In Bradley v. Callahan 2025 BCCA 69, the parties’ September 1997 marriage agreement, some 35 pages, executed two days before their marriage, became the subject of intense litigation when their marriage ended in 2014, culminating in a 40-day trial and an appeal to British Columbia’s Court of Appeal in 2024.
The main issue was a term in the agreement that Edward Callahan’s business interests would not be subject to division if the parties were to separate. In 1997, the business included 11 private corporations that were valued “in excess of $2 million,” but no formal valuation was acquired. The agreement also provided that Callahan’s Kelowna, B.C., waterfront home would remain his separate property.
Historical valuations were undertaken after the parties’ separation valuing the husband’s businesses at $2.9 million to $3.3 million in 1997; $82 million to $87 million in 2014; and between $124 million and $130 million in 2019. By the time of the trial in 2023, the wife, Norval Bradley, estimated the value of the businesses at $227 million to $239 million, while her husband suggested the current value was between $151 million to $163 million.
A 2021 interim order provided Bradley with $60,000 per month in spousal support and $24,000 a month for the two children of the marriage who were ages 24 and 22 at the time of trial, together with all university expenses and s. 7 expenses, a far cry from the amounts she was entitled to under the agreement and described by the Court of Appeal as “meagre and grossly unfair.”
Bradley argued at trial that the agreement should be set aside based on inadequacy of legal advice and lack of disclosure, although she was represented by senior family law counsel who signed a certificate of independent legal advice. Both grounds cited were rejected by the trial judge, who upheld the marriage agreement, finding that an “equitable” outcome would be achieved through a higher award of spousal support, said to reflect “Mr. Callahan’s significant wealth and income derived primarily” from his business interests.
The court found Callahan’s income to be $1.4 million and awarded Bradley $8 million, stating that the interest earned from the award would amount to $400,000 annually. She would also retain the advances she had received pretrial of $3.4 million, $2.4 million in interim spousal support, and an additional $1.6 million to compensate her for her interest in three properties.
Bradley also sought $5.2 million in retroactive child support for years between 2014 and 2022, which was declared to be extravagant and denied, as was her claim for ongoing spousal support.
The court considered the factors set out in s. 65 of the Family Relations Act and held that the agreement operated “fairly,” particularly with trial orders for lump sum spousal support, retention of the advances she received and the additional compensation ordered.
On appeal, Bradley argued that the trial judge erred by finding that the marriage agreement operated fairly, and by failing to award retroactive child and spousal support and failing to divide the parties’ post-marriage RRSPs.
Bradley conceded that the marriage agreement was valid, but submitted that contrary to the trial judge’s findings, the parties could not have realistically contemplated the extraordinary growth of Callahan’s businesses. She also argued that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the length of their relationship, being 22 years, and her husband’s acquisition of additional business interests during their marriage.
She also asserted that the trial judge erred in concluding that a spousal support award was sufficient to render the agreement fair, saying that a $50-million property award would be fair.
The Appeal Court found that the trial judge gave short shrift to Bradley’s indirect contributions to the growth in the business during the marriage and held that the finding that the parties contemplated such an explosion in value could not have been in their “reasonable” contemplation, finding that the trial judge’s analysis was “overwhelmed” by the parties’ intentions at the time they entered into the agreement, which, while important, were not determinative.
Observing that this case was highly unusual because of the high value of the property, the delay of five years between the triggering event date of December 2017 and the trial, and seven years of litigation, the court noted that fairness required finality, awarding the wife an additional $29 million, representing a 25 per cent increase in the value of the business from the date of marriage to the date of the triggering event, plus a five per cent return on that increase to the date of trial, less the lump sum support awarded by the trial judge. The court’s rationale to deduct the spousal supportwas to avoid “double recovery.”
Bradley’s RRSP appeal was abandoned given the property award she received and her appeal for retroactive child and spousal support was not allowed.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
**This article was first published in LAW360, a publication of LexisNexis Canada.