Is Rule 8-2 (7)(b and (c) of the Family Law Code broad purposive interpretation?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Lantzius v. Lantzius, 2015 BCSC 2066 (CanLII):

Rule 8-2 (7)(b) and (c) should receive a broad purposive interpretation. In family law, it is often useful to have before the court all persons necessary to the adjudication. See, for example, Arnink v. Arnink, 1999 CanLII 5326 (BC SC), [1999] B.C.J. No. 2712, 2 R.F.L. (5th) 24, (B.C.S.C.).

Other Questions


Whether a debt is a family debt depends on whether there is a discernible nexus between the debt itself and some family purpose or benefit? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing that a family bank account is not used ordinarily for a family purpose? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a party seeking to change the date on which to value family property or family debt under the Family Law Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of the BCCA's policy of setting a guideline salary for the purpose of determining the appropriate amount for the purposes of guideline purposes? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does use of an asset for a family purpose prior to marriage make it a family asset? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the use of income from a capital asset for family purposes constitute a family asset? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the rules of interpretation in the interpretation of tax legislation? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for relying on ss. 160-162 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [Family Law Act)? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the Court treated the Family Benefit for the purposes of the Forces Reduction Plan? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the testator's family maintenance under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.