Family Violence Leads To Unequal Division Of Family Property

In British Columbia, when a marriage or a marriage-like relationship (often referred to as a common-law relationship) ends, each spouse is presumed to receive half of all family property. However, in circumstances where an equal division would be significantly unfair, the court may depart from this presumption and award a greater share of the family property to one party.

Recently, in C.S.K. v P.K., 2025 BCSC 1728, the Supreme Court of British Columbia determined the matter of property division between former spouses by awarding the wife 75% of the family home after finding that she had experienced family violence, which resulted in lasting economic disadvantage. 

Background

The parties were married in 1998 and had three children between 2004 and 2013. During the marriage, the parties acquired a family home, which became their most valuable asset. The relationship involved several incidents of family violence and eventually ended in late 2018 following a physical assault that resulted in criminal charges against the husband.

As a result of the assault, the wife sustained a concussion, a ruptured eardrum, and lost consciousness. At the time of the family law trial in April 2025, she continued to experience cognitive and physical impairments. 

Finding of Economic Disadvantage and Order for Unequal Division of Property

The wife had held a management position at a grocery store during the parties' marriage but had not worked since the assault and was receiving long-term disability payments. The court found that there had been a decline in her ability to function, which left her unable to work, and determined that it was unlikely she would return to work in the future. In short, the wife suffered significant economic disadvantage arising from the marriage, largely due to a permanent loss of income-earning capacity following the husband's attack.

Notably, an order for spousal support was not made in this case, despite the court finding that the wife had a strong entitlement to spousal support, because the husband had a low income. In light of the economic disadvantage suffered by the wife, the court went on to find that an unequal division of the family home in her favour was necessary to prevent significant unfairness.

In determining the reapportionment, the court first quantified the wife's economic disadvantage at approximately $320,000, representing the cumulative reduction in her income until her expected retirement at age 65. This amount equated to approximately 25% of the family home's equity. Accordingly, the court concluded that a further 25% of the family home should be reapportioned to the wife, resulting in a total award of 75% of the family home to her.

This decision affirms that a loss of income-earning capacity caused by family violence during a marriage is an economic disadvantage that warrants compensation. It further demonstrates that such a disadvantage can be compensated through an unequal division of family property. In reaching its decision, the court reinforced the principle that significant unfairness must be addressed when considering the division of family property.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.