By Lina Kim, Ty Bradford, Matt Ostrow

The recent decision in Boucher v. Boucher, 2025 MBCA 39 (“Boucher”) highlights an important issue in family law concerning the disclosure of corporate financial records for child support purposes. The Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision offers a helpful comparison to how BC courts may approach similar disclosure issues.

The Boucher Case: A Manitoba Perspective

Boucher concerns a review of the parties’ child support obligations. Ms. Boucher sought an order requiring her husband, Mr. Boucher, to disclose corporate financial records from two companies in which he had an interest. In one company, he was a minority shareholder, and in the other, he served as a director and officer.

Despite having a separation agreement, the parties disagreed on Mr. Boucher’s disclosure obligations regarding corporate financial records. He acknowledged receiving dividends on top of his employment income but did not produce the detailed corporate records Ms. Boucher requested.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that corporate financial disclosure was relevant even for minority shareholders if they had a legal right to access the records. The Court adopted a broad standard of relevance for disclosure under the Manitoba Child Support Guidelines, holding that corporate financial information was relevant to determining Mr. Boucher’s available income. Further, the Court ruled that Mr. Boucher’s legal entitlement as a shareholder to access the documents meant that he had an obligation to disclose them, despite his minority position.

The Court ultimately ordered that the husband provide the wife with financial disclosure from both companies.

Corporate Financial Disclosure in Child Support Cases: The BC Approach

While Boucher offers important insights into the handling of corporate financial disclosure in relation to child support, BC law follows a different approach, one which may have led to a different outcome if the case had been decided here.

In BC, minority shareholders are not required to provide corporate financial records for child support purposes unless there is evidence that they can influence the amounts paid out by the company, notwithstanding a minority interest. This was reaffirmed in SDN v. EGN, 2025 BCSC 1994, where the BC Supreme Court clarified that being a minority shareholder does not, in itself, trigger disclosure obligations. To compel disclosure, the party requesting the documents must show the minority shareholder’s exercise of control of the company.

This requirement for evidence of control or influence is a key difference between Manitoba and BC. In the Boucher case, Manitoba took a broader view of relevance, requiring disclosure by a shareholder who has the legal right to access a company’s financial records. In BC, however, the focus is on whether the minority shareholder can exercise control over the company. Without evidence of such control, BC courts are less likely to compel disclosure, even if the shareholder has a legal right to access the records.

If Boucher had been decided under BC law, it is possible that Mr. Boucher would not have been required to disclose corporate financial documents unless there was evidence that he had control or influence over the companies. This divergence highlights how BC courts prioritize evidence of control, whereas Manitoba adopts a broader view of relevance in determining income for child support.

Key Takeaways

Boucher underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework governing corporate financial disclosure in family law cases. While Manitoba has adopted a broad approach to the relevance of such documents, BC’s more restrictive view requires evidence of control or influence before minority shareholders are compelled to disclose corporate financial information.

If you or someone you know needs advice on child support or financial disclosure issues, please contact Lina Kim, Ty Bradford, Matt Ostrow, or any member of our Family Law group for more information.