Jurisdiction over parenting issues maintained
In a recent ruling, the BC Supreme Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction over certain aspects of a family law case involving property division, spousal support, and child support, while maintaining jurisdiction over parenting issues.
The dispute in L.M.H. v R.M.V, 2024 BCSC 1199 involves a couple married in 2006 in Mexico, who separated in March 2022, with two children aged 12 and 16. The claimant and the children have lived in British Columbia since August 2019, with the respondent continuing to reside in Mexico.
The respondent initiated court proceedings in Mexico. The claimant challenged the jurisdiction of the Mexican court and filed a counterclaim. Despite subsequent Mexican court orders regarding divorce, parenting arrangements, and child support, the claimant continued to contest these rulings.
The claimant initiated a divorce proceeding in BC, seeking orders for family property division, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support. The claimant obtained an order without notice from the court, asserting that the children were habitually resident in BC and granting the claimant sole parental responsibilities and primary residence of the children.
The respondent sought to set aside the three without notice orders. While he raised concerns about the manner and scope of these orders, the court declined to set them aside as they had already lapsed.
The court's analysis focused on whether it had territorial competence and whether it should decline jurisdiction in favour of a more appropriate forum. The court found that the claimant and children had been habitually resident in BC since at least a year before the proceedings, establishing jurisdiction for divorce and corollary relief under the Divorce Act.
The BC Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the property division, noting that most assets and relevant evidence were in Mexico and subject to Mexican law. Similarly, the court found that spousal support should be adjudicated in Mexico, where the respondent's income sources and relevant documentation are located.
The court determined that Mexico was the more appropriate forum for child support, given that the respondent's income was primarily in pesos and that Mexican courts were better positioned to assess his financial situation. Additionally, the existing Mexican order for child support aligned with the Child Support Guidelines.
However, the court retained jurisdiction over parenting issues, emphasizing that the children had resided in BC since 2019 and that most relevant evidence and witnesses were in BC. The court expressed hope that the parties would cooperate in the best interests of their children but maintained its jurisdiction should court intervention be required.
Ultimately, the BC Supreme Court stayed the proceedings related to property division, spousal support, and child support, pending the conclusion of Mexican legal processes, while continuing to exercise jurisdiction over parenting matters.
