fbpx
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
_pods_template
lawyer
acf-field-group
acf-field

MacLean Law has made a number of bold strategies, achieving precedent-setting wins in domestic and international family matters.

  • High Net Worth

  • Child & Spousal Support

  • Custody, Access and Guardianship

  • Property Division

  • Family Law Appeals

High Net Worth

Wang v. Jiang, 2020 BCSC 1761 – Appearing before The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson, the Supreme Court awards 100% special costs against ex-husband and mother-in-law to Lorne MacLean Q.C’s client.

Wang v. Jiang, 2020 BCSC 901 – Lorne MacLean Q.C and Susanna Chen expose millions in hidden cash and obtain substantial judgment in client’s favour. The court also ordered the return of trust monies held by the husband’s lawyers, placing obligations to his wife and daughter ahead of legal fees.

Tang v. Cheng, 2020 BCSC 1341 – Jian Kang sets nationwide precedent on choice of law issue and obtains $21,678.00/month for spousal support with ability to increase it in the future.

Tang v. Cheng, 2020 BCSC 908 –Jian Kang wins precedent-setting case on ultra-high net-worth jurisdictional dispute.

Devathasan v Devathasan, BCCA 2020
A record setting interim spousal and child support award of over $100,000 per month in the BC Supreme and BC Appeal Courts where the firm won a rare lifetime protection order, $116,000 monthly support, $25 million of property and $1.5 million of special costs and a record interim advance for legal fees of $800,000.

Li v Rao, 2019 BCCA 265
Lorne MacLean, QC won at trial and in the BC Court of Appeal on a multimillion dollar international divorce case. Appeal from dismissal of application to strike a claim for division of property and spousal support under Family Law Act.

Devathasan v. Devathasan, 2019 BCSC 661
Record-breaking international divorce and family law trial judgment with client obtaining 20 million-plus of family property, $100,000 a month spousal support, nearly $17,000 child support for 1 child, retroactive and lump-sum support of roughly $6 million and 100% indemnity for special costs in the amount of 1.5 million.

Zhang v Chee, 2018 BCSC 948
An ultra high-conflict file involving tens of millions of dollars of assets, four jurisdictions and more than ten parallel civil and family proceedings. Jian Kang reached a fair settlement on most of the issues on the morning of the application, not only considerably narrowing down the scope of the application but also paving way for the parties’ future negotiations.

Devathasan v. Devathasan, 2017 BCSC 1010
A record high child and spousal support award of over $85,000 a month specifically addressing:

  • How income for the paying spouse is correctly determined if they own a company or practice;
  • Rules for how post-separation increases impact a spousal support payment change;
  • What is a review and how does it differ from a variation.

Read more about this precedent setting case.

Wang v. Jiang, 2016 BCSC 2461
Jian Kang helped Lorne MacLean QC obtain an extremely rare order for contempt of court and sentencing of six months of imprisonment (one month forthwith and five months conditional).

Lightle v. Kotar, 2014 BCCA 69
Stock broker’s book of business is deemed family property. Canada’s first appellate decision where Mr MacLean won for the wife and established for the first time that a stockbroker’s lucrative list of clients is family property to be divided.

Estate of Gang Yuan
This case involved an estate worth approximately $40 million dollars and 10 parties. Jian Kang successfully obtained a public ban and the first sealing order in BC that seals the entire file (as opposed to just some information in the file) in the civil context.

Child & Spousal Support

Tang v. Cheng, 2020 BCSC 1341 – Jian Kang sets nationwide precedent on choice of law issue and obtains $21,678.00/month for spousal support with ability to increase it in the future.

Baryla v. Baryla, 2019 BCCA 22 – Nick Davies, representing the appellant, challenged the amount of a compensation payment, the failure to deal with distributive taxes, and the awarding of spousal support after an equal division of assets. Held, appeal allowed, new trial ordered. It was necessary for the court below to determine whether the registration of title in joint tenancy was an inter vivos gift to the husband, and to account for distributive taxes upon division of the assets. The question of spousal support after an equal division of assets must consider whether an award would amount to “double dipping”.

Leskun v. Leskun, 2006 SCC 25
Established key principles for spousal support decisions. The BC spousal support case broke ground on the issue of what, if any impact should spousal misconduct and its consequences have on spousal support awards and what proof should be required.

A.R.J. v. Z.S.J., 2009 BCSC 1662
One of BC’s highest combined interim support judgments for child support and spousal support. Key aspects of the case are corporate pre-tax calculations, double-dipping, and determining base income for support calculations.

Mills v. Eglin, 2009 BCSC 1595
Termination of spousal support.

Johnston v. Embree, 2013 BCCA 74
Biological father ordered to meet child support obligations while a child is with a step-parent.

Richardson v. Richardson, 2013 BCCA 378
Successful appeal to increase retroactive award for support and to establish law in Canada on how corporate income related to real estate holdings is calculated.

Beech v. Pearce, 2010 MBQB 99
Consent variation, consent and control of the child, and child support guidelines.

Aujla v. Singh, 2012 ONSC 5217
Spousal support awarded that is in access of Spousal Support Guidelines high range.

C.S.R. v. D.M.R., 2005 MBQB 2
Petitioner submitted a Bill of Costs. The double costs award applies to the amounts claimed for attendance at the trial and decision, and preparation for trial.

Custody, Access and Guardianship

S.T.M. v. C.G.H., 2020 BCPC 181 – Fraser MacLean successfully varies an interim order getting a father a significant increase in parenting time and police enforcement orders to protect against wrongful denial of parenting time.

Bailey v. Bailey, 2018 BCSC 1419 – Tal Wolf successfully represented the father in this case. The mother sought to move with the parties’ two children, aged 10 and 7, from the Lower Mainland to the Okanagan. The trial judge ultimately declined to allow the move.

B.T. v. W.Z.D., 2018 BCSC 2157 – James Macdonnell represented the father. This case involved an appeal by the mother from an order declaring the father a guardian of the parties’ two-year-old child and dismissing the mother’s application to relocate to California with the child. The mother’s appeal was dismissed. The court found the trial judge properly determined the father was a guardian of the child and conducted thorough review of the evidence and applicable legal principles. The trial judge considered circumstances in denying the relocation, including the mother’s credibility, which called into question the strength of her relationship with the husband and whether she would preserve the father’s relationship with the child.

R.W. v P.C., 2017 BCSC 998 – James Macdonnell representing the father had substantial success in this trial. This trial involved, inter alia, the matter of the mother’s online posting claiming the father was abusive to her and her children. The court ruled that the mother was enjoined from any further online postings about the children and the father and was to undertake all efforts to have the postings removed, including filing an injunction in the United States. The postings were defamatory and, despite an interim injunction and order to have the posting removed, the mother did not undertake serious efforts to do so. The court found that there was no family violence affecting the children. The father was entitled to costs of the proceedings at scale B to a level of 75%.

A.L.S. v. G.J.S, 2012 BCPC 216 – James Macdonnell represented the mother who was seeking to relocate with the parties 2 children from Kelowna to Fort St. John. The mother was granted sole custody and was permitted to move with the children to Fort St. John.

Young v. Young, 1993 4 S.C.R. 3
Lorne MacLean, QC, argues and wins before the Supreme Court of Canada as lead counsel for the plaintiff. This judgment was instrumental in establishing the modern rules for how Canadian courts decide custody, access, and guardianship cases. Mr. MacLean successfully represented the wife on this leading Canadian case on child custody, guardianship, and special costs. This case crosses both family law related to custody and the best interests of the child, property and financial awards, and constitutional law – Charter of Rights and freedom of religion.

Frozen Embryo Custody Dispute
Lorne MacLean, QC, presented arguments at the Vancouver Supreme Court on a precedent-setting, frozen embryo custody dispute injunction case. MacLean successfully obtained an injunction on behalf of a wife to keep the four embryos frozen, pending trial in June 2013 so they are not destroyed before this emotionally laden issue can be determined for the first time in Canada. Juanita’s lawyer, Lorne MacLean, said the decision validated his client’s claim that the embryos should remain intact and viable, pending the divorce trial. The embryos are in a special category, as neither property nor persons, he maintains.

S.P.M. v. R.H.M., 2005 MBQB 58
Time-sharing arrangements in the best interest of the child.

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. C. (A.), 2015 ONCJ 482
Parents have the first right of custody in child protection matters.

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. C. (A.), 2015 ONSC 3858
Successfully stayed Order granting parent’s first right of custody.

Zafar v. Saiyid, 2017 ONCA 919
Hague Convention on the civil aspects of child abduction. Successful in obtaining order to return children to country of habitual residence. Child removed from jurisdiction by spouse or spouse refusing to return child.

Cuevas v. Allen, 2017 ONCJ 562
Successful in obtaining custody by demonstrating that the willingness of one parent to encourage the child’s relationship with other parents may be a determining factor. Determination of spouse’s annual income and imputed income. Deliberately unemployed or under-employed.

Ramjeet v. Ramjeet, 2010 ONSC 5253
Court’s Inherent jurisdiction, conflict of laws. Variation of a custody order.

Property Division

Baryla v. Baryla, 2019 BCCA 22 – Nick Davies, representing the appellant, challenged the amount of a compensation payment, the failure to deal with distributive taxes, and the awarding of spousal support after an equal division of assets. Held, appeal allowed, new trial ordered. It was necessary for the court below to determine whether the registration of title in joint tenancy was an inter vivos gift to the husband, and to account for distributive taxes upon division of the assets. The question of spousal support after an equal division of assets must consider whether an award would amount to “double dipping”.

De Araujo v. Monteiro, 2020 BCSC 1198 – Tal Wolf sets new precedent on the in personam jurisdiction of the BC Supreme Court to deal with property division and spousal support, even where common-law spouses spent huge swaths of time outside of Canada and on the high seas.

Bhimani v. Beninteso, 2020 BCCA 174
The underlying appeal from a dismissal of a claim for division of family property and the imposition of a fine for non-compliance with disclosure obligations was dismissed as abandoned. The case touches on COVID-19 and the interests of justice.

Bhimani v Beninteso, 2020 BCCA 79
Secured $9,500 in security for costs of the appeal, despite the fact the appellant was applying for an order for indigent status to waive fees.

Bhimani v Beninteso, 2019 BCSC 2074
Successfully proved client’s date of separation and dismissed the opposing parties claim for property division for missing the relevant 2-year limitation period.

Dennis v. Gill, 2018 BCSC 1533
MacLean Law wins: Successfully reapportioned two-family properties in a 75/25% split in favour of our client.

Lightle v. Kotar, 2014 BCCA 69
Stock broker’s book of business is deemed family property. Canada’s first appellate decision where Mr. MacLean won for the wife and established for the first time that a stockbroker’s lucrative list of clients is family property to be divided.

Yu v. Hao, unreported
Jian Kang obtained an extremely rare judgment that dismisses all of the opposing parties’ non-child-related pleadings and reapportions 100% of the former family home (which is the vast majority of the parties’ assets) in favour of his client.

Family Law Appeals

Devathasan v. Devathasan, 2020 BCCA 209 – Lorne MacLean Q.C., successfully dismisses the appellant’s appeal as abandoned for the failure of the appellant to comply with the conditions of an order extending time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal, and filling of the appeal record and transcripts.

Devathasan v. Devathasan, 2020 BCCA 115 – Lorne MacLean Q.C. , representing the wife, successfully dismissed the appellant husband’s application to vary the conditions established by a single justice in granting his application for an extension of time to commence his appeal.

Bhimani v. Beninteso, 2020 BCCA 174 – Fraser MacLean and Anastasiya Sadovska successfully dismiss the Appellant’s appeal. The underlying appeal from a dismissal of a claim for division of family property and the imposition of a fine for non-compliance with disclosure obligations was dismissed as abandoned. The case touches on COVID-19 and the interests of justice.

Bhimani v. Beninteso, 2020 BCCA 79 – Fraser MacLean successfully secured $9,500 in security for costs of the appeal, despite the fact the appellant was applying for an order for indigent status to waive fees.

Baryla v. Baryla, 2019 BCCA 22 – Nick Davies, representing the appellant, challenged the amount of a compensation payment, the failure to deal with distributive taxes, and the awarding of spousal support after an equal division of assets. Held, appeal allowed, new trial ordered. It was necessary for the court below to determine whether the registration of title in joint tenancy was an inter vivos gift to the husband, and to account for distributive taxes upon division of the assets. The question of spousal support after an equal division of assets must consider whether an award would amount to “double dipping”.

Lorne’s knowledge of family law is impressive, especially if you have assets overseas. His expertise has been a win for us in our court appearances. I am so thankful I finally found the right person to defend my case.

Family Law Client