Further, she was excluded from any role or access with Ageless because she was separated from the respondent. Based on her employment history before meeting the respondent and previous employment in spa businesses, I expect she could have pursued a viable opportunity in spa management or related services but for her marriage to the respondent. The claimant is 11 years older than when she met the respondent and most likely her age will negatively impact her ability to achieve a career generating an income equivalent to her pre-relationship income: see e.g. Gagnon v. Petke, 2008 BCSC 610 at para. 91.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.