Husband’s Disability Claim Undermined by Evidence of Repeated Sasquatch Hunts
Finnbogason v. Norseman is a pretty straightforward opinion addressing matrimonal property and spousal support, until you get to the part about the husband's hobby of exploring remote areas of [British Columbia] in search of Sasquatch."
The parties had been married for 20 years before separating in August 2020. The opinion notes that their marriage was not derailed by a 1999 accident in which Mr. Finnbogason (let's call him the claimant," as the court does) was severely burned, or by his use of the resulting settlement funds to open an illegal marijuana grow operation. Sadly, [h]e never saw any return on this investment as the operation was shut down by the police before he could get a crop out." His more legitimate business efforts may have been hampered to some extent by his burn injuries, but whatever the reason, he provided no evidence that he earned any income after 2015. (This is probably why he was the claimant" and his wife, who had a job, was the respondent.")
In January 2016, the claimant suffered another unfortunate injury, this time caused by a slip and fall on icy stairs outside a hotel in Sayward, BC. Sayward is way up on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island, quite a distance from the couple's home in Mission, BC (east of Vancouver city on the mainland). Why was the claimant there? I'm glad you asked: He was in that remote part of Vancouver Island on one of his many expeditions in search of Sasquatch, of whose existence he claims to be certain."
Now, did it matter why he was there at that particular time? Not really, though it ties into an issue that became relevant later. But doesn't the public deserve to know? I certainly think so.
A similar comment appears in the paragraph discussing the parties' decision to separate in 2020.
The claimant's evidence was that this occurred mostly because the respondent did not want to move to Vancouver Island, as had been his plan for several years. The respondent told me that it followed her discovery that, over the August 2020 long-weekend, and without her knowledge or approval, the claimant and his ex-girlfriend had gone off on a camping trip together on Vancouver Island, once again on a Sasquatch-finding excursion.
Again, not relevant, and yet somehow very relevant.
It became directly relevant, however, to the court's ruling on spousal support. The husband, being the claimant, contended that he was entitled to significant support because he was totally functionally incapacitated" due to his past injuries. The court decided that in fact he was entitled to no support. There were a number of reasons for this.
First, he had provided the court with no current independent medical or other persuasive evidence" to support the claim, which seems pretty conclusive. But the court went on.
Second, the court noted the claimant's testimony about his newfound hobby' of buying tractors and fixing them up for re-sale." He testified that he had done this about 16 times since the parties separated, earning two or three grand each time. As the court noted, [n]one of this income has found its way onto his annual tax returns," so maybe he should have kept quiet about it. The court opined that his tractor-repair activities alone proved that he was not, in fact, totally and permanently incapacitated."
But this was not the only evidence of that kind by any means:
I also heard evidence from the claimant and his own witnesses that casts substantial doubt on his claim of total functional incapacity. In addition to his tractor re-building activities, the claimant continues to enjoy camping, fishing, hunting, riding quad" motorcycles, and exploring remote areas of BC in search of Sasquatch.
Unfortunately, the court included no further details about the latter explorations, but of course there is no real dispute that hunting for Sasquatches generally involves physical excursions into relatively difficult terrain, and that'd be especially true in remote areas of British Columbia. In any event, the court accepted that the claimant's physical capacities have been reduced from what they used to be," but the available evidence fell well short of corroborating his narrative of total disability." In fact, the court found he was sufficiently non-disabled that an award of zero dollars in spousal support would be appropriate.
But maybe his ex-girlfriend will help fund future expeditions.
In anticipation of a possible appeal, I should point out that the courts of British Columbia have already held that belief in Sasquatch and/or Bigfoot is not a fundamental human right. See UPDATE: Judge Rules Province Has No Duty to Recognize Existence of Bigfoot" (Sept. 17, 2018). The claimant doesn't seem to have made that argument, though, so it's probably been waived.
Other examples of disability claims failing due to similarly clear evidence of not being disabled can be found here.
Related Stories