Notable Cases.
We at Magnusson Law take pride in helping our clients resolve the majority of their legal issues and cases out of court through negotiation and other alternative dispute resolution processes. However, we also represent clients in high-conflict and complex litigation files. In these files, our team is committed to putting in maximum effort and giving our all to achieve the best possible results in their circumstances. Below are some examples of cases that reflect our commitment to advocating for our clients in court and achieving meaningful resolutions:
Family
The parties filed cross-applications on a number of issues, the most significant relating to where the parties’ daughter would attend school – in British Columbia (“BC”) or Ontario.
The Claimant Mother, represented by MacLean Law, became engaged to a man resident in Ontario before the parties resolved their separation and divorce. She sought an interim order that the parties cooperate in enrolling their daughter in a boarding school near her fiancé’s home in Ontario, but she did not take any of the legal steps required for an order for relocation.
The Respondent Father, represented by Ms. Magnusson of our firm, Magnusson Law, opposed the Claimant Mother’s application. We argued that the Claimant Mother’s application for their daughter to attend private school in Ontario was really a thinly disguised application for relocation, without complied with the relocation requirements of the Divorce Act. The court determined that the Claimant Mother’s application was, in fact, a relocation application. The daughter’s attendance at a boarding school where she will live, conveniently close to the Claimant Mother’s new residence, would clearly have a significant impact on her relationship with her father. Accordingly, the Claimant Mother’s application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondent Father in the cause. Under the interim order, the daughter was to remain in BC and attend school year in BC.
Ms. Magnusson provided unbundled legal services to the Respondent Father for several years with respect to his highly acrimonious dispute over the parenting of the parties’ children. The Claimant Mother, who was represented by counsel throughout most the proceedings, had accused the Father of family violence and being involved in criminal activity, which the Father denied. Ultimately, Ms. Magnusson assisted the Father in preparing materials and written argument for a successful application and coached his submissions. He was ultimately granted primary parenting of the parties’ children.
The Father, represented by Ms. Magnusson of our firm, Magnusson Law, granted the Father the sole parental responsibility and decision-making respecting where the child would attend school.
Ms. Magnusson represented the petitioner, who was from Quebec and sought continued parenting time with his now adult son who had a disability, Cerebral Palsy. The mother had moved him across the country without consent. Due to procedure issues arising from the fact that, at the time of the hearing, the son was now a legal adult living in a care home, the court could not make an order requiring the Mother to facilitate parenting time under the family law legislation. However, following the procedural ruling, the court stated:
​
“I also wanted to state this. Despite my ruling, I, nevertheless, want to encourage the parties to work together, to cooperate with each other, and to reasonably facilitate visits by the petitioner father with Jon to the extent that those visits promote Jon’s well-being and/or in a manner and location that fits with Jon’s needs and desires. In other words, as the parties agreed at the April 19, 2018 judicial case conference, they will encourage Jon to have a positive and stable relationship with both of his parents. That conduct order is already in place. It was consented to by both parties, and I expect that it will be obeyed. In other words, both the father and the mother will work together to promote and encourage a positive relationship between Jon and both parents. All right? “
The Claimant Mother was represented by Ms. Magnusson, of our firm Magnusson Law. The Respondent Father did not retain a lawyer and was avoiding the court process. He did not file a Response to the Mother’s Notice of Family Claim and refused to provide documents and did not attend a previously scheduled Judicial Case Conference so was in breach of disclosure orders. Without filing any response material, he finally showed up to a court hearing. The court adjourned the hearing of the issues sought at that application to encourage opportunity for the parties to now engage in reasonable resolution by scheduling a further Judicial Case Conference, on a peremptory basis first. The Judge also ordered that the Father pay costs to the Mother no matter the outcome of the case.
Family & Tax
This case before the Tax Court of Canada centered on a spousal support payment of $169,775 made by Mr. James, the appellant, to his ex-wife as a lump sum for previous years. The issue before the court was whether Mr. James was entitled to a deduction under subsection 60(b) of the Income Tax Act. The payment was made pursuant to a new court order that established a legal obligation to make periodic payments of previous years spousal support a lump sum and was not classified as a settlement payment. However the CRA refused the deduction.
Ms. Magnusson and her previous mentor, Mr. Laird, proudly represented Mr. James in this complex and precedent-setting tax appeal of the CRA decision. Leveraging their expertise in tax and family law matters, to present compelling arguments clarifying the nature of the payment and its eligibility for deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court ruled in favor of Mr. James, stating:
“I allow the Appeal and refer the matter back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that Mr. James’ payment of $169,775 was a support amount, for which he is entitled to a deduction. Costs to the Appellant.”
Estate
The Plaintiff Deceased Father’s Estate was represented by Ms. Magnusson and Ms. Cho of Onyx Law Group. This was a complex court action that had many moving parts after the Notice of Civil Claim was initially filed in 2013. Ultimately, the Plaintiff Estate was successful awarded a monetary remedy of $400,000 after both engaging in negotiation and then obtaining court determination. In summary, Mother and Father has two children, both adults at the time of their death. They purchased a family farm property together about 30 years prior to the court action was filed, after both had passed away. Funds for the original purchase came from the Father and he also contributed amounts to maintain it over the years, although he fell ill soon after the purchase thus was unable to provide labour contributions. Mother and son, once he was old enough, worked to develop the farm into a successful farm business. Mother transferred the farm property and business to her son, and her daughter was left unprovided for on her death. Father provided that his Estate would be distributed equally amongst his two children, however as Mother transferred the farm business before death, his Estate was de minimus so the parties’ daughter was not fairly provided for. In order to obtain a more fair distribution of the family assets on death, M. Magnusson and Ms. Cho successfully relied on equitable principles relating to unjust enrichment to obtain a fair distribution of the parents’ assets to the daughter. They claimed that Father still beneficially owned a proportionate share of the family farm at the time of his death, notwithstanding Mother had transferred legal ownership to the son. The court agreed and found that the purchase and operation of the family farm property and business constituted a joint family venture between the Deceased Father, the Deceased Mother and their son. The Defendant son was deemed to have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff Estate, without juristic reason, leading to the corresponding deprivation of the Father’s Estate.
This was an interim application advanced by Ms. Magnusson when she was working with Onyx Law Group that set a precedent for Estate’s to obtain orders for an independent Receiver to be appointed to manage and preserve corporate assets of an Estate in unique circumstances, not involving bankruptcy, while allowing an Executor to continue to act as administrator of the Estate generally. In this case, the Executor was imprisoned during the course of the Estate action and his wife also separated from him and was in possession of the corporate assets that the Plaintiff Father’s Estate had claims against. The corporate assets were at issue in both the Estate and Family matters, but the determination of the Estate’s proportionate interest was required to be determined before the wife claims could advance, and the wife could not be trusted to preserve the asset.