Does a simple fact of the fact that an expense is incurred be considered an expense where there is no evidence of advisability or reasonableness?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from M.W.B. v. A.R.B., 2011 BCSC 1663 (CanLII):
The simple fact of an expense being incurred does not automatically demonstrate its necessity or reasonableness where there is no evidence of its advisability or necessity: Thomas v. Thomas, 2000 BCSC 585.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for calling a witness who could reasonably reasonably be expected to provide supporting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a reasonably minded person of ample means ready to incur the expense for which an award is sought? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will a adjudicator's reasoning be manifestly flawed where the adjudicator failed to consider the evidence supporting the findings of two witnesses? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonably-minded person of ample means would be ready to incur a particular expense? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining the reasonableness of the expense of a spouse’s medical expenses? (British Columbia, Canada)
In an appeal from an acquittal, can the reasonableness of the trial judge’s reasons be considered to be inadequate? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party who has not produced evidence in favour of their position, or has no reasonable explanation for failing to call the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a reasonably-minded person of ample means to incur a particular expense? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an unsuccessful party to a small claims action be required to pay any other reasonable charges or expenses such as experts’ fees or expenses? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an appellate court "reconsider" evidence presented at trial when there is a reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten or misconceived the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
