* '''Non-removal orders:''' Under section 64 of the Act, if there is a concern that a person may remove a child from British Columbia and is unlikely to return, a court may make an order that a person not remove a child from a specified geographical area. This can range from a city to the province of British Columbia, for example. This type of order does not apply when a guardian wishes to relocate with a child with notice to the other guardian.
* '''Exclusive occupation of the family residence:''' Under section 90, the court may make temporary orders, and grant one spouse exclusive occupancy of the family residence. This isn't a restraining order, and it does not prohibit the other party from entering the home, but the person with the exclusive occupation order is allowed to live there and the other person is not.
==Impact of family violence property division==
"On an interim or temporary basis, the court may make an order that one spouse will have exclusive occupation of a family residence under s. 90(2) of the ''Family Law Act''. To grant this order, the court must be satisfied that shared use of the family residence by the spouses is a “practical impossibility” and that the spouse who is seeking to exclusively occupy the family residence is the preferred spouse on the “balance of convenience”, as set out in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/g1rsf Bateman v. Bateman]'', 2013 BCSC 2026. In considering whether it is a practical impossibility for the spouses to share the residence, the court may consider evidence showing that there is significant conflict between the spouses, which may include evidence of family violence. In considering which spouse should be allowed to remain in the residence, the court may consider factors including the conduct of the parties, which may include family violence, as well as the economic circumstances of both parties, whether the spouses have other accommodation options available to them, and the needs of any children involved.
Family violence is not typically considered in determining how family property and family debt should be divided between spouses on a final basis, but there are some relevant issues that family violence may impact.
Under Part 5 of the ''Family Law Act'', the starting point for determining how family property and family debt will be divided between spouses after separation is that the division should be equal. However, section 95 allows the court to divide family property or family debt unequally, by giving a larger share of property or debt to one of the spouses, when it would be significantly unfair to divide equally.
When considering whether it would be significantly unfair to divide family property and family debt equally, the court may consider a number of factors that include:
# under s. 95(3), whether the objectives of spousal support have not been met through an order or agreement for spousal support to be paid, and
# under s. 95(2)(i), any other factor. However, the “other factor” must relate in some way to the economic characteristics of the spousal relationship, as set out in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j4tb4 Singh v. Singh]'', 2020 BCCA 21.
Additionally, in circumstances where financial abuse has been present and has extended to a failure to provide full and frank disclosure of a spouse’s assets and debts, the court may make an adverse inference against the party who has failed to make appropriate financial disclosure under s. 213 of the ''Family Law Act''.
For example, in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j6v88 N.K. v. M.H.]'', 2020 BCCA 121, the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed property division between a husband and wife. At trial, the husband was found to have been abusive to the wife throughout the marriage, including threats, physical abuse, limiting her financial independence, and refusing her opportunities to educate herself. The wife was given 60% of the family property based on failure of the husband to make appropriate financial disclosure, the children having a heightened need for stability in housing due to family violence, as well as the impact of family violence on the wife’s economic self-sufficiency, although that impact was largely addressed by an order for spousal support to be paid to the wife. The Court of Appeal found there was no error in dividing family property unequally based on factors including lack of financial disclosure and the effects of family violence on the children.
In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jsjd5 He v. Guo]'', 2022 BCCA 355, the British Columbia Supreme Court clarified that family violence is not a relevant consideration in unequal division of family property or debt unless the violence is demonstrated to have had an economic impact on the parties.
See the section above titled “Impact of family violence on spousal support” for further discussion with respect to family violence and spousal support."
==Resources and Links==