Leveling the Playing Field in a High Net Worth case

Using the Court to Equalize the Playing Field

Can your spouse be required to pay you for your legal fees? In some circumstances, YES! A new BC Supreme Court decision, Tuor v. Ross, released on May 11, 2026, shows how the right legal tool can level a playing field that looks impossibly tilted.

The numbers in this file are striking. The husband reports between $7 million and $8 million in annual income. The wife has about $450,000 in financial assets, most of it tied up in retirement accounts. He owns three residential properties across two countries. She lives in one of them by his grace. He is paying her about $23,500 per month to cover her living expenses. But not one dollar of that goes to her lawyers.

That gap, between living expenses and legal fees, is where this case lives. And it is where section 89 of the Family Law Act becomes one of the most important provisions in BC family law.

The Story

The parties are both 58. They were married for about 15 years. They have no children together. She is a US citizen and a Canadian permanent resident through her marriage. He is a Canadian citizen with US investor visas, splitting his time between West Vancouver and California.

When they separated in 2025, the litigation got complicated fast. She filed in British Columbia. He filed in California three days later. He then challenged the BC court's jurisdiction, arguing California was the proper forum for the entire dispute. That jurisdictional battle was scheduled to be heard in late May 2026.

In December 2025, the wife brought a creative application asking for an interim distribution to cover her living expenses. She lost. The judge found that what she had really asked for was interim spousal support dressed up as something else, and that issue had to wait for the jurisdiction fight.

In April 2026, she came back with two separate applications. One asked for interim spousal support directly. The other asked for an interim distribution of $164,000 to fund her legal fees. The court treated these as fundamentally different requests. The spousal support application failed because the court deemed to have lost this fight in December. The legal fees application succeeded.

What Section 89 Actually Does

Associate Judge Peck quoted a powerful line from earlier case law. The "blunt purpose" of section 89 is to assist economically disadvantaged spouses to access justice. It is meant to help level a litigation playing field that often gets skewed when one spouse controls most of the wealth.

That phrase, "level the playing field," matters. Section 89 is not about lifestyle preservation. It is not about keeping you in the standard of living you enjoyed during the marriage. It is about making sure you can hire a competent lawyer and prepare a competent case. If the other side has a litigation budget of essentially unlimited size, you should not be unable to argue your case simply because your assets are tied up in retirement accounts or in property you cannot easily sell.

The test the judge applied has a few key parts. First, the applicant must be economically disadvantaged. Second, the distribution must be necessary. Third, the distribution must not be harmful to the other spouse. Fourth, the applicant's case must have enough merit to justify the spend.

The wife checked every box. Her income was effectively zero. Her major assets were locked retirement accounts with tax penalties on withdrawal. Her husband, by contrast, has assets that "dwarf" the distribution by orders of magnitude. He did not even argue that the distribution would harm him. He just argued the court had no power to make it. He lost.

The Evidence Problem

The wife asked for $164,000. The court gave her $140,000. The $24,000 difference is the most practical lesson in this entire decision.

The wife's lawyer told the court she had incurred about $124,000 in legal fees already. But there were no invoices in the record. No account statements. No breakdown. Just a single line in her affidavit saying "approximately $124,000."

The court was sympathetic but pragmatic. Associate Judge Peck noted that the wife's lawyer could have included redacted invoices in the materials. Privilege is not a barrier when properly handled. The judge ended up trimming the historical legal fees down to $100,000, based on what experienced family lawyers know complicated multi-day applications actually cost. The future fees, for the jurisdictional hearing, were unchallenged and went through in full.

This is the kind of practical lesson that wins or loses applications. If you are bringing a section 89 application, document your fees. Redact the privileged content. Submit the invoices. The court is willing to fund your defence, but it wants clarity brought with documentation.

You Do Not Have to Exhaust Your Own Money First

One of the most powerful pieces of the law cited in this case that you do not need to drain your own assets before applying under section 89. The wife in this case had $450,000 in retirement accounts, but the court treated those as protected. Forcing her to cash them out would have triggered tax consequences and damaged her own financial future.

This is a misconception that hurts a lot of separating spouses. They believe they have to spend down their savings before they can ask the court to help. The law does not require that. The court asks whether you can fund your case from accessible resources without unfair harm to yourself. Retirement accounts, business interests, and illiquid property usually do not count as accessible.

What This Means If You Are in a Similar Position

If your spouse controls most of the family wealth, here are the practical takeaways.

First, section 89 is one of the most powerful tools in BC family law. Use it. Even in cases involving jurisdictional fights, multiple residences, and offshore assets, the court has the power to order a meaningful advance for your legal fees.

Second, the application stands or falls on evidence. A bald statement that you owe your lawyer $124,000 will not get you $124,000. A redacted invoice, a budget for the next stage, and a clear breakdown of what you have already spent will get you much closer.

Third, you do not need to be broke. You need to show that your accessible resources do not match what is needed to run a real case, and that the other spouse can afford it without harm.

The Quiet Power of Choosing the Right Application

In December, the wife tried to get money through an application that looked, in substance, like interim spousal support. She lost. In April, she came back with a section 89 application that was carefully scoped to legal fees only. She won and received funds for her litigation, $140,000.

The legal architecture of family law cases matters. The same client, with the same facts, can win one application and lose another based on how the application is framed and what statute it relies on. That is not a quirk of the system. That is family law working as designed.

This is also why your choice of family lawyer matters so much. The wife’s legal team pivoted from a losing strategy to a winning one in four months. If the December hearing had been avoided that would have substantially improved the cost benefit analysis.

If you are separating from a spouse who controls most of the assets and you need to know whether section 89 fits your situation, contact Recovery Family Law. Your first consultation is free of charge and free of obligation.