Trusted Legal Advocates for Life’s Most Serious Matters

In Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 2024 BCCA 395, the BC Court of Appeal upheld a rare ruling that cancelled $280,000 in child and spousal support arrears, interest, and penalties. The Court accepted that the payor had consistently overpaid based on incorrect income assumptions since 2014. Applying the Colucci test, the Court found the delay was reasonably explained, the payor’s conduct was responsible, and repayment would cause extreme hardship. This case shows that long-term retroactive support adjustments are possible in exceptional circumstances—but require strong evidence and a clear legal strategy.

In Rae v. Gadalla, 2023 BCSC 1398, the court found the owners of a Yorkshire Terrier liable after their dog bit the plaintiff in an elevator. The ruling clarifies two legal pathways for pet attack claims in BC: negligence and scienter. Negligence applies if the owner should have known the pet posed a risk and failed to act. Scienter applies only if the owner actually knew of the pet’s harmful tendencies. In Rae, past incidents of aggression supported both claims. While the plaintiff sought up to $35,000, the court awarded $5,000 in damages due to the limited extent of the injuries.

Loss of housekeeping capacity refers to the reduced ability to perform everyday household tasks due to injury—such as cleaning, cooking, yard work, or childcare. Courts recognize this as a valid head of damages, either on its own or within broader categories like non-pecuniary damages or cost of future care. The aim is to compensate for the value of work the injured person can no longer do. There's no fixed age limit for such awards, and each case depends on its unique facts.