Prepare Paper Copy

FORM F32
( RULE 10-6 (9) )

No. E-220195
Vancouver Registry

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Claimant: Kayoko Tsuji

Respondent: Hidetsugu Tsuji and Eiko Tsuji

Add Additional Parties

APPLICATION RESPONSE
[Rule 21-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules applies to all forms.]

Application response of: Kayoko Tsuji , (the "application respondent(s)")

[party(ies)]

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO the notice of application of Eiko Tsuji , filed

[party(ies)]
06 Nov 2023
[dd/mmm/yyyy] .

Part 1: ORDERS CONSENTED TO

The application respondent(s) consent(s) to the granting of the orders set out in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of
the notice of application on the following terms:

1. NIL

Add

Last Updated: April 4, Page 1 of 5

2022
Part 2: ORDERS OPPOSED
The application respondent(s) oppose(s) the granting of the orders set out in paragraphs
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
[list paragraph numbers]

of Part 1 of the notice of application.

Part 3: ORDERS ON WHICH NO POSITION IS TAKEN

The application respondent(s) take(s) no position on the granting of the orders set out in paragraphs
NIL
[list paragraph numbers]

of Part 1 of the notice of application.

Part 4: FACTUAL BASIS

[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a brief summary of the material facts on which the orders sought in the
application should not be granted.]

1. Paragraphs 1 through 10

The property in question was purchased during the marriage of Kayoko and Hidetsugu Tsuji. The
down payment came solely from Kayoko Tsuji, who subsequently also made mortgage payments
for the property from 2018 to present. Ms Tsuji to purchase the condominium is marital property
and that although her name is not on the land title,at least 50% of the condominium belong to
her.Land title should have been registered in the names of both spouses, or alternatively, only in
the name of Kayoko Tsuji.

Add

Part 5: LEGAL BASIS

[Using numbered paragraphs, specify any rule or other enactment relied on and provide a brief summary of any other
legal arguments on which the application respondent(s) intend(s) to rely in opposing the orders sought in the
application.]

1. 1. The nature of Kayoko Tsuji's interest in the property at issue here is a genuine triable issue
which should be determined prior to Eiko Tsuji's Notice of Application for possession pursuant to
an order for sale of the property.

2.In the application filed by Kayoko Tsuji on September 7th, the application respondent seeks
to consolidate her separate action, Kayoko Tsuji v. Hidetsugu Tsuji , Court File No.E220195,
Vancouver Registry with this action. The two actions may be consolidated pursuant to Supreme
Court Family Rules, Rule 21-3(8) regarding "Consolidation" which provides in pertinent part
that:
(8) Family law cases may be consolidated at any time by order of the court or may be
ordered to be tried at the same time or on the same day.

3.The Family Law Act,[SBC 2011] Chapter 25 provides that spouses are both entitled to family
property and responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution(see s. 81).

Last Updated: April 4, Page 2 of 5

2022
 See also Part 5-Property Division.

4. This court may make an interim order pursuant to section 216 of the Family Law Act, with
respect to the claimant's interest in the real property at issue located at 101-8288 Saba Road,
Richmond, British Columbia, V6Y 4C8, Parcel Identifier: 024-368-661.

5.The property in question was purchased during the marriage of Kayoko and Hidetsugu
Tsuji.The down payment came solely from Kayoko Tsuji, who subsequently also made mortgage
payments for the property from 2018 to present. Land Title should have been registered in the
names of both spouses, or alternatively, only in the name of Kayoko Tsuji.

6. Pursuant to the Law and Equity Act[RSBC 1996] Chapter 253, s.8(2), this court may direct " a stay of
proceedings in a cause or matter pending before it, if it thinks fit". See also s.8(3) which provides:

Any person, whether or not a party to a cause or matter pending before the court, who would
have been entitled, but for this Act, to apply to the court to restrain the prosecution of it, or
who may be entitled to enforce, by attachment or otherwise, any judgment, decree, rule or
order, contrary to which all or any part of the proceedings in the cause or matter may have
been taken, may apply to the court, by motion in a summary way, for a stay of proceedings
in the cause or matter, either generally or so far as may be necessary for the purposes of
justice and the court must make any order that is just.

7.In B2B Bank v. Sinnarajah, 2021 BCSC 1475, in which the court denied a stay, the court set out the
legal framework for a stay of a court order which applies to this case:
[70] The onus is on an applicant for a stay to establish all three of the elements of the following test:
(1)there is a serious question to be tried, i.e, merit to the appeal: (2) there will be irreparable harm
to the applicant if the stay is not ordered: and (3) the balance of convenience favours a stay. The
burden is on the applicant to meet all three branches of the test.

8.Although the facts in B2B Bank are not the same as the facts in this case the court's legal
framework for a stay is relevant here.

9.In this case, the serious question to be tried is whether Kayoko Tsuji is the sole owner or the
joint owner of the condominium acquired during her marriage with her spouse, Hidetsugu Tsuji,
such that a judgment against her husband, who is the sole judgment debtor in the related action,
cannot be enforced against her property rights in the condominium.

10.There will be irreparable harm if the court ordered sale is enforced against my property rights.

11.The balance of convenience favours a stay.

12.Determining whether Kayoko Tsuji is the sole owner of the property or the joint owner of
the property is a triable issue.

13.It should be noted that the action for arrears of child support commenced by Hidetsugu
Tsuji's former wife, occurred after the property had already been acquired.

14.The Further Amended Notice of Family Claim seeks relief under the Family Law Act, the
common- law doctrines of constructive trust and unjust enrichment and under the Law and
Equity Act.(See Notice of Application filed on Oct 25, 2022)

15.The Certificate of Pending Litigation also filed on October 25, 2022, is based on the Amended
Notice of Family Claim filed on February 11, 2022, and the Further Amended Notice of Family
Claim which Kayoko Tsuji seeks leave to file and identifies the relevant sections of the Land Tittle Act
as 215
(1) and (6).

Last Updated: April 4, Page 3 of 5

2022
 Add

Part 6: MATERIALS TO BE RELIED ON

[Using numbered paragraphs, list the affidavits / financial statements served with this application response and any
other affidavits / financial statements and other documents already in the court file on which the application
respondent(s) will rely. Each affidavit / financial statement included on the list must be identified as follows:

1. Affidavit Financial Statement Delete

Affidavit
#:

of Kayoko Tsuji made

[name] 09 Nov 2023 .
[dd/mmm/yyyy]
Add

Last Updated: April 4, Page 4 of 5

2022
The application respondent(s) estimate(s) that the application will .
90miniutes
take [time estimate]

[Check whichever one of the following boxes is correct and complete any required information.]
The application respondent has filed in this family law case a document that contains the application respondent’s
address for service.
The application respondent has not filed in this family law case a document that contains an address for service.
The application respondent’s ADDRESS FOR SERVICE is:

Date:
09 Nov 2023
[dd/mmm/yyyy]
Signature of application respondent
lawyer for application respondent(s)

Kayoko Tsuji
[type or print
name]

Last Updated: April 4, Page 5 of 5

2022