I have concluded that the funds derived from the trust in 1998 were ordinarily used for a family purpose because they were used to cover shortfalls in the parties’ spending on a regular basis. In my opinion, this use was intended to provide a measure of financial security and protection against erosion of their income, and was therefore sufficient to constitute a “present ordinary use for a family purpose”: Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2002 BCCA 327 at ¶ 20.
"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.