Property Division:

Safder v Safder, 2019 BCSC 937

In this case, the claimant was frustrated by her previous counsel as her file had sat dormant. She then retained our firm. The respondent refused to take a reasonable position and refused to respond to settlement proposals.

At trial, the respondent was aggressively cross-examined and our client was successful on EVERY issue. The Judge agreed with our position and ordered: retroactive child support for all the children; retroactive spousal support payable by way of a lump sum; an entitlement to a share of the family business based on its value as we argued it to be; reapportionment of all the family property in our client’s favour (more than 50%); and the respondent was ordered to pay our client costs of the entire litigation.

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:

Fox v Fox, 2018 BCCS 359

In this case, we represented the primary caregiver of a child. She retained us when the child was 15 years of age in order to change the Final Order that was made when the child was two years of age. The other parent was difficult and uncooperative. The child had learning difficulties and the other parent refused to change the child’s school to a school more suited to their child’s needs. He refused to consider changing the parenting time schedule despite the effluxion of 13 years and refused to change the Final Order in any way. The initial application was to change the child’s school. That application was successful.

In a carefully planned application, we succeeded in an application to change the Final Order in a profound way, including giving the veto power in decision making to our client; significantly changing the parenting time; allowing our client the right to travel with the child without the other parent’s consent; requiring the other parent to pay our client for a caregiver if he does not exercise summer holidays with the child so our client could have a break; and other numerous changes.

The other parent then appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. We were also successful at the Court of Appeal, including the requirement for the other parent to pay our client’s costs.

This case has been cited by a number of other Judges and is precedent setting.

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.

High Conflict:

TMH v. PJH, 2020, BCSC 804

In this case, we acted for the Claimant who was dealing with an extremely abusive, emotionally controlling, threatening, and unreasonable estranged spouse. Not only were we successful at each interim application, we developed a strategy in our dealings with the Respondent that if a trial was necessary (and it ultimately was) all the steps that we took and all our communications where such that the judge would make the appropriate findings at trial to help our client.

At trial, the judge had no difficulty in accepting that this was a high conflict case and referred to the Respondent as controlling, secretive, vindictive, jealous, aggressive, belligerent, hostile, obsessive, and sarcastic. There where other negative findings made against the Respondent given the manner in which we presented the case. Ultimately the judge’s decision followed our final submissions and the judge was persuaded of our position on all material points. The judgment included the determination that the Respondent engaged in family violence in the manner he abused the judicial process, engaged in blameworthy conduct (including that he was bullying, harassing, and intimidating the claimant).

The trial judge concluded that the Respondent engaged in reprehensible conduct, such that the extraordinary remedy of special costs was awarded in favour of our client against the Respondent. The trial judge stated that amongst other things the Respondent “was consistently rude and insulting to Mr. Leibovitz and his staff, who, to their great credit, responded with patience and civility.”

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.

Appeals:

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.