In our first blog in this 2-part series on the recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case of M.P. v. P.P. and its appeal before the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Paletar v. Paletar, we reviewed the case’s discussion of complex property division issues. In this second blog, we discuss the other disputes at issue in this case, including parenting arrangements, child and spousal support, family violence, and relocation. We also answer some frequently asked questions that arise from these types of issues in BC family law.
Can I relocate with my children after separation in BC?
Not automatically. A parent who wants to move with the children must satisfy the court that the proposed relocation is in the children’s best interests. The parenting and relocation issues in M.P. v. P.P. were decided under the Divorce Act, which directs the court to consider the children’s best interests (s. 16) and the additional relocation factors, such as the reasons for the move, its impact on the children, and each parent’s involvement in child-rearing responsibilities at present (s. 16.92).
At trial, Ms. P. asked the court to relocate with the children to Nevada, mainly because she could live rent-free in her grandfather’s home and faced serious financial precarity in the Lower Mainland, where she had at times relied on social assistance. The trial judge accepted that her financial concerns were real and that she was not the author of her own misfortune, but found that the outcome of the trial, including the property and support awards, would ease those concerns.
Weighing the children’s strong bonds with both parents, their very young ages, and the settled shared-parenting arrangement the family had reached, the trial judge concluded that relocation was not in the children’s best interests and dismissed the relocation application. Shared parenting continued, and the court allocated final decision-making responsibility to Ms. P.
Will a BC court make a protection order after family violence?
A court will make a protection order under the Family Law Act only where it concludes that family violence is likely to occur, assessed against the risk factors in the statute, not as a remedy for past conduct alone. Section 183 of the Family Law Act authorizes a protection order to guard an at-risk family member, and s. 184 lists the factors the court must consider, including any history of violence and whether it is escalating.
At trial, the court accepted Ms. P.’s account of the night of separation, when Mr. P. blocked her in the garage and pushed her to the ground, and agreed that this conduct met the statutory definition of family violence. The court was also troubled that Mr. P. had set out to learn Ms. P.’s address after her return from Nevada, despite conditions not to attend there. Even so, the trial judge found the risk of future family violence was greatly reduced now that the parties were physically separated, that the evidence did not establish a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and that the tension between them was abating.
The request for a protection order was dismissed, with the court noting that Ms. P. could apply again if circumstances changed. The case is a reminder that a protection order turns on forward-looking risk, and that past incidents, while relevant, are not on their own decisive.
How does a BC court determine income when a spouse is self-employed or hides it?
When a spouse is self-employed, controls a corporation, or does not fully disclose all sources or the exact nature of their income, a court in British Columbia can look behind the tax return and impute income, including from corporate pre-tax earnings, tax-deductible expenses, and circumstantial evidence. The courts apply the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which contain special rules for shareholders and directors (s. 18) and allow income to be imputed where, among other things, a party has not provided the information needed to determine income fairly (s. 19).
In this case, Mr. P.’s reported “line 15000” income understated what was actually available to him. The court added back corporate amortization and personal-use expenses (including a luxury Mercedes), treated certain “repairs” as capital rather than deductible maintenance, and accounted for undisclosed items, including an American corporate entity and a U.S. bank account that only surfaced late in the trial, and some cash transactions. The trial judge also noted that Mr. P. had declared a personal income of $32,000 per month on a car loan application and found that, while this did not show he actually earned that much, it did show that he was willing to misstate his income to gain an advantage.
Taking disclosed and undisclosed income together, the court set Mr. P.’s income for support at $120,000 for 2022 and $140,000 for 2023 and going forward. For Ms. P, the court declined to impute income to her for 2022 and 2023, given her role as primary caregiver to the children and limited work history, but imputed $35,000 as her income for support purposes from January 1, 2024, representing full-time work at minimum wage, with a review of her income permitted from January 1, 2027. We have written more about this issue in our recent blog on hidden income in divorces when a spouse is self-employed.
How much child and spousal support was ordered in M.P. v. P.P.?
The court ordered net child support of $1,475 per month and spousal support of $1,500 per month, the latter for an indefinite term, payable from Mr. P to Ms. P. For child support, because the parties shared parenting, the court applied the set-off approach under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines: on his $140,000 income Mr. P.’s table amount was $2,037 per month, against which Ms. P.’s $562 table amount on her $35,000 income was set off, leaving Mr. P. to pay a net $1,475 per month from December 1, 2024. Past child support, back to April 2022, was left to the parties to calculate based on the income findings.
For spousal support, Mr. P conceded that Ms. P was entitled to spousal support, and the court found a moderate compensatory claim: Ms. P. had given up her life in the United States, become financially dependent, and taken on the role of full-time caregiver for two young children. Applying the “with-child” formula in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court set spousal support at $1,000 per month for 2022, $1,872 per month for 2023, and $1,500 per month from December 2024 onward.
The trial judge declined to impose an end date or a lump-sum award, noting that for relationships with dependent children, the Guidelines recommend indefinite initial orders, but gave Mr. P. liberty to apply for a review of the amount or entitlement after January 1, 2027, once both children are in school.
What does M.P. v. P.P. mean for separating spouses in British Columbia?
The practical lesson from this case is that British Columbia’s family law framework leans heavily on its presumptions, and that displacing them takes more than a sense of grievance or injustice. Equal division of the growth in value of property is the default, even where that growth came from one spouse’s pre-relationship assets, and even a relatively short relationship will not justify an unequal split where there are children and meaningful indirect contributions.
At the same time, there are protections that the system builds in: excluded property is preserved, income can be imputed where disclosure is incomplete, and compensatory spousal support recognizes the economic cost of stepping back from a career to raise children.
For anyone separating in British Columbia, the time to understand these rules is early. Getting an accurate picture of what is excluded versus divisible, gathering the financial records needed to determine income, and obtaining realistic advice on relocation, protection orders, and support can be the difference between a focused resolution and a 14-day trial (or longer). Meridian Law Group‘s family lawyers advise on property division, support, parenting and relocation, and family violence and protection orders across the province.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a BC court divide family property unequally?
Yes, but only where an equal division would be “significantly unfair,” which is a high threshold. Under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, the spouse seeking an unequal division must show significant unfairness based on the specific factors the section lists, such as the duration of the relationship. In M.P. v. P.P., the court divided roughly $1.75 million in family property equally, and the Court of Appeal upheld that result in Paletar v. Paletar.
Is property I owned before my relationship protected in a BC divorce?
The value of property you owned before the relationship is generally your excluded property and stays with you, but the increase in its value during the relationship is family property and is presumptively divided equally. In M.P. v. P.P., the spouse kept the starting value of his Maple Ridge home and commercial unit, but the roughly $2.1 million of combined growth during the relationship was divided equally.
Can I move away with my children after separating in BC?
Only if the court is satisfied that the move is in the children’s best interests, which is the sole consideration under the Divorce Act. The court weighs the reasons for the move, its impact on the children, and each parent’s involvement. In M.P. v. P.P., a proposed relocation to Nevada was refused because it was not in the children’s best interests, even though the moving parent had genuine financial reasons.
How does a court set income for support if my ex is self-employed or hiding money?
The court can impute income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, looking at corporate pre-tax earnings, adding back personal expenses claimed as business costs, and drawing inferences from incomplete disclosure. In M.P. v. P.P., the court set the paying spouse’s income at $140,000 after adding back personal-use expenses and accounting for an undisclosed U.S. company and bank account.
Is spousal support always time-limited in BC?
No. For relationships with dependent children, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines generally recommend an indefinite initial order, subject to later review or variation. In M.P. v. P.P., the court ordered indefinite spousal support of $1,500 per month and declined to set an end date, but allowed the payor to apply for a review after the children are both in school.
Contact Meridian Law Group for Exceptional Family Law Advice in Vancouver
Separation raises difficult, interconnected questions about property, support, parenting, and safety, and the answers turn on the specific facts of your situation. The family law team at Meridian Law Group advises spouses and parents through every stage of a separation, from property division and support to parenting, relocation, and protection orders, and on domestic agreements that can prevent disputes before they arise.
Whether you are planning for a separation, responding to a claim, or considering an appeal, the firm provides clear, practical advice and steady representation. Meridian Law Group proudly represents clients in family law matters across British Columbia, including West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Penticton, Kelowna, Richmond, New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Langley, and White Rock. Contact us online or call (604) 687-2277.
About the Author: Paul Harden
Paul Harden is a Principal at Meridian Law Group in Vancouver. He holds a BA in Philosophy from the University of Calgary (2004) and a Juris Doctor from the University of British Columbia (2012), and was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2013. His practice spans estate litigation, business and property disputes, general civil litigation, insurance claims, and serious personal injury. He is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC.
About the Co-Author: Mia L. Bottos
Mia L. Bottos is a family lawyer at Meridian Law Group in Vancouver. She earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law (2022) and was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2023. Mia advises clients on the full range of family law matters, including separation, divorce, complex property division, parenting and contact arrangements, and child and spousal support, and has appeared in BC Provincial Court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and at mediation.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please contact Meridian Law Group.
