In my view taking into account all of the above-noted factors I am satisfied that the family assets should be reapportioned 67% in favour of the respondent and 33% in favour of the claimant: see J.A.F v. A.A.F., 2003 BCSC 899 at paras. 14-16 and Sidhu v. Sidhu, 2001 BCSC 1211. Here, similar to J.A.F., there was a long term marriage, the property was acquired during the marriage and was not acquired through gift or inheritance to one party. In addition, as in J.A.F., the needs of the respondent favoured an unequal division. Again, similar to J.A.F., the respondent stayed home and cared for the children and was unable to pursue a career. I follow J.A.F. in my order that the family assets be reapportioned in the above stated percentages.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.