Does the use of income from a capital asset for family purposes constitute a family asset?

In Evetts v. Evetts (1996) 85 BCCA 19, the majority of this court dealt with a slightly different question – whether the “occasional” use of income from a capital asset for family purposes made the asset itself a family asset. Lambert J.A. for the majority concluded that the distinction between income and capital was not itself determinative and stated: … The use of the asset to provide financial security and protection against erosion of income or other family misadventure in the future may constitute a present ordinary use for a family purpose (Tezcan v. Tezcan; Folk v. Folk). The fact that the words "ordinarily used ... for a family purpose" are the governing words in the statute means that the use pattern must be examined in each case to determine whether, in the ordinary course, the present use commitment to meet a present or future need includes a use for a family purpose. Ordinary use for a family purpose is not inconsistent with ordinary use for other purposes. [At para. 23; emphasis added.]