Reopening the six-year-old case would undermine the finality of court decisions: court
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a claimant's attempt to overturn a 2018 final order regarding spousal support and property division, ruling it an abuse of process as the matter had been fully settled and could not be relitigated.
In Hamdi v Ali, 2024 BCSC 1753, the claimant sought to overturn a court order regarding the transfer of an interest in the family home as part of a lump-sum spousal support agreement, and the court ruled the claim as an abuse of process.
The parties married in Iraq in 1983 and have three grown children. After moving to Canada in 1999, they purchased a home in Burnaby, which became the central asset in their family law dispute. By 2006, the home was fully paid off, though the parties disagreed on the extent of their individual contributions.
The couple separated in 2014, and a family law trial was scheduled in 2018, with issues including spousal support, property division, and debt. The family home, valued at approximately $1.6 million, was the primary asset in the dispute. The claimant travelled from overseas, having been diagnosed with advanced bladder cancer, while the other party had been receiving disability benefits due to illness and unemployment.
Immediately before the trial, the parties met with their adult children to negotiate a settlement. The settlement involved the transfer of the claimant's share of the family home as lump-sum spousal support, and the parties agreed to attempt reconciliation. A final order reflecting this agreement was made by consent, and the property transfer was completed days later. However, the reconciliation attempt failed.
Nearly six years later, in 2022, the claimant filed a family law claim seeking to set aside the order, citing a lack of independent legal advice during the negotiations, medical issues affecting decision-making, and insufficient financial disclosure. The other party applied to strike the claim, arguing the matter had been fully settled in 2018 and could not be relitigated.
The Supreme Court agreed with the respondent, ruling that the final order was binding and that reopening the case would undermine the finality of court decisions. The court found the claimant’s attempt to revisit the agreement an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate a matter that had already been resolved and implemented.
As a result, the court struck out the claim without leave to amend and awarded costs to the respondent.
