Family law disputes often involve far more than the breakdown of a relationship between spouses. In high-conflict cases, extended family members, informal financial arrangements, shared business ventures, and property registered in unconventional ways can all become entangled in the litigation. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Den Duyf v. Den Duyf provides a detailed and cautionary illustration of how these complexities unfold when a relationship ends.

The case involved not only divorce, parenting, and support issues, but also parallel civil claims between a spouse and her former in-laws, allegations of unjust enrichment, and disputes over whether substantial financial contributions were loans, gifts, or something else entirely. The Court’s reasons offer important guidance for spouses, parents, and advisors navigating family property disputes in British Columbia.

This decision highlights a central theme in modern family law: clarity is crucial. Where expectations are informal, undocumented, or based on assumptions, courts will return to legal principles, often with results that surprise at least one party.

A Relationship Intertwined With Family Wealth and Expectations

The parties began a marriage-like relationship in 2020 and married in 2022. During the relationship, they became involved in two major property ventures tied closely to the husband’s parents: a rural farm property in Pemberton (the “Urdal Property”) and a luxury residential property on Eagle Drive (the “ED Property”).

Neither spouse independently had the financial capacity to acquire or develop these properties. Instead, the husband’s parents provided the purchase funds, development capital, equipment, and operational support. The arrangements were largely informal at the outset, evolving over time and, in some cases, being partially documented only after significant commitments had already been made.

When the relationship broke down in late 2023, the financial interdependence between the spouses and the husband’s parents gave rise to multiple disputes that ultimately proceeded as a single, lengthy trial.

Joint Title Does Not Always Mean Joint Ownership

One of the central issues concerned the Urdal Property, which had been purchased by the husband’s parents and registered in joint title with their adult son. The wife believed that the property had effectively been “given” to the couple, or that it would be gifted to them in the future in recognition of their work developing a small farm operation.

The Court rejected that interpretation. After reviewing the evidence, the judge found that placing the son on title was done solely for estate planning purposes. The parents intended to grant their son a right of survivorship, not an immediate ownership interest or beneficial entitlement during their lifetimes.

This distinction proved decisive. Under British Columbia law, a transfer into joint tenancy can create an inter vivos gift of the right of survivorship without transferring present beneficial ownership. The son had no right of possession or control over the property, and the parents could sever his survivorship interest at any time.

For family law purposes, this meant that the Urdal Property was not family property subject to division between spouses. The wife’s belief that the property was “theirs” carried no legal weight in the absence of evidence showing a completed gift.

Promised Gifts Are Not Enforceable Without Delivery

The wife argued in the alternative that the parents had promised to gift the property at some future date, and that she relied on those assurances in contributing her labour to the farming venture. The Court held that even if such a promise had been made, it would not be legally enforceable.

A valid inter vivos gift requires both intention and delivery. Courts will not perfect an incomplete gift or compel a donor to follow through on an unfulfilled intention. In this case, there was no transfer of beneficial ownership, no declaration of trust, and no conduct that satisfied the legal requirements of a completed gift.

The Court acknowledged that confusion may have arisen due to vague discussions and indirect communications, but ultimately held that expectations (however sincerely held) do not substitute for legal certainty.

Unjust Enrichment Claims Require More Than Effort and Disappointment

The wife also advanced a claim for unjust enrichment, arguing that her unpaid labour on the farm and property improvements enriched her former in-laws at her expense. The Court carefully applied the three-part test: enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and absence of juristic reason.

The evidence showed that while the wife did contribute some labour, the parents funded virtually all capital improvements, operating costs, and materials. Much of the work was either recreational, had minimal economic impact, or was work that others would have performed without additional cost.

Although the Court accepted that the wife experienced some economic deprivation—particularly by declining other employment opportunities—the broader context was decisive. The farming venture was characterized as a passion project, heavily subsidized by the parents, with little commercial viability. The wife enjoyed the opportunity to pursue her interests without bearing financial risk.

Given the extensive financial support provided, the Court found there was a juristic reason for any benefit retained by the parents. Equity did not require compensation where the overall arrangement was one of support, indulgence, and personal choice rather than exploitation.

Loans vs. Gifts: The Importance of Written Agreements

The dispute over the ED Property highlighted a different issue: whether funds advanced by parents to adult children constitute loans or gifts. In this case, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) confirming that the funds used to purchase and build the home were loans to be repaid, with specific repayment terms and expectations.

The wife later argued that the MOU was unenforceable or unconscionable. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the parties understood the financial implications at the time of signing. The evidence, including text messages acknowledging the risk of long-term debt, demonstrated informed consent.

The Court found that the MOU accurately reflected the parties’ agreement and expectations. The fact that the arrangement was generous or family-based did not transform it into a gift. This aspect of the decision reinforces that courts will enforce family loan agreements where they are clear, understood, and voluntarily entered into.

Extended Family Litigation Raises Strategic and Emotional Risks

An unusual feature of the case was the extent to which it evolved into multi-party litigation between spouses and in-laws. Civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and parallel counterclaims significantly expanded the scope, increased the cost, and heightened the emotional toll of the proceedings.

The Court ultimately dismissed these allegations, finding no improper purpose or coordinated wrongdoing on the part of the parents. However, the reasons illustrate how quickly family law disputes can escalate when property and business interests intersect with personal relationships.

For separating spouses, this case is a reminder that involving extended family, whether as lenders, co-owners, or business partners, can dramatically complicate separation outcomes. For parents assisting their adult children, it highlights the importance of formalizing arrangements and understanding how those arrangements may be scrutinized in court later.

Relocation Applications Require Evidence, Not Aspiration

Beyond property and financial issues, the case also addressed a contested relocation application involving a young child. The mother sought to relocate, citing concerns about the cost of living, career opportunities, and strained relations with the paternal family.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing relocation and concluded that the proposed move was not in the child’s best interests. While the mother’s reasons were understandable, they did not outweigh the child’s existing relationships, stability, and parenting arrangements.

This portion of the decision reinforces that relocation cases are highly fact-specific and child-centred. Courts will closely examine the practical impacts of relocation rather than accepting generalized assertions about lifestyle or opportunity.

Support and Property Division Follow Legal Characterization

Once the Court determined which assets were excluded property, which debts were considered family obligations, and which agreements were enforceable, the remaining financial issues were resolved in accordance with established principles. Child support, spousal support, and division of family assets were assessed based on income, needs, and statutory factors.

Significantly, the exclusion of major assets from family property had a significant impact on the overall financial outcome. This underscores how early legal advice and proper documentation can influence long-term consequences in family law disputes.

Lessons for Families in British Columbia

This decision offers several important lessons for spouses and families:

1. Title and ownership are not synonymous. Joint registration does not necessarily create family property.
2. Informal assurances about future gifts carry little legal weight without clear evidence of intention and delivery.
3. Unjust enrichment claims require more than effort or disappointment; courts will examine the full economic context.
4. Written agreements, even within families, matter and will be enforced where properly understood.
5. When extended family finances intersect with intimate relationships, the legal and emotional stakes rise dramatically.

Meridian Law Group: Vancouver Family Lawyers Representing Clients in Complex, Multifaceted Family & Civil Disputes

Family breakdowns involving shared property, family loans, or financial assistance from parents can raise complicated legal issues with long-term consequences. If you are separating and have concerns about property division, excluded assets, or financial arrangements involving extended family, obtaining timely legal advice is essential. The skilled family and divorce lawyers at Meridian Law Group can help you understand your rights, assess risk, and develop a robust legal strategy to secure your interests. To book a confidential consultation, please contact the firm online or call (604) 687-2277.