How have real property been valued at the date of trial rather than at trial?

In Slavenova v. Ranguelov, 2015 BCSC 79 [Slavenova], Mr. Justice Savage ordered that real property be valued at the date of separation rather than the date of trial for a variety of reasons. The claimant owned a home and investments at the time of the marriage and then purchased a number of revenue properties during the marriage both in Canada and the United States. She was primarily responsible for these purchases. She had a well‑established business before she met the respondent. The respondent lost large sums of money trading in the stock market after the parties’ marriage. The claimant says the source of the funds were from her line of credit. The parties had a disagreement over the stock trading. The respondent did not disclose to the claimant his debts and obligations in Bulgaria. The claimant had excluded property including her business and her home which she owned prior to the marriage. Immediately after separation the respondent left for Bulgaria. The claimant managed all of the family property since separation by paying the mortgage, taxes, arranging rentals, and collecting rents. These efforts of the claimant were found to be of value.

In Davie v. De Mark, 2017 BCSC 872 [Davie], Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Ooston followed Slavenova in setting the property valuation date at the date of separation. The facts in Davie were similar to those in Slavenova. The respondent came into the marriage with significantly more assets than the claimant. The parties’ courtship and marriage lasted one year in total. DeWitt-Van Ooston J. valued the family property at the date of separation and reapportioned the property in the respondent’s favour to avoid significant unfairness. The short duration of the marriage was an important factor.