Case summary: Cho v Kim
Case summary of Cho v Kim, 2023 BCSC 780
The case, Cho v Kim, involved a family dispute over a property in Langley, British Columbia. Jee Hyun Cho had obtained a final order in an undefended family case, in which she was transferred Kang San Danny Kim’s half interest in the property that was registered jointly in the names of Mr. Kim and his mother, Sun Hwa Gea. However, Mr. Kim and Ms. Gea sought to set aside that order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the order under the summary judgment R. 11-3 and that they did not wilfully fail to attend court, they have a defence worthy of investigation, and they brought this application promptly, per the Miracle Feeds test.
The judge, the Honourable Madam Justice Murray, analyzed the evidence and concluded that the Final Order should be set aside. She found that there was no evidence before the Court in support of the Final Order that would permit the Court to exercise its discretion to depart from an equal division. The factors in s. 95 were not analyzed and no evidence existed to support that an equal division would be “significantly unfair.”
As a result, the Final Order was set aside, and the Registrar of Land Titles on production of a certified copy of this Order shall convey title to the Langley Property into the joint names of Sun Hwa Gea and Kang San Danny Kim. The claimant was at liberty to reregister her certificate of pending litigation against the Langley Property after the Langley Property has been registered in the names of Sun Hwa Gea and Kang San Danny Kim. The respondents were entitled to the costs of this application in the cause.
In summary, the case of Cho v Kim involved a family dispute over a property in Langley, British Columbia. The judge analyzed the evidence and found that the Final Order should be set aside. This case highlights the importance of presenting evidence to support a claim and the significance of the factors in s. 95 of the Family Law Act.
Full text available at: https://canlii.ca/t/jx561