Constructive trust issues come up often in family law. But while the case law often doesn’t consider the test in any great depth anymore, the B.C. Court of Appeal had just such an opportunity recently by clarifying or at the very least giving us a much-needed reminder of how to assess the criteria for “absence of a juristic reason” with respect to the enrichment of one party by another.
Every so often, a case comes out, and one can’t help but wonder, “What were they thinking?” Neill v. Neill is one such case and certainly a lesson learned about having a sympathetic, or rather an unsympathetic, client.
Webb v. Birkett is a 2009 case dealing with solicitor’s negligence from Alberta. What is noteworthy is that it involves the collaborative family law process and addresses the duties owed by collaborative lawyers to their clients.
Just when we thought spousal support issues were becoming clearer, another curveball comes our way. In 2009, the B.C. Court of Appeal came out with an important decision in cases where the payor’s income exceeds the spousal support advisory guidelines cap.
The most challenging situation faced in the area of family finances is the situation of the surviving spouse who has never had the responsibility of “keeping the books” for the family. Some surviving spouses have never even written a cheque during their lifetime.
As family law practitioners, some of our most difficult work are those cases involving parental alienation. We all — well, those of us who take on disputed custody and access cases — have had those terrible, terrible files where all we can say to ourselves is, “Why can’t this parent see the real harm is being put on the child?”
Subscribe to Nelligan Law Newsletter
And never miss news, career opportunities and event announcements