Sentences with phrase «s. fla»

haha LOVE FROM S. FLA!

Not exact matches

[196] Under s. 39 of the FLA, each parent of the child is the child's guardian unless after separation the court makes an order providing that a parent is not the child's guardian.

[35] Pursuant to s. 95 of the FLA, a court may order an unequal division of family property if it would be «significantly unfair» to divide it equally.

In that respect, s. 31 of the FLA confirms the court's continuing (but now statutory) jurisdiction to make declarations of parentage:

41 The provisions of the FLA governing the court's discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction are s. 106 (4) and (5):

Law Times explains there are two types of claims that can be advanced under the FLA, as outlined in s. 61 (2), including pecuniary claims, which are actual expenses reasonably incurred for the benefit of the person injured or killed, such as funeral expenses and a reasonable allowance for the loss of income or the value of nursing or housekeeping services.

As the article notes, in Part V of the FLA, entitled «Dependant's claim for damages,» s. 61 (1) gives a spouse, including common law spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters of a person injured or killed by the fault or neglect of another the entitlement to recover their pecuniary loss resulting from the injury or death.

The relevant section of the FLA is s. 106:

Section 11 of the CJPTA and s. 106 (4) and (5) of the FLA both give the court discretion to decline jurisdiction if the matter would be more appropriately decided by a court outside British Columbia.

[177] Mr. Street refers to this Court's decision in Peterson v. Lebovitz, 2013 BCSC 651 at para. 12, where the husband was found to have misconducted himself within the meaning of the FLA, s. 166 by hiding his financial circumstances.

In Gomez v. McHale, a case where the marriage lasted 9 months and the cohabitation period was less than five years (triggering s. 5 (6)(e) of the FLA), the ONCA refused to increase the appellant's equalization payment.

Under the FLA — s. 1 (1)-- a person who has demonstrated a «settled intention to treat a child as a child of his / her family (not foster parent).

The court reviewed the FLA provision (namely, s. 5 (6)-RRB- that allows for a spouse to get an unequal share where «unconscionability» arises in defined circumstances.

He must meet the requirements of s. 47 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] which reads:

[31] Although this Court has yet to consider s. 47 of the FLA, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision as requiring a material change in circumstances: see for example, Gilmour v. Herrick, 2013 BCSC 1591 at para. 13; Bradley v. Bradley, 2015 BCSC 1587 at paras. 21 - 23; and, J.D.C. v. K.L.M.F.C., 2014 BCSC 2182 at paras. 261 - 262.

Her argument hinges on what she submits is a necessary link between a lift - stay order and a spouse's ability, before bankruptcy, to obtain an order granting a proprietary interest in the other spouse's property under s. 9 (1) of the Family Law Act (FLA).