One party allegedly used the corporations to obscure his financial status to reduce child support
The BC Supreme Court granted a claimant's application to include two corporations as respondents in a family law case centred around financial transparency and support obligations.
The dispute in Sullivan v Bullock, 2024 BCSC 648, involved long-term partners who became litigants. The court was confronted with ongoing issues of asset concealment and support responsibilities following a couple's separation.
The claimant, Jenna Sullivan, and the respondent, Brayden Bullock, had cohabitated in a marriage-like relationship for approximately 15 years. They have three children. Post-separation, Bullock married another individual and is alleged to have used two corporations to obscure his financial status, thereby minimizing his support payments.
The claimant argued that Bullock was hiding income through corporations 1239281 B.C. Ltd. and 1358353 B.C. Ltd., which were both involved in constructing steel buildings. She requested the court add these entities to the lawsuit to address her claims effectively and ensure a just resolution of support payments for herself and their children.
The BC Supreme Court’s decision followed the claimant's appeal to address Bullock's non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations. The court also ordered Bullock to pay Sullivan $2,500 for his non-compliance, highlighting the need for transparency in proceedings that determine spousal and child support.
The corporations, though properly served, did not attend the hearing or send legal representation, which further complicated their position in court. Despite opposition from Bullock, the court found substantial questions about the respondent’s involvement with the corporations that justified their inclusion in the ongoing litigation. This step is necessary to ensure all matters, including Bullock’s true financial capacity and obligations, can be thoroughly addressed.
The decision to add the corporations stemmed from the need to resolve significant issues about Bullock’s reported income and his capacity to meet support obligations. The court noted that the evidence suggested discrepancies in his financial disclosures and lifestyle. Accordingly, the decision to include these entities will provide a clearer picture of Bullock’s economic activities and interests. The court emphasized that full and frank disclosure is paramount in family law cases, where children's financial support and well-being are at stake.
