Representative Cases

Successful Trial Decisions

Reis v Bucholtz trial decision. This case dealt with custody, where primary residence was obtained by our client. 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 child and spousal support purposes. The case also shows how we retroactively obtained child and spousal support in a common law marriage.

Fleming v Fleming. This case dealt with the successful determination of income of a self employed business man and retroactive child and spousal support as well as prospective spousal support. Mr. Thomas marshaled expert evidence both to establish the value of the business (which issue was settled before trial based on expert evidence) and the issue of the former husband’s income through the incorporated company to assist in his client’s case.

Bailie v Bailie trial. In this case almost immediately after separation the husband transferred title to a former matrimonial home to a third party. The Claimant wife who brought action against her former husband and the third party was successful in obtaining her interest in the home after trial. The case was based on family principles and the law of Fraudulent Conveyances.

Tove v Tove. In this case our client sought and obtained significant interim spousal support. The case discusses what factors are considered on an interim vs. a final trial based consideration of spousal support.

Sherrill v Fahrni. This case dealt with the determination of a self employed businessman where most of his income was earned through a personal services corporation. The case also dealt with the valuation of the noted business and appropriate spousal support.

Chand v I.C.B.C. 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.

Dvkman v Dykman. This case had numerous factual and legal issues including the appropriate date for the valuation of a business, the income of the husband businessman where he obtained his income through an incorporated business, retroactive spousal support, retroactive special expenses, retroactive child support and prospective child and spousal support.

Karhoffer v Karhoffer. This was a case that dealt with the division of assets between parties with disparate ages and a young child. Also of interest was the order that post separation savings made by Mr. K. were his and his alone and not subject to division.

Successful Appeals

Reis v Bucholtz Court of Appeal decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision. The decision also confirmed that retroactive spousal support in B.C. is premised on the same principles as retroactive child support, as declared by a previous Supreme Court of Canada case.

Kopp v Kopp. Mr. Thomas was successful in significantly reducing the trial judge’s conclusion concerning his client’s self employed income. The facts were complicated by reason of the fact that the client’s income had been impacted by how the client financed property division payments to his former wife.

In the following cases, Mr. Thomas was not counsel at trial or at the Chamber’s application but was counsel on the successful appeal.

Lefebvre v Durokovic. Mr. Thomas on behalf of the Appellant successfully appealed a decision made by the Chief Justice on a Chamber’s Application

Parminter v Parminter. In this case, Mr. Thomas successfully appealed the trial judge’s decision concerning a pension put into pay by the client after a lengthy separation where the former wife had not been advised of the pension payments. The appeal deals with what are referred to as compensatory orders in The Court of Appeal when such orders are and are not available. The result was of significant benefit to the client.

Mirza v Mirza. The Court of Appeal overturned a trial decision concerning what parties could accomplish on their own through a separation agreement where they dealt with the division of assets. Part of the decision allows parties to treat such things as a pension not solely as an asset to be divided but as an income stream. The decision also shows that courts are concerned about fairness and related tax issues.