Husband Who Refused Financial Disclosure Loses All Family Assets and Gets Special Costs Against Him
Once you are involved in family litigation, one of the most important and time-consuming parts of it is financial disclosure. You must fully disclose your finances to the Court and the opposing party so that the judge can make an informed decision on your case. If you refuse financial disclosure or hide your assets, you risk the judge granting your entire family savings to the other spouse and ordering special costs against you.
This is what happened in the BC Supreme Court case of Rana v. Rana.
Table of Contents
- 1 Lack of Financial Disclosure if Like Cancer to Matrimonial Proceedings
- 2 Meet Our Family Law Team
- 3 The Court Imputed Over $90,000 of Income to the Husband Due to Lack of Financial Disclosure
- 4 Special Costs Granted for Ms. Rana’s Efforts to Obtain Financial Disclosure
- 5 Lesson Learned About This Case and Financial Disclosure
Lack of Financial Disclosure if Like Cancer to Matrimonial Proceedings
In this case, the judge granted the entire family assets in the Wife’s favour, stating:
[102] In considering reapportionment, I place significant importance on Mr. Rana’s actions of dissipating, removing and/or hiding family assets both before and after separation: Newson v. Newson, [1986] B.C.J. No. 396 (C.A.). In addition, I have considered Ms. Rana’s modest financial means at this time and what will no doubt be considerable challenges for her to become self-sufficient…
[103] Like Ms. Rana, I have strong suspicions that Mr. Rana has assets and interests in India or elsewhere that he had not disclosed. However, given the lack of evidence, I am not in a position to determine what those assets might be, particularly regarding Ms. Rana’s claims that I determine that he has been able to accumulate savings of $390,000 over the course of the marriage. The same applies to amounts realized from the sale of the various properties over the years, including the amounts realized from Gilroy Crescent in 2007.
[107] I conclude that it would be unfair to divide the known and acknowledged family assets equally and they are to be reapportioned in their entirety to Ms. Rana. The household items of the parties in the Erickson Drive condominium were not valued by the parties and these are also valued at zero and reapportioned entirely in favour of Ms. Rana. The jewellery in Ms. Rana’s safe deposit box is a personal and not a family asset.
The Court Imputed Over $90,000 of Income to the Husband Due to Lack of Financial Disclosure
The court ordered spousal and child support for Ms. Rana and imputed the income of $90,000 to Mr. Rana, due to lack of financial disclosure. The total amount Mr. Rana would have to pay per month for both was more than $2,400. The Court stated:
[158] I have already outlined the deficiencies in Mr. Rana’s Financial Statements. His evidence concerning the taxicab business and the eform.com business is completely lacking and I am unable to accept what Mr. Rana did disclose as truthful. Even accepting that evidence, my conclusion as above is that he is intentionally under-employed based on the principles cited in Hanson v. Hanson, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2532 at paras. 8-20 (S.C.).
[160] In deciding what amount should be imputed, I must consider the “age, education, experience, skills and health” of Mr. Rana: Hanson at paras. 14, 20. Ms. Rana seeks an order imputing income of $90,000 to him. She has provided some documentation from various websites, including from the government of Canada, indicating salaries of computer and IT managers in the Lower Mainland of $91-95,400. This evidence is not ideal but doing the best I can, I impute income to Mr. Rana of $90,000 from September 2012 to the present and continuing.
Special Costs Granted for Ms. Rana’s Efforts to Obtain Financial Disclosure
Finally, the Court ordered that Ms. Rana could recover her full legal costs and other costs associated with her efforts to obtain financial disclosure from Mr. Rana.
It stated:
[189] Ms. Rana also sought an order of costs in respect of her efforts to obtain the documentation that Mr. Rana was obliged to provide to her. I have already recounted the numerous deficiencies in respect of Mr. Rana’s disclosure which I find were a deliberate attempt to frustrate Ms. Rana in obtaining a just result for her and the Children in these proceedings. To the extent that Ms. Rana incurred any legal costs and disbursements in that regard, she is awarded recovery of them as special costs.
Lesson Learned About This Case and Financial Disclosure
Our judges are extremely smart and insightful. It is very difficult to fool them. Their orders and the Rules must be followed to ensure due process. If a litigant disrespects the Court or does not follow the rules, frustrates the judges and other litigants and disobeys Orders, the Court will not hesitate to punish them for such behaviour.
Be honest, forthcoming and truthful. You will simplify your case and hopefully obtain a fair judgement.
Ronak Leena Yousefi is the founder of Yousefi Family Law Group. For all your family law inquiries, please call 604-974-9529 or contact us.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship with YLaw or any of its lawyers. Laws and policies change, and information here may not reflect the most current legal developments. For full details, please contact us to obtain advice about your specific situation.