Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/richtertriallaw-production/public/wp-content/themes/richter/archive.php on line 16

Blog Posts

Does Pre-Judgment Court Order Interest Need to be Pled on Retroactive Periodic Spousal Support?

Does pre-judgment court order interest need to be pled on retroactive periodic spousal support? The short answer is no. Court order interest, governed by the Court Order Interest Act [COIA], is mandatory on pecuniary judgments whether it is pled or not.

Nature of Spousal Support

The parties in B.L.S v D.J.S., 2021 BCSC 1311 appeared in front of Madam Justice Norell on November 19, 2021 to settle the order with respect to pre-judgment interest payable on the ordered spousal support. On November 5, 2021, Justice Norell clarified the nature of the award is retroactive periodic spousal support such that it is taxable in the claimant’s hand and deductible by the respondent. The award is for a total of $643,500 comprised of periodic, retroactive spousal support payments of $17,875 per month for the period of April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. The claimant argued the award was intended to be lump sum spousal support, but was unsuccessful. Justice Norell did not address the issue of pre-judgment interest as she assumed it would be applied when she wrote the reasons for judgment.

Pre-Judgment Interest

The respondent put forward five arguments against pre-judgment interest:

  1. the claimant is attempting to settle the order twice, and the matter is res judicata;
  2. the claimant has not pled a claim for pre-judgment interest;
  3. because the award will be taxable in the claimant’s hands, there should be no pre-judgment interest on the portion that will become tax payable;
  4. any pre-judgment interest should accrue from the date the separation agreement was set aside; and
  5. there was both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis for the award of spousal support, and to the extent it was non-compensatory based, the award is not a pecuniary judgment.

Justice Norell rejects all the respondent’s arguments, except the third which the claimant consents to.


Most notably, on the respondents second argument, he cites Bryne v Bryne, 2013 BCSC 934 at para. 42 where the court states: “[t]here is no claim for prejudgment interest, and thus no order is made.” Justice Norell does not consider this to be a judicial determination that pre-judgment interest cannot be ordered if it is not pled. Pre-judgment interest is mandatory subject to certain exceptions as stated in the COIA.


On the respondent’s final argument, Justice Norell states that in her view, to the extent the award for spousal support was based on need, it represents a loss of financial support, is an order for the payment of money and therefore pecuniary. In addition, as the claimant argued, without pre-judgment interest, there would be an incentive for payors not to pay spousal support, and the recipient would not be compensated for the interest they could have earned on money which should have been received.


Contact us for a free 1-hour consultation. 

Does Pre-Judgment Court Order Interest Need to be Pled on Retroactive Periodic Spousal Support?
February 1, 2022

Does pre-judgment court order interest need to be pled on retroactive periodic spousal support? The short answer is no. Court order interest, governed by the Court Order Interest Act [COIA], is mandatory on pecuniary judgments whether it is pled or not.

Divorce Court Antics Irk Vancouver Judge
March 28, 2017

Recently a Vancouver judge made it  clear which antics he thought were too much in divorce court. We have blogged on this site before about the importance of legal advice and what to avoid when presenting the court with affidavit evidence here and here. In the recent case of Zandbergen v. Craig, Justice Smith was […]

Joint Names Can Affect Your Excluded Property
March 13, 2017

People always assume it is a good idea to put property or bank accounts in joint names with their spouses. They buy a house where they will live, and they put it in joint tenancy. They open a bank account so they can pay their bills, and they put it in joint names. Often, people […]

Does Spousal Support Continue After Retirement?
February 28, 2017

Spousal support orders are made on three bases: Compensatory. To compensate a spouse for their role in the relationship and sacrifices they made during the relationship for the betterment of the spouses’ lives. Non-Compensatory or Needs-Based. To ensure that one spouse does not suffer the consequences of sacrifices made during the relationship more than the […]

How to Prove Property is Excluded Under the BC Family Law Act
February 14, 2017

Since the introduction of the BC Family Law Act, the court has struggled with how a spouse may prove property is excluded. As explained in our blog Dividing Property in BC: The Proof is in the Puddin‘, the person who claims property is excluded has to show that it is excluded. The recent Court of Appeal […]

Husband to Pay Spousal Support Despite Waiver
January 17, 2017

This is a cautionary tale respecting the importance of independent legal advice. On January 13, 2017, Mr. Justice Grauer of the BC Supreme Court ordered  a husband to pay his ex-wife  spousal support despite finding that the parties had entered two “agreements”. He found that first the wife  agreed to a reduction from $8,000 to $4,000, […]

Family Property: The Communal Pot
November 9, 2016

Since March 2013, BC divorce lawyers dividing family property have been wrapping their heads around new legislation that was meant to be simpler, more intuitive and “better fit with people’s expectations of what is fair”(See the White Paper on Family Relations Reform Act) than the previous law. In theory, the new Family Law Act is […]

When do you have to apply for spousal support?
September 23, 2016

If you are not married and your claim for spousal support is pursuant to the BC Family Law Act, you must apply within one year of separation. If you are married and your claim for spousal support is pursuant to the Divorce Act, there is no time limit to apply for spousal support. This issue […]

Inherent Jurisdiction
August 1, 2013

In the recent WVA case of Reznik v. Matty, 2013 BCSC 1346 Mr. Justice Funt reviewed the law relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The case involved an estate worth approximately $650,000 consisting of about $100,000 in cash or near cash and approximately $550,000 in real estate. The testator […]

The Sky is NOT Falling
April 21, 2013

Picture chicken little: “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”. That is the attitude most people are exhibiting in news articles in relation to the new Family Law Act that comes into force in BC today. Richter Trial Lawyers is here to say: The sky is NOT falling! Yes, common law couples are going […]

Go to top