# Significant Changes to BC Family Law



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

British Colombia's new family law (the Family Law Act) came into effect yesterday (March 18, 2013). The changes are very significant; they give common-law partners the same rights and responsibilities as legally-married spouses. This includes the right to spousal support as well as the right to half of all family assets, with the exception of gifts, inheritances, and assets owned before the couple began their relationship. (That change applies to legally-married couples as well.) So, for all intent and purposes, there is no longer any difference in the legal obligations that common law and legally-married couples have to each other. For anyone interested, here is an article that gives more information. http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-bc-1


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

More reason to get a prenupt these days. As more and more choose not to get legally married these days, something had to be done to stop the disparity if there is a large accumulation of assets during the relationship.
While there is more protection for the partners in the relationship, the lawyers will still get their hefty fees for representing their clients in court, if no agreement is reached on the split of the family assets
during the years the couple lived together. More incentive in this law now for "gold diggers" where the couple live together for "more than 2 years
", and then one decides to leave, with claims to half the family farm or business. Child support and spousal support would still be available in any case.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

This new legislation includes a really significant change for legally-married couples in B.C,. as under the old legislation all family assets were subject to being split 50/50 on divorce, not just those acquired during the marriage. So this is quite a change. But you're right, Carverman - the lawyers will always find ways to get hefty fees from their clients, although apparently the new Act has a number of incentives to encourage out-of-court settlements between the separating partners - the lawyers won't like that!

Another interesting point about this new Act is that it supposedly will make it more difficult for judges to set aside pre-nuptial agreements, which judges in B.C. have been very wont to do in the past.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I've never understood why a family court/divorce judge could set aside a prenupt agreement, except in extenuating circumstances where it comes to support. In a traditional marriage, which is a legal contract (even if the couple are church members, and the bans are read, in lieu of a marriage licence), the person with the highest income may have to support the other indefinitely. 
If there are no other assets as the result of the co-habitation, and one of the people in the co-habitation becomes permently injured, sick, or doesn't posses the skills for employment..(or perhaps too old to find employment),
the other partner is on the hook for indefinite support. While this makes sense, I suppose in most situations, what I find unfair that that support is still enforced, even if the person getting support remarries, and has sufficient assets to look after her own needs.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

First comment is about "gold diggers." Keepin' it classy at the ole CMF!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> ... More incentive in this law now for "gold diggers" where the couple live together for "more than 2 years", and then one decides to leave, with claims to half the family farm or business



this doesn't seem to make sense.

Karen is saying that the new legislation will split only assets acquired during the marriage, whereas "under the old legislation all family assets were subject to being split 50/50 on divorce."

so the new legislation seems more fair to me. It does not seem possible for a 2-year spouse to build up any serious equity in a farm or business belonging to the other spouse. We are talking here about a farm or a business that had a distinct identity & a financial profile prior to marital or common-law relationship.

Karen also says that "this new Act [will] supposedly make it more difficult for judges to set aside pre-nuptual agreements." Offhand i can't think of a single person who would not be in favour of that.

of course it might mean more fees surrounding the pre-nup as a couple might want to also acquire audited statements of net worth from chartered accountants ... come to think of it, the pre-nup agreement could set forth what contributions, if any, the non-asset spouse would be making to the working enterprise belonging to the other spouse ...

anyhow, Karen, we are counting on you & your sound judgment to monitor developments on the beautiful west coast for us! are your spring daffodils up & blooming yet?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

This law is far overdue.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

just think how the Donald would be in favour of new legislation like this.

not trump donald. Roofer donald. He doesn't want any potential spouse or gf sticky fingers wandering into the roofing biz.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> Offhand i can't think of a single person who would not be in favour of that.


A gold-digging man like myself who isn't in favor of prenups would certainly be in favor. I think the change to consider assets acquired only after the union is critical, this should give some ease of mind to people with disproportionate assets.

It is a shame there are so many separations though. I wonder if people are less committed now, or perhaps people in the past just bit down on their lips harder? At least children from non-traditional families no longer need to grow up with the stigma of separated parents.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> First comment is about "gold diggers." Keepin' it classy at the ole CMF!


That general comment I find very irritating as well, though given Carverman's contribution here [help/humour/knowledge, etc.], and his very painful & personal divorce experience [his version anyway], I can cut him some slack. 

When it comes to keeping it 'classy', however [NOT!], there is plenty more at 'the ole CMF'. :rolleyes2: 

The clarity of the new law will hopefully help settle the majority of cases faster, hence reduce costs, ie: less litigation. However, I would not worry so much about lawyers, as no matter how simple the new law may be, there will always be items that will be disputed big time, ie: the gains on excluded assets, and certain other assets that will no longer be divisible, even if acquired during the relationship, etc., etc.

*'Our society has changed since 1979, the year the former act that guided separation in B.C., the Family Relations Act, came into force.'* Indeed so much has changed, even since the 90's, LOL! :hopelessness:
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2013/03/bc-celebrates-new-family-law-acts-significance.html

The new BC Family Law Act, was actually passed back on Nov.2011.

*Part 5 will interest certain males here.* 
http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/3rd_read/gov16-3.htm


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> The new BC Family Law Act, was actually passed back on Nov.2011.


It just came into force, though. Also - we discussed it in some depth in 2011 (or even earlier?) but I can't find a link after a quick look.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Found it, it's this fascinating thread: http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/3596-Is-my-ex-girlfriend-a-tenant?highlight=common+law


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

While I can see the benefit of this change to already married people, that clarity will matter even less in the future as fewer couples decide to live together, get married, or have children.

The two primary drivers of decreased marriage and birth rates in North America are women choosing to not settle down until an older age (an age approaching the point where having children becomes much more difficult) and men realizing that getting married and having children with no legal or social protection is a rather risky deal to be making.

If governments are concerned with maintaining family structures, reducing the number of people on some form of social assistance, and having a birthrate above 2 to actually sustain a viable country for more than half a century (you know, the little things) then this legislation is entirely counter productive to those goals as a society.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ Well somebody just went full retard. ^


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> It just came into force, though.


Yes, I know the effective date was March 18/2013.

My mistake as I should have said that the Bill  had passed back in 2011 [not the new law]. 

There are various stages for approval of a new law, as we all know. The link I provided upthread had been @ the 3rd Reading [final review].

http://www.courthouselibrary.ca/training/HowToGuides/BCLegGuide/BCBillBecomesLaw.aspx


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Toronto.gal said:


> *That general comment I find very irritating as well*, though given Carverman's contribution here [help/humour/knowledge, etc.], and his very painful & personal divorce experience [his version anyway], *I can cut him some slack. *
> 
> When it comes to keeping it 'classy', however [NOT!], there is plenty more at 'the ole CMF'. :rolleyes2: ....


 ... better than be called "that greedy [email protected]@rd or b1tch (or vice-versa)!"

And yes Carverman's experience earns him some slack here ...:encouragement:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> The two primary drivers of decreased marriage and birth rates in North America are:
> 
> 1. *women choosing to not settle down until an older age* (an age approaching the point where having children becomes much more difficult)
> 2. and men realizing that getting married and having children with no legal or social protection is a rather *risky deal* to be making.


*1.* How dare women delay marriage for education/freedom/work/finding the right partner, and other reasons. :rolleyes2:

I wonder at what age you would like to become a father, as opposed to the age you think a woman should become a mother.

*2.* Those evil fortune hunters, LOL.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Sampson said:


> It is a shame there are so many separations though. I wonder if people are less committed now, or perhaps people in the past just bit down on their lips harder? At least children from non-traditional families no longer need to grow up with the stigma of separated parents.


 ImHO..and I've been through the divorce meat grinder, with no fault divorce filings, it makes it much easier for either partner to want out of the relationship/marriage in the last few years. Now they can run around, see someone else, and decide if they want to stay in or not. 

Once they file...you are on the hook for any ridiculous demands...like in my case, which forced me to go through a lengthy litigation process and $50K in legal expenses (fired the first 3
lawyers because they were not effective in bring it to closure) and had to start again with the 4th..so a $10k divorce, along with sneaky dealings in the court room-and lying cost me plenty!

In the second incident, because I was on the hook for Indefinite support payments of $1000 a month while I was still working..it cost me $30K during my retirement to finally get it cut down the $300 a month indefinite...which is still coming out of my reduced Nortel DB pension..which is being wound up soon. Then she asked the judge to put a lien on my house because she calculated $300 a month was worth at least $50K, in lieu of my Nortel life insurance..that I no longer have.

I am severely _____ at the current laws because at the time, the female judge admitted in court, that she couldn't see any evidence that my ex and her husband were more than just "friends"..so I got burned badly in the judgement. Right after the judgement, my 'gold digging" ex got married and they bought property with all the gold she received from me. 

Ok, 22 years of marriage..where she spent most of the time babysitting...I guess she does need some support from me in her old age..she's 65 now., but she has a pension and shares expenses
with her hubby. 

In my case, a prenupt wouldn't have helped me..we started off with nothing.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... better than be called "that greedy [email protected]@rd or b1tch (or vice-versa)!"
> 
> And yes Carverman's experience earns him some slack here ...:encouragement:


What? me bitter after being _____ royally by the legal meat grinder?...naw!..it's only money..I'm freeeeeeeee..free as a bird! (John Lennon wrote that!)


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I suppose the biggest challenge is to determine if the new laws, or even the old ones are doing what they are supposed to do.

One stark reality has changed and that is that women can and do earn more than their husbands. The traditional idea of one spouse forgoing employment and staying home just no longer applies.

Obviously as you state carve, amicable separations work best, but as you know, things get dirty when money is involved.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

One point to note is that the gains on excluded assets will be divisible, even though the asset itself won't be. For example, real estate owned prior to the relationship will not be subject to division, but any capital gain that occurred during the relationship will be. So, as Toronto.gal has pointed out, there will still be plenty of scope for the lawyers to become involved!

And I agree with you, humble_pie, that the new Act is more fair than the old one. It will be interesting to watch how it works out in the courts over the next few years. (Another interesting fact is that even cases currently before the courts but not concluded will now be subject to the new Act, which I believe is quite unusual.)

And I haven't seen any daffodils yet, humble_pie, although the last couple of days have been beautiful so I'm sure they'll put in an appearance any day now!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> The two primary drivers of decreased marriage and birth rates in North America are women choosing to not settle down until an older age (an age approaching the point where having children becomes much more difficult)* and men realizing that getting married and having children with no legal or social protection is a rather risky deal to be making.*
> 
> .


Well men have that choice..nobody is forcing us to get married...darn those teenage hormones..:biggrin:


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

carverman said:


> Ok, 22 years of marriage..where she spent most of the time babysitting...


With an attitude like that I can at least see some justification for divorce.

Here's a tip: it's called parenting.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

My ex-wife never remarried. I think it was the 10 years of support payments. By the time they were done, she was used to living alone.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> My ex-wife never remarried. I think it was the 10 years of support payments.


Or because the experience with you traumatized her.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Or because the experience with you traumatized her.


Or..she was used to the support payments and didn't want to get married. She still could have lived common law.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

none said:


> With an attitude like that I can at least see some justification for divorce.
> 
> Here's a tip: it's called parenting.


More like..I can't find a job that I was trained for.:biggrin:

Of course, my attitude is..if you want half the assets, you need to put in half the expenses..not just sit around all day and yak on the phone!


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

carverman said:


> More like..I can't find a job that I was trained for.:biggrin:
> 
> Of course, my attitude is..if you want half the assets, you need to put in half the expenses..not just sit around all day and yak on the phone!


Yeash, we're not even married and now I feel like divorcing you!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

none said:


> Yeash, we're not even married and now I feel like divorcing you!


Was it something I said? :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> not just sit around all day and yak on the phone!


Yes, I suppose some women [and men] are guilty of that. And it's true that there are gold-diggers in the female and male version as well.

There is no debating that there is unfairness in this world, but c'est la vie.

Carverman, I don't think you need to explain yourself, especially not to those that did not like you speaking against wife-beating.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Someone actually tried to provide justification FOR wife beating?

That's a paddlin'
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tg9e8/


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

This should probably go under the Scam thread but not as a "freebie". 

Plenty of gold diggers of both sexes, immigration fraudsters and the whole 9-yards found here http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/20/immigration_canada_launches_ad_campaign_against_marriage_fraud.html ... as if stealing your money isn't bad enough but stealing your heart as a top-up. Good for this awareness campaign.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> as if stealing your money isn't bad enough but stealing your heart as a top-up. Good for this awareness campaign.


I actually feel little sympathy for some of the victims [male/female], that totally fall for [quick] 'online proposals' from perfect strangers as described in the article. :rolleyes2:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> I actually feel little sympathy for some of the victims [male/female], that totally fall for [quick] 'online proposals' from perfect strangers as described in the article. :rolleyes2:


It's amazing that after a few posts..we are discussing online dating. :biggrin:
While there may be some success stories of finding that elusive "perfect mate"..most of the time..it's a big disappointment because on the
internet, you can be anyone you want to be.
Remember the Craiglist guy and his victims?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772373/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
Of course, girls...rest assured that that if you date with me online..I will be everything you hoped for. :biggrin:

Marriage proposals to those of the female persuasion ..
(and it's hard with some of you, to tell whether you are female or male..pretending to be a male on this forum. :biggrin:


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> I actually feel little sympathy for some of the victims [male/female], that totally fall for [quick] 'online proposals' from perfect strangers as described in the article. :rolleyes2:


yeah, who cares about people who obviously suffer from such crushing loneliness that they make a bad choice out of desperation. What a bunch of losers.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> It's amazing that after a few posts..we are discussing online dating. :biggrin:
> While there may be some success stories of finding that elusive "perfect mate"..most of the time..it's a big disappointment because on the
> internet, you can be anyone you want to be.
> *Remember the Craiglist guy and his victims?*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772373/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
> ...


 ... holy creepshxt ... now all the reason to be manly on this forum. :biggrin:


----------

