nuanced use of the Rules of Court to obtain significant results for clients.
Our Trial and Chambers cases argued by Garry K. Thomas or Sabina Beesley ((née Bhate) include:
Waldron v Wong 2018 BCSC 418 (Sabina Beesley)
We acted for the Respondents in this case. The Claimant filed a lawsuit, alleging that one of the Respondents was unjustly enriched in light of the contributions the Claimant made to the Respondent’s home over the span of 17 years. The Claimant filed a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the Respondent’s home and sought an order at trial that the Respondent’s home be sold. At trial, we successfully argued that the Claimant’s lawsuit should be dismissed, given that the Claimant had enjoyed the benefit of living at the Respondent’s home for numerous years and never paid market rent. The Claimant’s claim for an interest in the Respondent’s home was dismissed.
Cao v Chen 2018 BCSC 786 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case, the Claimant seeks to litigate family law issues in British Columbia – divorce, division of assets – that have already been decided by a foreign court. Our client seeks to have that foreign divorce decree recognized at trial. We were successful in arguing before the Court that the Claimant should be the first to address the court at the trial of the recognition of the foreign divorce decree because there is a legal presumption in favour of the validity of a foreign divorce decree, and therefore the legal onus is on the Claimant to rebut that presumption.
D.L. v J.L., 2017 BCSC 801 (Sabina Beesley)
In this summary trial, we successfully argued that the Claimant was intentionally under-employed. We successfully argued for income to be “imputed” to him based on what he could earn if he was working to capacity. We also successfully opposed the Claimant’s claim for spousal support.
Boardwalk Contracting Inc v. Naples 2017 BCSC 1367 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this complex, high-conflict file, we appeared before the court, before trial, to address matters related to asset preservation and case management in two separate lawsuits – a family law lawsuit and a civil lawsuit. We were successful in obtaining court orders related to asset preservation, and document disclosure, and court orders that enabled our client to deal with family property before trial. We also successfully opposed the other party’s application to have both lawsuits heard at the same time. The factual background allowed the court to appreciate that the civil action was an ill-conceived vehicle that ultimately resulted in that action being stayed, that is stopped.
J.AF. v J.J.F. 2016 BCSC 300 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case at trial we successfully set aside provisions of a marriage agreement that our client was compelled to sign by the other party in an attempt to reconcile. The court found that our client was manipulated, misled and pressured into signing a marriage agreement without having meaningful legal advice. As a result, the family assets were divided equally, including the other party’s alleged ‘excluded property’, and the court recognized our client’s strong claim to compensatory and need-based spousal support should not be restricted to the amounts set out in the marriage agreement.
ASHAK v ASHAK 2016 BCSC 941 (Sabina Bhate – now Sabina Beesley)
In this case there were several issues for the court’s determination including our client’s entitlement to spousal support. We were successful in obtaining a child support order for our client, proving our client’s entitlement to compensatory spousal support and obtaining an order that the other party must maintain a life insurance policy with our client designated as the beneficiary (in trust,) while he had an obligation to pay child support.
D.M.D v R.L.D 2015 BCSC 2332 (Garry K. Thomas)
The issues in this case included the determination of income of both parties and the amount of child support payable for a child of the marriage and a step-child. The other party sought an order at trial that significant income be imputed to our client – a high-earning professional – but was not successful. In fact, the court found upon review of the facts that it was appropriate to impute income to the other party – not our client – because she was intentionally unemployed. With respect to child support for a step-child, the issue for the court’s determination was the obligation of a high-earning step-parent to pay support for a step-child. While the court did order our client to pay child support for his step-child the amount was relatively modest in comparison with what the other party sought our client to pay.
Read the press coverage of this case by CBC news
LING v REELY 2015 – unreported (Sabina Bhate – now Sabina Beesley)
One of the main issues in this case was the guardianship of the parties’ young child. Our client, the father, sought a declaration at trial that he was a guardian of the child because he ‘regularly cared for the child’, or in the alternative he sought an order from the court that he be appointed a guardian of the child. We were successful on both grounds.
SQUAIR v SQUAIR 2015 BCSC 2321 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case we obtained retroactive child support for our client and retroactive special expenses and a division of the other party’s U.S. Social Security entitlement.
BOSKI v BOSKI 2014 BCSC 1599 (Garry K. Thomas and Sabina Bhate – now Sabina Beesley)
This case involved the determination of parenting arrangements, division of assets, child support and spousal support. We were successful in obtaining an order that our client have sole custody of the children and an order that the parental responsibilities set out in section 41 of the Family Law Act be allocated to our client. With respect to the division of assets, one of the main issues was whether the other party’s inheritance received during the marriage was a family asset. Normally, inheritances are treated as a personal and not a family asset. However, we were successful in arguing that the financial assets making up the other party’s inheritance was a family asset that should be equally divided. We were also successful in obtaining child support and spousal support for our client, in addition to an award of special costs which are awarded only in exceptional circumstances to punish a party’s conduct in the litigation.
GHUMAN v GHUMAN 2014 BCSC 254 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case the main issues in dispute were the division of family property and the determination of family debt. The other party alleged that he had incurred substantial debt primarily related to the construction of the former matrimonial home by way of mortgages and by way work done by friends and associates who had filed lien claims. The other party sought an order that he be reimbursed such amounts, which were significant. Our client saw the suspect debts as a means by the other party to obtain an improper reapportionment of family assets. We were successful in convincing the court that the alleged debts were not family debts, and additionally, the court ordered that the amounts received by the other party related to the suspect debts had to credited and paid to our client. We were also successful in obtaining an award of costs for our client as the court accepted our argument that the case was of more than ordinary difficulty in light of the other party’s disregard of various court orders and non-disclosure of documents.
FRENCH v FRENCH 2013 BCSC 837 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case involved the enforceability of three marriage agreements that restricted or eliminated our client’s interest in certain family assets including two valuable commercial properties located in Vancouver. We successfully argued at trial that none of the agreements were valid and enforceable and as a result the court should decide the case on the basis of the governing family law legislation at the time – the Family Relations Act. The court agreed. In result, the court ordered that all family assets should be divided equally. Additionally, a result of the marriage agreements being found not to be valid or enforceable, our client shared in the increase in value of two very valuable commercial properties in Vancouver. We were also successful in obtaining an award of not just ordinary costs of the proceeding but also increased costs of $5,000 for our client due to the other party’s failure to provide accurate financial statements and fully disclose his financial records.
FITZGIBBON V FITZGIBBON 2013 (unreported) (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case we successfully obtained an order on behalf of our client that the other party’s parenting time with the child be professionally supervised on an interim basis in light of certain recent events.
JANIS v JANIS 2013 BCSC 116 (Garry K. Thomas)
On a procedural point, in this case, the other party sought permission from the court to obtain an updated joint expert business valuation report before trial. We successfully argued that the preparation of an updated joint business valuation report was not necessary. Further, this case stands for the proposition that Guideline Income Reports unlike joint valuation reports, do not require the reports to be requisitioned on a joint basis. That represented a significant cost savings to our client. The court said the following:
In my respectful opinion, and as submitted by Mr. Thomas on behalf of the respondent, the issue of Guideline income for purposes of support calculations is not a “financial issue” as that term is defined by Rule 13-3(1). Accordingly Rule 13-3(3) provides that the claimant is at liberty to retain an expert of her choice and to tender such evidence at trial subject to the normal rules and notice provisions regarding expert reports and evidence.
We were also successful in contesting the other party’s request that our client produce various documents that we deemed were irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
KMF v SMF 2011 BCSC 1563 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case involved the determination of a business owner’s income for the purposes of calculating child support and spousal support. We were successful in arguing that based on the facts of this case the court should consider and add to the party’s T-4 income the pre-tax corporate income and as well non-arms length transactions without value to the company and inappropriate or invalid expenses. All such amounts were added to the income of the payor party. We were successful in obtaining retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support and indefinite prospective spousal support for our client.
DYKMAN v DYKMAN 2011 BSCC 1169 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case had numerous factual and legal issues including the determination of the appropriate date for the valuation of a business, the determination of the income of the husband businessman – where he obtained his income through an incorporated business – retroactive spousal support, child support and special expenses, and prospective spousal support, child support and special expenses.
BAILIE v BAILIE 2010 BCSC 946 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case almost immediately after separation the husband transferred title to the former matrimonial home to a third party. We represented the wife who filed a law suit against her former husband and the third party. We were successful at trial in having her interest in the home not only protected but the home was also re-conveyed to her. Further, the third party appealed the result but we were successful also at the B.C Court Appeal in upholding the decision. The case was argued on the basis of family law principles and the law of fraudulent conveyances.
CHAND v I.C.B.C. 2009 BCSC 1720 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case at both the level of the Masters Chamber and at the Judges’ Chambers level showed what attention to detail can achieve. That is, the defendant by its failure to provide documents as required by a court order had its Statement of Defence struck. Although the decision was overturned on appeal, throughout the Claimant was successful in terms of costs.
REIS v BUCHOLTZ 2008 BCSC 1156 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case dealt with custody, where our client obtained primary residence of the children. The case also shows how we successfully marshaled both expert evidence and other testimony to convince the court what the payor’s self-employed income was for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support. The case also shows how we retroactively obtained child and spousal support in a common-law marriage.
FRITH v FRITH 2007 BCSC 1236 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case costs were awarded to our client who was successful in enforcing a court-ordered parenting schedule when the other party failed to comply with the court order and was found in contempt of court.
WATSON v WATSON 2006 BCSC 256 (Garry K. Thomas)
In this case we acted for an American father living and earning his income in the United States. The former wife sought to impute considerable income to the father based on a number of factors. We were successful in convincing the court not to do so. The court refused to impute income to our client for the period in question.
SHERRILL v FAHRNI 2004 BCSC 1835 (Garry K. Thomas)
This case dealt with the determination of a self-employed businessman where most of his income was earned through a personal services corporation. We employed a business valuator to not only value the business but we had the same business valuator provide an opinion as to the real or effective income that was available to the party to pay child and spousal support. The other part party attempted to file late their own business value report but the same was held to be inadmissible. However, the other party was able to file their competing income report but after cross examinations of the respective experts and the parties, the court agreed with the submissions made by our client. We were successful in arguing that income be imputed to the business owner and as a result indefinite spousal support was ordered.
To get started, please contact our office at 604 549-9961 or toll-free at 1-855-311-9961, or submit our Contact form. We understand that trusting your personal situation to a legal team usually requires you meet with us first. To facilitate this, as a new client, your first hour’s consultation with a Thomas and Associates lawyer is offered at $135.00.