Vancouver UHNW Spousal Support Review Lawyers help ex-spouses reach settlements when there is a dispute over how long and how much support should be in the future when there is uncertainty. Ultra high net worth family law lawyers deal with:
- spousal support over the $350,000 cap
- child support over the $150,000 limit for CSG
- high net worth property and debt division
- distributive and other taxes
- valuations of companies and real estate involving experts and critiques of their reports including multiples and other assumptions
- restraining orders under FLA, section 91, Mareva and Anton Pillar injunctions on worldwide assets
- division of extra provincial property in China, Singapore Hong Kong, Europe the USA and elsewhere
- unequal division of family property
- valuation of excluded property and the gain on it
- costs and enforcement against recalcitrant spouses
- imputing income on spouses
- pre-tax profits analyses from businesses and ventures
- spousal support reviews on entitlement, quantum and duration
Reviews, therefore, allow a court to reconsider the financial circumstances of the payor and payee, and to assess the payee’s path to self-sufficiency at a given period following the trial. Lorne MacLean, KC, founder of our tier 1 team of Vancouver UHNW Spousal Support Review Lawyers, was counsel on the infamous Leskun v Leskun spousal review decision, as he sought to reduce spousal support pursuant to a review several years after he obtained a far below low range SSAG spousal support award for his payor client.
Spousal support reviews are different from variations. Reviews are based on anticipated events outlined in the order or agreement, while variations address unforeseen changes in circumstances. So many cases would never settle when parties disagree over entitlement, duration and quantum so reviews allow a case to settle leaving the thorny issue of how long and how much spousal support should be paid to a later day. The Supreme Court of Canada seemed to ignore the practical reality of reviews but fortunately other courts and lawyers have not.
Vancouver UHNW Spousal Support Review Lawyers
13 Variation and Review (SSAG Chapter 14)
(a) The general framework of variation and review
The SSAG do nothing to change the general structure of the law pertaining to variation and review.
Some important points to remember about the basic law of variation and review include:
-
The distinction between a review and a variation:
-
A variation involves the threshold requirement of a material change in circumstances whereas a review is more like an initial application; courts often mistakenly confuse the tests. For recent decisions requiring appellate correction see Marche v. Marche, 2014 NLCA 2; Morck v. Morck, 2013 BCCA 186; and Domirti v. Domirti, 2010 BCCA 472.
A review is often described as a hearing de novo, but this is somewhat misleading because, following Leskun v. Leskun, 2006 SCC 25, the issues to be reviewed may, and indeed should be, delineated by the terms of the review: see Westergard v. Buttress, 2012 BCCA 38 (review only re self-sufficiency, not de novo assessment) and MacCarthy v. MacCarthy, 2015 BCCA 496 (order permitting review properly interpreted to apply only to quantum and not entitlement; not allowing for re-litigation of entitlement one year after trial).
Vancouver Ultra High Net Worth Spousal Support Review Lawyers
In Roeske v. Roeske, 2023 BCCA 358 the BC Court of Appeal rejected the restrictive approach to reviews in Leskun, which decision was soundly criticized by many lawyers and judges since it was pronounced.
[88] There is a clear overlap between the issue of indefinite spousal support and the order for a review in 2025. The legal framework which applies was recently summarized in M.T. v. J.S., 2023 BCCA 64:
[39] Under s. 15.2(3) of the Divorce Act, the court may include review provisions in support orders to permit the parties and the court to reconsider the support award where there is “genuine and material uncertainty at the time of the original trial” on a factual issue that is the basis for a support award. In such cases, once the uncertainty has been resolved, a party should not have to meet the strict threshold of establishing a material change in circumstances to have the support award reconsidered: Leskun v. Leskun, 2006 SCC 25 at paras. 36–37 and 39. Unless the order providing for a review sets out limitations on the scope of the review, a review is a hearing de novo and encompasses determination of each of the issues of entitlement, quantum and duration: Domitri v. Domitri, 2010 BCCA 472 at paras. 38–39; Morck v. Morck, 2013 BCCA 186 at para. 17.
…
[42] As the Supreme Court observed in Leskun at para. 37:
[37] Review orders, where justified by genuine and material uncertainty at the time of the original trial, permit parties to bring a motion to alter support awards without having to demonstrate a material change in circumstances: Choquette v. Choquette (1998), 1998 CanLII 5760 (ON CA), 39 R.F.L. (4th) 384 (Ont. C.A.). Otherwise, as the amicus curiae fairly points outs, the applicant may have his or her application dismissed on the basis that the circumstances at the time of the variation application were contemplated at the time of the original order and, therefore, that there had been no change in circumstances. The test for variation is a strict one: Willick v. Willick, 1994 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, at pp. 688–90.
[Emphasis added.]
[89] I would not accede to Mr. Roeske’s submission that the judge erred in ordering a review on the basis that there is no genuine uncertainty in this case. In fact, the Trial Reasons identify several uncertainties, which include:
- Whether his contract of employment at the time of trial would continue considering the evidence of significant lay offs having taken place;
- The effects of Ms. Dighe’s mental health issues on her employability;
- The potential of repayment of bonuses if Mr. Roeske’s employment was terminated; and
- The quantification of the proceeds of sale of certain of the stock options.
[90] It is also evident from the passages of the RUG to which the judge referred that while post-Leskun reviews were generally considered to be the exception rather than the rule, that landscape has changed in the fifteen years that have elapsed post-Leskun. This is seen, for example, in the RUG commentary at chapter 8(n): “often a review will be required in these indefinite orders”.
[91] Reviews, therefore, allow a court to reconsider the financial circumstances of the payor and payee, and to assess the payee’s path to self-sufficiency at a given period following the trial.
Vancouver Ultra High Net Worth Spousal Support Review Lawyers
Call our Vancouver ultra high net worth Spousal Support Review Lawyers early on if you want help resolving your ultra high net worth spousal support review.
