Three parents on birth registration, Sentencing where facts are disputed, and a $600,000 judgement when house purchase not completed

What’s required for three people to be listed as parents on birth certificates, for children of a same-sex couple, who were conceived with sperm from a friend, who also wished to participate in raising the children?The British Columbia Family Law Act attempts to contemplate a wide range of modern scenarios, involving surrogates and other assisted reproduction. Unfortunately, not every eventuality can be anticipated, as demonstrated by a recent court case. Two women, in a long term committed relationship, with the assistance of sperm donated by a male friend, entered into a verbal agreement to conceive two children. Everyone involved agreed that all three people would cooperate in raising the children.After one of the children was conceived, the trio reduced their agreement to writing. Unfortunately, the Family Law Act specified that such an agreement needed to be in writing, prior to a child being conceived. As a result, the Registrar of Vital Statistics refused to register all three people as parents. While the second child was conceived after the agreement was put in writing, another problem arose: the online form to register the birth of a child only has two spaces for parents’ names to be listed. The two mothers listed their names and the trio sent a letter, the same day, to the Registrar of Vital Statistics asking to have the father added to the registration. The Registrar refused to make the requested change.While the judge who heard the case found that the Family Law Act attempted to deal with every possible circumstance, the language of the act permitted a judge to intervene where there was “any uncertainty” and this was sufficient to permit the wishes of all three parents to be accommodated such that they could all be listed on the birth certificate of the first child.As for the online form, with only two spaces for parents to be listed, the judge utilized language that permitted the correction of a “technical error” so as to add the father to the birth registration. The online form has not been updated and parents in a similar circumstance should contact The Registrar of Vital Statistics directly, rather than filling out the form.Also discussed is a Court of Appeal decision dealing with the impact on sentencing where someone pleads guilty but disagrees with aggravating facts being alleged by the Crown. While a sentence would never be increased as a result of an accused person choosing to have a trial, there can be a reduction in sentence as a result of a guilty plea because it can demonstrate remorse, avoid a complaint from needing to testify, and save time. Where someone pleads guilty but denies aggravating factors alleged by the Crown, a hearing can still be required. How much, if at all, a sentence should be reduced in these circumstances can depend on whether the Crown is successful in proving the agitating circumstances alleged. Finally, a case from Ontario is discussed. At the height of the housing boom in 2017, the defendant made an unconditional offer to purchase a home. The offer and an $80,000 deposit were accepted by the seller. Before the deal was set to complete the Ontario government introduced a 15% foreign buyers tax and the housing market fell by 20 – 30%. The buyer did not complete the purchase and the sellers ended up selling the home for $600,000 less than the accepted, unconditional offer. While the prospective purchaser argued that the contract had been “frustrated” by the introduction of the foreign buyers tax the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered her to pay the $600,000.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.