British Columbia’s New Arbitration Act

, ,

On September 1, 2020, British Columbia’s Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2 (the “New Act”) came into force. The New Act introduces important amendments that aim to improve the efficiency of the Province’s arbitral process. This will improve commercial dealings by clarifying ambiguities in the previous legislation and creating greater uniformity in arbitrations laws nationally. To that end, the New Act closely resembles The Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s Uniform Act. In turn, the Uniform Act is a national project that strives to harmonize Canada’s arbitration laws with the United Nations’ UNCITRAL Model Law. Generally, these national and international model laws seek to limit judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, and, thereby, create greater certainty in private dispute resolutions. The New Act strives towards this end as well.

The New Act introduces several important changes worth highlighting. First, Sections 21 and 22 impose a duty on the arbitrator and parties, respectively, to seek a “just, speedy, and economical determination of the proceeding based on its merits.” This explicit focus on the timely and economic resolution of disputes is the principle that underpins all of the New Act’s reforms. Appeals, for instance, are sent directly to British Columbia’s Court of Appeal on questions of law (s.59). Likewise, the time period for appealing an arbitral award or setting it aside due to an apprehension of bias has been shortened from 60 to 30 days (s.60).

In further regards to time limits, section 11 of the New Act reads: “the law with respect to limitation periods for commencing court proceedings applies to commencing arbitral proceedings.” This provision was absent from the previous legislation, creating an ambiguity because British Columbia’s Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13, does not specify that it applies to arbitrations and it contains court-centric language. Consequently, it is now clear that parties to an arbitration agreement will have two years from the date that they knew or ought to of known they have a potential claim against another party to pursue arbitration or their claim will be statute barred.

Arbitrators now have expanded authority.  Section 23 of the New Act empowers arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction. Where this power is exercised as a preliminary matter, either party may refer the issue to the Supreme Court of British Columbia within 30 days of receiving notice of the arbitrator’s ruling for a re-determination. In exercising their jurisdiction, arbitrators are now permitted under section 25 of the New Act to apply equitable principles, whereas the previous legislation limited their authority to the application of statutory law.

Turning to procedures, the New Act no longer specifies default rules. The British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre’s rules (“BCICA”) previously applied by default, unless the parties agreed otherwise. While the New Act removes any reference to the BCICA’s rules, it has incorporated some of their key elements. For example, section 29 allows arbitrators to subpoena non-party witnesses. Where parties have not specified and cannot agree on the applicable rules, arbitrators appear to have discretion under section 32 to make procedural orders that could include the selection of arbitral rules.

Where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the selection is made by the legislation’s designated appointing authority. Under section 2 of the New Act’s attendant Arbitration Regulation, BC Reg. 160/2020, this appointing authority is the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (“VIAC”).[1] Previously, such appointment disputes were resolved by application to the British Columbia Supreme Court. By creating the VIAC, the New Act increases efficiency by reducing arbitrations’ reliance on the courts. In addition, the VICA can set arbitrators fees and impose terms on awards whenever an arbitrator’s fees remain unpaid.

Finally, the New Act introduces three other significant changes that were previously absent from the legislation. First, a witness’s evidence is to be written, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Oral evidence is limited to cross-examinations. Second, section 68 requires confidentiality. The parties may not disclose information about the proceeding or its outcome. Third, arbitrators may grant interim orders, even on an ex parte basis. However, these orders do not constitute an arbitral award, nor are they enforceable in the courts.

The New Act applies to all arbitral proceedings commenced on or after September 1, 2020. However, it does not apply to proceedings that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233, nor does it apply to family law matters.

[1] The BCICA was re-branded as the VIAC.

/by

Conspiracy By Family Members

, ,

In Leitch v. Novac (2020 ONCA 257) the Ontario Court of Appeal held that “invisible litigants” cannot impede family law proceedings with impunity. Writing for the Court, Houringan J. described these invisible litigants as the parties’ extended relatives who insert themselves into family law proceedings far beyond the permissible grounds of providing emotional support. Rather, invisible litigants exacerbate litigation by encouraging the parties to advance needlessly adversarial positions and by helping to shield a party’s income and assets from the courts.

The Parties
The parties in this case were married for 17 years. They have teenage twin daughters. The Applicant-appellant (“Leitch”) is a law professor and mother of the children. The respondents are the children’s father (“Novac”), his casino management company (“Sonco”), members of the Novac family, two family trusts, and directors of Sonco.

Background
This case arose when Leitch filed for divorce and corollary relief from Novac. She subsequently amended her pleadings to include a claim of conspiracy against the above-noted respondents. On application by the non-family respondents, Justice Cory Gilmore of Ontario’s Superior Court held that Leitch’s conspiracy claim was appropriate for partial summary judgement.

Summary Judgement
In the summary judgment proceeding, Leitch argued that the respondents conspired to withhold business income from Novac until his divorce proceedings were completed. This allegation principally arose with regards to a buy-out of Sonco’s five-year management agreement with an Alberta Casino. Under that agreement, Novac was to receive 40% of the contract price as management fees. Consequently, Novac was entitled to 40% of Sonco’s $5.75 million buy-out as income (i.e. $2.3 million). Instead, the respondents diverted this income away from Novac by arranging a loan between Novac and his father. Memos and emails between Sonco’s Chief Financial Officer, Novac, and Sonco’s accountant suggested that this loan was structured with the purpose of shielding Novac’s share of the buy-out proceeds from Leitch’s corollary support claims.

In her decision, Justice Gilmore, as the motion judge, dismissed Leitch’s conspiracy claim on two grounds. First, she found that Leitch’s evidence failed to prove that Novac had the requisite knowledge to have committed the tort. Furthermore, the summary judgment appears to have been decided, in part, because no funds were actually transferred between the defendants.
Second, Judge Gilmore dismissed the claim on policy grounds. She held that the circumstances were analogous to Frame v. Smith, 1987 CanLII 74 (SCC), wherein the Supreme Court of Canada restricted conspiracy claims with regards to custody and child support. If conspiracy claims were not so restricted, Judge Gilmore reasoned that they would “become the new norm” in any family law case where a “payor spouse, in conjunction with a new spouse/relative/business partner, did not fully disclose income, unreasonably deducted expenses, or received income in the form of cash or goods” (para. 41). In effect, she surmised that conspiracy claims would become a form of punitive damages” (ibid.). Instead, she held that the existing legislation and its associated guidelines constitute a complete code from which Leitch could have sought an imputation of income against the father.

In her summary judgment, Justice Gilmore dismissed Leitch’s conspiracy claim and awarded a total of $1.2 million in costs against her for the proceedings.

The Appeal
The Court of Appeal found that Justice Gilmore made palpable and overriding errors of fact and law. Taken in turn, she misunderstood critical email evidence relating to the alleged conspiracy that was sent between Sonco’s Chief Financial Officer, accountant, and Novac. Next, the Court of Appeal also suggested that Justice Gilmore may have erred in law by accepting the argument that the tort of conspiracy requires an actual transaction, when, in fact, a temporary withholding of funds to impede another party’s entitlement can constitute an “act in furtherance to a conspiracy” (para 51).

On the public policy basis for dismissing Leitch’s claim, the Court of Appeal rejected Justice Gilmore’s reasoning because limiting the tort of conspiracy from family law proceedings would enable invisible litigants to interlope in court proceedings with impunity. While Justice Gilmore was correct in holding that an imputation of income claim would enable a claimant to get access to otherwise withheld funds, this remedy does not address the subsequent enforcement problem that arises when a payor has made themselves creditor-proof by conspiring with invisible litigants (para. 47).

Finally, the Court of Appeal made two further procedural comments. First, it held that this case should not have been bifurcated because the factual basis for Leitch’s conspiracy and support claims were indistinguishable. Contrary to the principle established in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, this created the “substantial risk of inconsistent outcomes” between the summary judgement and the subsequent trial. Second, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge’s costs award “troubling.” Citing Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the courts’ obligation to ensure that protection orders, such as security for costs, are not misused as litigation tactics. In this case, the motion judge should have considered the order holistically, assessing whether the overriding interests of justice are served by the order sought. In other words, the motion judge’s costs awards were excessive because they would have impeded Leitch’s ability to proceed with the subsequent trial.

Due to Justice Gilmore’s errors of fact and law, the Ontario Court of Appeal remitted this case back to the Superior Court for a re-determination at trial. The $1.3 million dollars in costs were set aside, and Leitch was awarded costs on the appeal.

For our readers, the principle provided by Leitch v. Novac is that family members acting as invisible litigants are not immune from liability.

/by

Executor’s Fees

,

Can the executor of a will receive remuneration for their work? At common law, an executor could only receive payment for their services if authorized under the will. However, this presumption against payment has been superseded by section 88 of British Columbia’s Trustee Act. Accordingly, executors may receive payment from three sources, including:

  1. up to 5% of the gross aggregate value of the estate’s capital;
  2. up to 5% of the income generated by the estate’s assets during the period of administration; and
  3. 4% of the average market value of the assets per annum as a “care and management fee.”

These percentages are the statutory maximums that a court or registrar may grant to an executor.  When determining the executor’s remuneration, the court or registrar will consider the following five factors:

  1. the estate’s size,
  2. the degree of care and responsibility required,
  3. the amount of time required,
  4. the degree of skill and ability demonstrated, and
  5. the level of success achieved in administering the estate.

Section 88 of the Trustee Act applies whenever the will is silent with regards to the executor’s remuneration. It also applies to the administrators of intestacies (persons managing the assets of a deceased person who died without a will).

However, the Trustee Act’s remuneration percentages can be superseded whenever a will includes a renumeration clause for the executor. This provision can be implied. For example, at common law, there is a presumption that any gift to an executor is intended to be compensation for the person’s services as an executor, in lieu of a fee.

 

/by

Enforcing Child Support Orders

, ,

If your child’s co-parent has claimed that they cannot afford to pay their child support obligations, what are your options? Under these circumstances, it is important to remember that child support is the right of the child, not the receiving parent. This means that parents cannot negotiate a lower monthly rate than the minimums prescribed by the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Any such agreement would be considered invalid by the courts.  Instead, there are two primary avenues for enforcing a child support order.

First, the recipient parent’s best avenue to enforce a support order is to register their separation agreement or court order with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP). This is a public organization that assists parents with enforcing both child and spousal support orders. The FMEP can enforce the orders by “attaching” it to the debtor’s income, including wages, tax returns, rental revenues, etcetera. The organization’s Director may also seek a court order to direct the payment of security for future support obligations from larger sources of funds, e.g. an inheritance. If the debtor parent refuses to pay, the FMEP Director may, among other remedies, report them to the credit bureau, seek a seize-and-sell court order, or instruct ICBC to refuse their license and vehicle registration issuance or renewal.

To enroll in the FMEP, you must submit an application which provides details about the paying parent and a copy of your support agreement or court order. The application can be found here. Upon completion, the EMEP will provide a Notice of Enrollment to the paying parent. The key advantage of the FMEP is that it is free. The disadvantage is that the receiving parent cannot undertake any enforcement proceedings themselves while they are registered in the program.

The recipient parent’s second enforcement avenue is to privately seek court enforcement remedies under section 230 of the Family Law Act. Specifically, they may request that the debtor parent pay security for future support obligations, plus legal expenses, up to $5,000 dollars in damages for the delayed payments, and a fine of up to $5,000.  If the debtor further fails to comply with these payments, the court may make an order for their imprisonment for up to 30 days. Importantly, this imprisonment will not discharge the debtor’s support obligations; it is simply an enforcement mechanism. Of course, this is a draconian option that the courts will rarely apply.

For debtor parents experiencing genuine financial difficulty that is impeding their ability to meet their support obligations, they may respond to enforcement action by applying to the courts for a variation order under section 152 of the Family Law Act or section 17 of the Divorce Act. On proof of a material change that renders the original order inappropriate, the court may vary the obligation amount, suspend enforcement proceedings, or make an order it deems otherwise appropriate.

For more information regard child support and their enforcement, please contract our office at (250) 753-2202.

/by

The Prudent Investor Standard For Trustees In British Columbia

, ,

The Covid-19 pandemic has generated significant market volatility. Investors must assess risk and consider whether the investment portfolio should be diversified to reduce risk exposure in an unpredictable market. Trustees who have Trust Property invested in the market are faced with additional obligations that can make protecting Trust Property challenging. Trustees must comply with the terms of the Trust Property as well as the legislation governing trusts. In BC, the legislation governing trusts is the Trustee Act (the “Act”).

 

Pursuant to section 15 of the Act, a Trustee may invest property in any form of property or security in which a Prudent Investor might invest. The Trustee is under an obligation when investing Trust Property to exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a Prudent Investor would exercise in making investments. The Trustee is not liable for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of Trust Property if the Trustee reasonably assessed the risk and return and acted as a Prudent Investor.

 

Unlike other provinces, BC does not expressly impose an obligation to diversify investments. However, the Prudent Investor standard implicitly requires the Trustee to assess whether diversification is necessary to reduce risk exposure. The Prudent Investor standard was considered in Miles v Vince, 2014 BCCA 289 [Miles]. The issue on appeal was whether the Trustee was under an obligation to diversify the investment portfolio.

 

In Miles, the Beneficiary claimed the Trustee should have diversified the Insurance Trust’s assets. The Trustee argued she was under no statutory obligation to diversify the investment portfolio. The Court concluded that the Trustee had breached her statutory duty to prudently invest Trust Property pursuant to section 15.2 of the Act. A Prudent Investor must consider the investment portfolio’s risk and whether diversification in necessary to protect the assets. To the contrary, the Trustee had invested the Insurance Trust’s assets into one illiquid asset that put the Trust’s assets at risk. The Trustee had failed to protect the interests of all the beneficiaries of the trust. As a result, she was removed as Trustee. Pursuant to section 31 of the Act, the Court has power to remove and appoint a new Trustee.

 

In another case, Pestano v Wong, 2019 BCCA 141, the Court stated the definition of a Prudent Investor has evolved to mean:

 

  • Making necessary investments that a Prudent Investor would make to protect capital and provide income;
  • Developing risk and return objectives that are reasonable and suitable, given the size of the overall portfolio, and the circumstances of the investor;
  • Ensuring reasonable diversification of the type and class of investments;
  • Acting with prudence when delegating investment authority to an agent;
  • Incurring only reasonable and appropriate costs; and
  • Adopting a balanced approach to management investments

 

Trustees have significant responsibility when investing Trust Property. With the current level of market volatility, it is important to consider whether an investment portfolio should be diversified to reduce the Trust Property’s risk exposure. Heath Law LLP can help you with any questions concerning Trust Property and the Prudent Investor Standard.

 

 

/by

Neglect In Long-Term Care Homes And Assisted Living Residences

, ,

British Columbia offers various home and community care services to individuals requiring assistance with day-to-day life due to health issues or illness. Individuals living in Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences are some of British Columbia’s most vulnerable members of society. Long-Term Care Homes provide 24-hour care to elderly residents. Residents in Long-Term Care Homes often have mobility issues or dementia or require palliative care. Assisted Living Residences provide housing units to residents who require daily assistance but can live independently. Residents can be assisted with eating, dressing, bathing, and managing medication, among other things. Assisted Living Residences do not provide 24-hour care.

BC offers private and publicly subsidized Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences. In publicly subsidized Long-Term Care Homes, residents pay a monthly charge of 80% of their after-tax income. In publicly subsidized Assisted Living Residences, residents pay a monthly charge of 70% of their after-tax income. The majority of Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences in BC are run by private for-profit companies. In 2016, only 2.4% of the Assisted Living Residences were owned by public health authorities, while 53.1% were owned by for-profit companies and 44.5% were owned by non-profit organizations. In private for-profit Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences, residents pay the full cost. If residents require additional services, they must pay an additional fee. Unfortunately, many residents cannot afford to pay for additional services to suit their individual needs.

British Columbia has many laws governing the health, safety, and quality of care for seniors living in Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences. The Community Care and Assisted Living Act provides a Bill of Rights to residents in Long-Term Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences. The Bill of Rights provides the resident with:

 

  • Commitment to a care plan developed specifically for the individual
  • Rights to health, safety and dignity
  • Rights to participation and freedom of expression
  • Rights to transparency and accountability

 

Last year, Island Health took over the emergency management of three private for-profit Long-Term Care Homes on Vancouver Island due to complaints of staffing shortages and neglect of the residents. Since Island Heath took over the Long-Term Care Homes, improvements have been made to training staff, creating new staff positions and to purchasing necessary equipment and supplies.

A class action on behalf of a group of residents from Long-Term Care Homes in BC has been brought against the company that owns the Long-Term Care Homes, an investment company, and BC’s Ministry of Health. The class of residents allege “abuse, neglect and mistreatment” (Huebner v PR Seniors Housing Management Ltd, DBA Retirement Concepts, 2020 BCSC 1037). The certification hearing is scheduled to take place no later than June 2021.

Heath Law LLP can help you if you or a loved one have experienced neglect in a Long-Term Care Home or Assisted Living Residence.

/by

Secret Trusts – Alive And Well In British Columbia

, , ,

 

This article concerns the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Bergler v Odenthal, 2020 BCCA 175 [“Bergler”] The appeal concerned the validity of a “secret trust” that Ms. Stuhff, now deceased, had allegedly imposed on her common-law partner, Mr. Odenthal. Secret trusts contain two essential features: “communication by the deceased person to his or her devisee, legatee or intestate heir, and an acceptance by that person of the request that he or she will hold the property in trust for the stated person or purposes.”[1] Acceptance may occur in the form of silence. The secret trust must also meet the usual trust requirements of certainty of intention, objects, and subject-matter.

 

The trial judge held that Mr. Odenthal had accepted Ms. Stuhff’s request that her estate would go to her niece, Susanne Bergler. The trial judge determined the acceptance occurred at the hospital shortly before Ms. Stuhff’s death. Ms. Stuhff’s niece and sister testified that in the days leading to Ms. Stuhff’s death, Mr. Odenthal had told them that Ms. Stuhff told him that she wanted her estate to go to her niece, Susanne. Susanne did not have a career or a home and wanted to go back to school. Ms. Stuhff’s sister testified that Ms. Stuhff told her that Mr. Odenthal was to transfer her estate to the Bergler family when he started a relationship with a new partner.

 

A conflict arose concerning when the estate was to be transferred to the Bergler family. Mr. Odenthal claimed he was to hold Ms. Stuhff’s assets until his death (he was 51 years old). After Ms. Stuhff’s death, Mr. Odenthal received the entire estate as heir on intestacy. He later married and removed Susanne as a beneficiary under his will, leaving nothing to the Bergler family. A relative of Ms. Stuhff testified that he overheard Ms. Stuhff tell Mr. Odenthal that when he ‘had a new chick’, she wanted ‘all her money’ to go back to her family.[2] The relative said he did not hear Mr. Odenthal object to the request. The trial judge found the relative’s evidence to be reliable. According to Mr. Odenthal’s testimony, he told Ms. Stuhff that he would abide by her wishes concerning the distribution of her estate. The trial judge held that this constituted the requisite acceptance for the creation of a secret trust.

 

On appeal, Mr. Odenthal claimed there was no evidence of his acceptance of the secret trust. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in finding that Mr. Odenthal had accepted the secret trust. He was required to transfer the assets either upon death or upon entering into a new relationship, whichever came first. A secondary issue on appeal concerned a property owned in joint tenancy by Ms. Stuhff and Mr. Odenthal. Mr. Odenthal claimed it passed to him automatically upon her death and, as a result, never became part of her estate. The Court held that the creation of the secret trust severed the joint tenancy and that once the secret trust came into existence, “nothing was left to pass by the intestacy to the defendant”.[3] The Court upheld the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

[1] Bergler at para 2.

[2] Ibid at para 5.

[3] Ibid at para 40.

/by

Dog Bites In BC: One Bite Free?

, ,

What happens if you have been bitten by a dog? What are the legal consequences for the dog owner? In British Columbia, a plaintiff who has been bitten by a dog can establish liability against the dog owner under the scienter doctrine, through negligence, or pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act.

Under scienter, the law has developed to allow dogs “one bite free”. This is because it must be proven that the dog has a propensity for aggression. The law presumes that dogs are not naturally dangerous and that an owner should not be liable for the dog’s aggressive behaviour unless the owner was aware of such aggressive behaviour.

 Scienter places strict liability on the dog owner only if the plaintiff can establish the following three components:

  • the identity of the dog owner;
  • the dog had manifested a propensity to attack or bite mankind; and
  • the dog owner knew of their dog’s propensity.

The Court applied scienter in Prasad v Wepruk, 2004 BCSC 578 [Prasad]. In Prasad, a 77-year-old mailman was viciously attacked by a bouvier dog. The Court used the testimony of neighbours as evidence to determine that the dog had a propensity for aggression by appearing vicious while snarling and growling at the neighbours when they passed by. The Court concluded that the owner had knowledge of this propensity. As a result, the dog owner was liable.

If a plaintiff cannot establish the three requirements for scienter, the plaintiff can establish negligence on the part of the dog owner or the owner of the property where the injury took place if the plaintiff can prove:

  • the dog owner knew or ought to have known that the dog was likely to injure someone; and
  • the dog owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury.

In other words, was the dog attack reasonably foreseeable? In many cases, the courts determine the dog’s action was unexpected or that there was no evidence of the dog’s past aggression.

An action for damages may also be brought by a plaintiff pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act. Similar to negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the dog owner or property owner knew or ought to have known that the dog was likely to be a risk, and that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such risk.

Other provinces have stricter laws respecting dog bites. In Ontario, once ownership of the dog is proven, the owner is liable for all injuries caused by the dog regardless of the owner’s knowledge of their dog’s aggressive propensity. In 2006, stricter laws were proposed in BC. The proposed laws would have removed the knowledge requirement, essentially making the scienter doctrine inapplicable. However, these laws were not passed. Thus, the “one bite free” principle prevails in BC.

/by

Exclusion of Liability Clauses

, , ,

Ski-hill Lift Tickets – Liability, Unilateral Contracts, Negligence Exclusion

In certain situations, such as obtaining a lift ticket for a ski-hill, “unilateral contracts” are used by one of the parties to the contract (i.e., the ski hill) which set out specific conditions the other party (i.e., the consumer) must accept if the consumer wants to proceed with using the ticket.  Are all the terms and conditions of these unilateral contracts binding on the consumer even if the consumer did not sign or have any part in the formation of the contract?

A recent case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 [Apps] addressed the requirements for unilateral contracts to be binding when the consumer does not sign a contract.

The unfortunate facts of Apps are as follows.  The plaintiff was a snowboarder who became a quadriplegic after attempting a large jump at Grouse Mountain in Vancouver, BC.  The plaintiff was an Australian who was living, working and snowboarding in Whistler, he was only 20 at the time of his injury.

The plaintiff alleged that the jump was negligently designed, constructed, maintained and inspected by Grouse Mountain. Grouse Mountain, in defence, relied on an exclusion of liability waiver which it said constituted a complete defence. The British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The BCCA overturned the BCSC’s decision.

The type of waiver Grouse Mountain was relying on was an “own negligence exclusion”.  This type of exclusion not only excludes liability for the risks inherent in the use of Grouse Mountain’s product or service, but also liability for negligence caused by Grouse Mountain itself.

The BCCA stated that “own negligence exclusions” are among the more onerous conditions to be placed into contracts, meaning that for Grouse Mountain to rely on the exclusion it must have taken reasonable steps to bring the exclusion to the attention of the Plaintiff.

The BCCA concluded that not enough had been done by Grouse Mountain to bring the “own negligence exclusion” to the plaintiff’s attention before he entered into the contract. The exclusion was included in a posted sign above the counter where the lift tickets were sold, but the text was difficult to read, and the “own negligence exclusion” was not emphasized.  This would be considered the pre-contractual notice (before the ticket was purchased).  Post-contractual notice (after the ticket was purchased) of the “own negligence exclusion” appeared on the back of the lift ticket and on a sign in the terrain park.  The BCCA concluded that post-contractual notice has no bearing on whether Grouse Mountain gave sufficient notice to the Plaintiff.

Grouse Mountain also attempted to rely on the plaintiff’s knowledge of the presence of these types exclusions due to his previous employment at Whistler and having signed such an exclusion for his Whistler’s Season Pass.  The BCCA found that the plaintiff’s previous experience with “own negligence exclusions” from his experiences at Whistler did not mean he had actual knowledge of Grouse Mountain’s specific clause.

The BCCA therefore overturned the BCSC decision and allowed the plaintiff to continue his action.

For businesses that are concerned about what proper notice would look like, the BCCA provided some indicators of proper notice.  To rely on any type of waiver which will result in the consumer losing legal rights, a service provider should, before contract formation, ensure that the “own negligence clause” is clearly brought to the attention of the consumer by using large, colorful and bold text and literally mention the “own negligence clause” to the consumer.

/by

Do Spousal Support Obligations Survive Death?

, , ,

What happens to spousal support when the person making the payments (the “Payor”) passes away?  Does the spousal support die along with the Payor or does the obligation survive, binding the estate of the Payor?

When married or common-law couples end their relationship, sometimes spousal support arises.  Spousal support is payment from one spouse to the other in recognition that one of the parties to the relationship may have sacrificed their own financial independence to help the overall landscape of the relationship whether that was providing care to the children of the marriage or giving up opportunities they would have otherwise been able to pursue had they not been supporting their partner.  Spousal support is usually paid pursuant to a separation agreement or a Court order.

Pursuant to s. 170(1)(g) of the Family Law Act of British Columbia (the “Act”), an order respecting spousal support can provide for payment after the death of the Payor.  S. 171(1) of the Act provides the elements that have to be present before a Court will order spousal support after the death of the Payor:

  • that the person receiving child support or spousal support has a significant need for support that is likely to continue past the death of the person paying child support or spousal support;
  • that the estate of the person paying child support or spousal support is sufficient to meet the need referred to in paragraph (a) after taking into account all claims on the estate, including those of creditors and beneficiaries; and
  • that no other practical means exist to meet the need referred to in paragraph (a).

If there was an agreement or order in place that provides for spousal support after death, then those provisions will have full force and effect and will bind the Payor’s estate until the period of payment provided for in the agreement or order expires.  To end the spousal support payments before the agreement or order expires, the Personal Representative of the Payor’s estate can apply under s.171(2) of the Act to set aside the agreement or order.

If the agreement or order for spousal support is silent as to whether spousal support survives death, the person receiving support can apply under s.171(3) of the Act to get an order requiring the Payor’s estate to continue to pay spousal support.

What about spousal support payments that are in arrears at the time of the Payor’s death?  Any spousal support payments in arrears at the time of the Payor’s death, will constitute a debt of the Estate: L.S.M.K. v. J.W.K., 2019 BCSC 2025.

Please contact Heath Law LLP at 250-753-2202 if you have any questions regarding spousal support or have any other Family Law related concerns.

 

/by