1,399
edits
Difference between revisions of "Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters (view source)
Revision as of 19:12, 27 June 2019
, 19:12, 27 June 2019→The Rules of Court
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
Rule 12-4 of the [http://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules] gives the court the authority to make a general restraining order, also called an ''injunction'', to make someone to do something or not do something. The potential scope of these restraining orders is very broad, and can include, for example, a restraining order identical to that provided for in s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act'' as well as an order stopping someone from racking up debt by drawing on credit cards and lines of credit. | Rule 12-4 of the [http://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules] gives the court the authority to make a general restraining order, also called an ''injunction'', to make someone to do something or not do something. The potential scope of these restraining orders is very broad, and can include, for example, a restraining order identical to that provided for in s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act'' as well as an order stopping someone from racking up debt by drawing on credit cards and lines of credit. | ||
Rule 12-4 says little more that "the court can issue an injunction." A 1986 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1q5c1 British Columbia v. Wale]'', 1986 CanLII 171 (BCCA) offers some guidance. In that case, the court held that someone applying for an injunction had to prove three things. In a family law context involving unmarried parties, these are that: | Rule 12-4 says little more, that "the court can issue an injunction." A 1986 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1q5c1 British Columbia v. Wale]'', 1986 CanLII 171 (BCCA), offers some guidance. In that case, the court held that someone applying for an injunction had to prove three things. In a family law context involving unmarried parties, these are that: | ||
*you have a reasonable claim against assets owned by your spouse, | |||
*your spouse has disposed of or encumbered their assets or is likely to do so, and | |||
*the inconvenience that will be suffered by your spouse as a result of the injunction is less severe than the inconvenience you will suffer if the injunction isn't granted. | |||
===The ''Law and Equity Act''=== | ===The ''Law and Equity Act''=== | ||