This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
SS Refe&en7e_________________________________________________________________3)
%!nfli7in# Laws SS Ma&&ia#e 3)
S 5.(0 desi#ned ! e&mi 7!les .mainl SS 7!les0 w1! ma&&ied in a %anadian &!$in7e! !6ain a di$!&7e in 1a same &!$in7e .S 5.,00&e&!a7i$e________________________3)
S @.(0 SS a&ies 7an al f!& di$!&7e ;!inl !& !ne s!se w 7!nsen !f !1e& a& nde&
%MA if sea&ae and aa& in 1ei& 1!me ;&isdi7i!n.s0 f!& !ne ea& .s> @.(00__________3)
DA d!es n! al ! 7!les di$!&7e nde& %i$il Ma&&ia#e A7 .s *0 in %DA____________3)
%&ii4e = n! &!$isi!n f!& !&de&s f!& 7!&!lla& &elief in &elai!n ! a di$!&7e9 lea$in# 1ese
isses ! 6e ne#!iaed a77!&din# ! ;&isdi7i!n !f 1e a&iesH d!mi7ile>_______________3)
2 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
%aselaw G Menal %aa7i _________________________________________________3) Durham v Durham (1995) _______________________________________________________3)
Webb v Webb (1968) ____________________________________________________________3) Banton v Banton (1998) ________________________________________________________3)
re Sung Estate (2004) __________________________________________________________3)
%aselaw= %aa7i ! 7!nsen in &elai!n ! nde inflen7e and d&ess____________- Scott v Sebrght _______________________________________________________________-
!oo"er v !rane _______________________________________________________________-
Buc#$an% v Buc#$an% __________________________________________________________-
&ascu'' v &ascu'' 1955 ______________________________________________________-
*hom"son v *hom"son+ 19,1 ____________________________________________________-
-.ran v -ran 1982 / !A _____________________________________________________-
ote on arrange% vs orce% marrages _____________________________________________-
Re4i&emens G 7!nsmmai!n9 n! &i!& s6sisin# ma&&ia#e &!1i6ied de#&ees !f
<a$$ant v 3e;s 2008 S! G PP? is in$!<ed ! #&an ali7ai!n !f fa1e& ! 11enae71ild&enHs las name ! in7lde 1is 6K7 7!nside&ed ! 6e in CI%> nli<e T&!7i<9 dad e8e&7ised
a77ess dail (
/S $ DL% ,--5 SB= %A denies a77ess !&de& 6K7 1e is n! a a&en> T%Hs de7isi!n
nde&inned 6 assmi!ns a6! a #!!d dad9 i>e> n!n &adii!nal famil ni (
Ad!i!n and “6es ine&ess”________________________________________________,%!ne8 ,
&E entt$e% to reme% un%er the Dvorce Act _________________________________________'
Du"ere v Du"ere (19,4) 19 =3 2,0 (BS! (LB) K Gu%ca$ a""roach o am$a$sm K .
"artes are $vng n the same -- an% have ch$%ren+ t s more %cu$t to use se"H a"art
groun% as reason or marrage brea#%o;n __________________________________________'
(!oo"er v !oo"er) S"ouses ;ere $vng se" an% a"art ;here crcumstances ;here the o$$o;ng
crcumstances ;ere "resent+ not necessar to estab$sh a$$ s e$ements n each case+ %e"en%s on acts o case ___________________________________________________________________2
n! 7!nsie adle&l in law___________________________________________________5,
*hebeau v *heubau (2006) 2, =3 (6thM 40 (B LB) 7 in$!<es s (5 !f %1a&e& = e!le a&e
e4al and s1!ld 6e &eaed e4all> Def !f adle& in DA in7l SS a7s !side !f 1ema&&ia#e____________________________________________________________________53
&(SE) v & (DD) (2005)+ 259 D3= (4thM 58 (B!S!)7 A 1s6andHs 1!m!se8al a7s wi1
an!1e& man !side !f 1e ma&&ia#e 7!nsies adle&>___________________________53 =ato _________________________________________________________________________(
.ntmate seua$ actvt outs%e o marrage ma re"resent a vo$aton o the marta$ bon% H be
%evastatng to the s"ouse Hmarta$ bon% regar%$ess o the s"ecc nature o the seua$ act
&!$ided0_________________________________________________________________53%!llsi!n = .s((.(0.a09 a6s!le 6a& ! di$9 defined in s ((.09 als! alies ! immi#&ai!n
ma&&ia#e .?!1ns!n $ A1med0 53
%!nd!nai!n and 7!nni$an7e .s ((.(0.7053
A6sen7e !f &eas!na6le a&&an#emens f!& 1e s!& !f 71ild&en !f 1e ma&&ia#e .s((.(0.C00 =
ade4ae 71ild 7a&e a&&an#emens 1a$e 6een made in a77!&dan7e wi1 71ild s!&
#idelines9 7!& ms sa #&anin# a di$ if s71 a&&an#emens 1a$e n! 6een made 53
Reli#i!s Ca&s ! Di$!&7e S ,(>( e&mis 7!& ! a<e a7i!n in a 7!ne8 w1e&e !ne s!se
&efses ! &em!$e &eli#i!s 6a&&ie&s ! 1e &ema&&ia#e !f 1e s!se as a& 1ei& di$
ne#!iai!ns nde& s>,(>(.30.70.d0 5
/7!n!mi7 %!nse4en7es !f Di$!&7e and Sea&ai!n and ene&al T&ends= FL9 in
&in7ile9 is in7aa6le !f s!l$in# 1e &!6lem !f !$e& !f w!men and 71ild&en> We2$e
Mediai!n .TP0_______________________________________________________________5)* gov+t project streams relationship brea,down out of negotiation into mediation____________-
A&6i&ai!n .FLA9 ss 5)>( ! >*0__________________________________________________5
P&!7ess f!& Res!l$in# %s!d and A77ess 7laims s 3(9 %LRA .&e7all ss ).(=,09 DA E ADR0
5
Famil Law Ca&#ainin# G FLA ,.(-0 A d!m B dealin# wi1 a mae& 1a is als! deal
a1!&i0________________________________________________________________5@Calf!& $ Calf!&: At !I3 %om not $ega$$ bn%ng@ *he are no; statutor$ enorce%@
5@ .n what circumstances will a court set aside a separation or marriage agreement____________7
Pa& I9 s 5( .FL Bs0___________________________________________________________5@ stat def incls Cohabitation % 0rbitration 1arriage% #eparation agreement% 1arriage% aternity__7
SS 5,9595) = le#al s7!e f!& d!m Bs_____________________________________________5@ S 52F definitions of marriages 3#___________________________________________________7
S 54F identify rights and obligations about which spouses may 3__________________________7
S 59@1 to 8 detailed provs re content and procedures for negotiating family arbitration awards!_7
SS 55=5@ G f!&maliies9 ;di7ial &e$iew9 #&!nds f!& sein# aside B____________________5@
11 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
s 55(1) orma$tes F 5nforceable dom 3 must be in writing% signed by parties% witnessed 6
arties are not re$uired to receive .0 prior to 3 signing% other than fam arbitration awards____7
s 55(2) 8 minor has capacity subject to approval of court________________________________7
s 56(1)F Ou%ca$ reve; re provs respecting child incl moral training% custody% access 9.C and
see s6 -'6'! re child support arrangements!_________________________________________7
s@ 56(4)F Ou%ca$ reve; r e failure to a! disclose significant assets and debts" b! understanding
nature and conse$uences of % encourages .0 c! according to law of 3 misrepresentation%
lac, of consideration% undue influence% duress% coercion% unconscionability% illegality!_________7
s@ 56(5): Court may set aside 3 if barrier to remarriage used as bargaining chip in negotiations_7
s@ (4)F court may set aside 3 provisions re support if prov is unconscionable% if it results in a
dependent $ualifying for public support% or if there is default in payment of support pursuant to 36 _____________________________________________________________________________7
S 56(4)(c)+ Dochu# v Dochu# (1999) _______________________________________________7 court upheld validity of 3 provs where there was evidence that husband had wilfully failed to disclose
relevant info b/c it would not have affected the wife;s decision to sign the 3" < of factors court must
consider when being as,ed to e=ercise discretion under s -4!_____________________________7
>hether there had been concealment of asset or material misrepresentation___________________7 >hether there had been duress or unconscionable circumstances____________________________7
>hether petitioning party neglected to pursue full legal disclosure arty must do the as, for
information and pursue it!___________________________________________________________7
>hether she moved e=peditiously to have agreement set aside______________________________7 >hether she received substantial benefit under agreement_________________________________7
>hether other party had fulfilled his or her obligations under agreement______________________7
.t s %esrab$e that "artes shou$% sett$e ther o;n aars "ossb$eC .n %ong so "artes shou$%#no; that the terms o such sett$ement ;$$ be bn%ng an% recogn'e%@ *he !A ;as c$ear that
a""roach s * a""$cab$e to s that are unconsconab$e@ _______________________________7
S 56(4)(b)+ =osen v =osen ________________________________________________________7 .0 not re$uired in )*% 3 provs may be set aside if either party did not understand nature and
conse$uences of 36 However% court will decline to set aside provs of 3 where party see,ing to set
aside 3 refused or decline .0 unless terms are unconscionable @ !ourt here conc$u%e% that ______7 W ha% acte% vo$untar$ n %ec%ng not to obtan $ega$ a%vce b4 sgnng a se" agreement@ !ourt
a$so %etermne% no ne?ua$t n barganng "o;er ______________________________________7
S 56(4)(c) !$ams about %uress an% vu$nerab$t _____________________________________7 Courts may set aside 3 if party see,ing remedial action can demonstrate circumstances surrounding
negotiation of 3 disclose consider unconscionability% duress% undue influence% fraud%
misrepresentation and mista,e_______________________________________________________7
&uo"o$o v &uo"o$o 7 -e$%F Ct e=pressed concern about such legal advice that > may be able to setaside 3 in future6 Court held > was not under duress when she signed agreement6 .t was her wish to
buy peace w/ her husband and there was no basis for setting aside the 3______________________7
Sau$ v -me$ (1989) 8 Crt upheld a sep agreement even though H claimed misrep & nondisclosurere provs for supporting a child of whom H was not bio father6 Crt decided that he had been aware ?
time of negotiating agreement% that he might not be bio father6 > had no duty to disclose facts_____@
Barton v SauvP (2010 S!) + cohabtaton agreement 7 Court e=amined cohabitation agreement in
detail% rejecting all grounds for setting it aside 6resence of vulnerability alone will not justify ctintervention > had no .0!_________________________________________________________@
S (4) H su""ort "rovs Sa$onen v Sa$onen (1986) ___________________________________@ -e$%F Court upheld sep agreement% although it meant > & children would re$uire social assistance6
Aacts of this case: #ep agreement re$uired H to ta,e responsibility for all couple+s debts% so he was
not able to pay much C# or ##6_______________________________________________________@
S 56(5) H remova$ o barrers to remarrage _________________________________________@#imilar to s 2'6' of Bivorce 0ct% offers assistance to parties who cannot access Bivorce 0ct_______@
12 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Betermine whether claimant has met s -4! 2! Betermine whether it is appropriate to e=ercise
discretion to set aside fairness having regard to fairness of 3 %overall circumstances such asintention% is breach such that it counteracts objectives of underlying policies_________________D
rc v B$ar !A 2014 nless 1e&e is &!e& ILA and fll finan7ial dis7l!s&e9 1e d!m B
ma 6e se aside nde& s 5.0> T1e&e is n! d !n a s!se ! in$esi#ae $e&a7i !f
finan7ial dis7l!s&e made 6 !1e& s!se> T1e fa7 1a W <new B was n! in 6es ine&ess
is n! sffi7ien ! find 1a s!se d!es n! nde&sand na&e and 7!nse4en7es !f B>
.De7isi!n 1e&e: new &ial !&de&ed0_______________________________________________5)
Ic!an v Ic!an (2012) S! ,44 (S!O)(marrage agreement) 5)
T1e 7i&7msan7es &e#a&din# is e8e7i!n9 1e im&!$iden &esl f!& 1e Wife and 1e
e8en !f 1e "s6andHs n!w weal19 a&e sffi7ien ! 1a$e 1e s!sal s!& &!$isi!ns !f
1e %!n&a7 se aside> Ca&#ain was na77ea6le in l!n#e& e&m ma&&ia#e !f (5 ea&s afe&
B was si#ned9 did n! &!$ide f!& "Hs f&e ea&nin#s &!;e7i!ns> %i&7msan7es
s&&!ndin# B f!&mai!n in7l s71!l!#i7al d&ess9 minimal dis7l!s&e>_______________5) Iarrage contracts an% the enorcement o re$gous ob$gatonsF (enorceab$t o Iahr has
been u"he$% n B! cases)@ *he courts ten% to enorce re$gous ob$gatons n I un$ess
a%%oura v a%%oura> _________________________________________________________- 1ahr was unenforceable obligation pursuant to )* law___________________________________-F
Hermann v Charlesworth 7 Iahr is a religious matter so the resolution of any dispute relating to it
are religious in conte=t and conte=t6 i,e Ba$our v Ba$our % contracts of affection and love are not
han v han _________________________________________________________________-)* court upheld validity of a ni,a namma13! of a,istan as a domestic 3 pursuant to )*;s A06
Court upheld 1uslim marriage 3% but did not enforce >+s waiver of ## right__________________-F
Qahr v Qahr ___________________________________________________________________- .ssues of evidence are complicated and often a need for e=pert evidence to be able to litigate them_-F
0n agreement between spouses to ta,e necessary steps to permit each of them to remarry in
accordance with their religious beliefs constitute a valid and binding agreement that did not
represent a harm to the husband;s religious freedom by re$uiring damages__________________-F
Ana$ss ______________________________________________________________________-F• .nternational law use of damages as compensation for spouse whose spouse has refused to
provide a get B v Arance!________________________________________________________-F
• &ub$c nterest in protecting e$uality rights% dignity of Gewish women in their inability to div
and remarry% as well as public benefit in enforcing valid and binding contractual obligations are
among interests and values outweighing 1arcovit; claim that enforcing para '2 of Consent would
interfere with his religious freedom____________________________________________________-F
%!$enan ma&&ia#e and .less0 a77ess ! di$!&7e .SA0= If a&ies we&e ma&&ied in LAKA9
(1) ! &e7!#nie 1a 71ild 7a&e9 1!se1!ld mana#emen and finan7ial &!$isi!n a&e 1e
;!in &es!nsi6iliies !f 1e s!ses + (2) and 1a in1e&en in 1e ma&ial &elai!ns1i 1e&e
is e?ua$ contrbuton9 w1e1e& finan7ial !& !1e&wise9 6 1e s!ses ! 1e assmi!n !f
1ese &es!nsi6iliies9 () enilin# ea71 s!se ! 1e e4aliai!n !f 1e NFPs .0 s6;e7
!nl ! 1e e4ia6le 7!nside&ai!ns se ! s6 .0__________________________________,
Se7i!n 5.0 and !li7 7!nside&ai!ns____________________________________________3
“n7!ns7i!na6ili” es and se7ifi7 fa7!&s e&mis a 7!& ! awa&d s!me1in# m!&e !&
less 1an 1e e4aliai!n amen>______________________________________________3 olicy rationale________________________________________________________________-(
C&!adl ine&&eed9 ______________________________________________________any interest% present or future% vested or contingent% real or personal! as encompassing both
e$uitable and legal interests% e=cludes professional licences (!aratun)+ includes a negative
NFP9 s .(0___________________________________________________________________Jalue of all the property% that a spouse owns on Jday% e=cept property described in subsection
2!% after deducting %ebts H other $ab$tes not re$ate% to %rect$ to ac?uston or sgncant
m"rovement o I- : an% "re7marrage "ro"ert K not I-+ o;ne% at %ate o marrage+
ca$cu$ate% at %ate o marrage : ___________________________________________________-4
# 4! .f a spouse;s *A results ina negative value% deemed to be F________________________-4
Ses !f Analsis___________________________________________________________(> Dee&mine =da !& $alai!n dae .7 ma e8e&7ise dis7&ei!n if fa7al 7!ne8 is n7lea& 0
s;e$$ v s;e$$ (1992) ______________________________________________________
!aratun v !aratun (198,) = =da &efe&s ! dae w1en 1e&e was n! &eas!na6le
S$verberg v S$verberg : S ma n! 71an#e a &e&esened 71a&a7e&iai!n !f > M&s Sells 1e& " 1a 6!ss #a$e 1e& ;ewelle& in lie !f wa#es9 lae& a&#es i was a #if9 was
in7lded in NFP>______________________________________________________________5
3eevre v 3eevreF ifs !& fnds .!1e&wise eniled ! 6e e87lded0sed f!& &71ase
!f M" ma 6e in7lded in s!seHs NFP 7al7lai!n9 if &a7ed ! !f M" a =da___5
-arrngton v -arrngtonF Sanda&d f!& meein# s .30 !ns = COP_________________5
!arter v !arterF W1en a s!se &ansfe&s #ifed !& in1e&ied in! ;!in names9
7!nfe&&in# an ine&es in 1e !1e& s!se9 1e &ansfe&&in# s!se l!ses 1e e87lsi!n
ONLY ! 1e e8en !f 1e #if 1e !& s1e made ! 1e !1e& s!se9 &!$ided 1a 1e &esl
inended 6 1e &ansfe& is ;!in !wne&s1i________________________________________5
> Assi#n $ale ! 1e &!e& .in$!l$es ;di7ial dis7&ei!n if 1e&e a&e 7!mein# 7laims
Stone v Stone (1999) 46 = (%) 1 ___________________________________________
F: weal1 1s6and w1! <new 1e was faall ill &ansfe&&ed asses w!&1 (>3 milli!n
! 71ild&en ! a$!id e4aliai!n w wife V 1is dea1> F!ll!win# dea19 wid!w s77essfll
71allen#ed &ansfe&s as 7!n&a& ! F&adlen %!n$ean7es A79 RSO9 ())-___________ =atoF 3A create% a cre%tor %ebtor re$atonsh" ;hch ta#es orm o an o"en or runnng account
;hch becomes a sett$e% account on se"araton or %eath > consstent ;th goa$ o s"ouses sharng
ther net accreton n ;ea$th %urng marrage __________________________________________--
P&!e& E P&!fessi!nal De#&ees G s!sal 7!n&i6i!ns ! PPDs 7an 6e 7!mensaed $ia
SS awa&ds___________________________________________________________________!or$ess v !or$ess _______________________________________________________________--
!aratun v !aratrunF ____________________________________________________________--
ON 7!& ma in$!<e s ).(0.a0 ! 1a$e ?%M a !& ANA !& .d.ii0 ! a&ii!n 1e
&!e& if ( s!se ma<es a s @ ali7ai!n &e4es d7!& dee&mine s!sesH enilemen
! se&m s&aws in 4esi!n_____________________________________________________
P E 6enefi7ial .e4ia6le0 !wne&s1i9 =a;$u# v =a;$u# (s 4 2+ 3A)7 If 7laiman 7an
esa6lis1 R%T f!& R 7laim9 1en % will 6e eniled ! s1a&e in $ale a dae !f &ial9 n! da> T1e 7!nside&ai!n !f R%T 7laim f!& R !77&s 6ef!&e dee&minai!n !f NFP and
#pouses are not precluded from CE remedy for I claim6 # 4 is includes beneficial e$uitable!
ownership6 '! Court must consider trust principles to determine whether claimant has beneficial
ownership at first step of determining *A of each spouse 2! court must perform e$ualiation
calculations6 Ehird% court assesses whether given facts of particular case% e$ualiation is
unconscionable & may e=ercise discretion____________________________________________-7
S 4() Denton o gt+ Icamee vs@ Icamee K affirms awlu, analysis remains significant"
#hares were a gift in law & e=cluded from H;s *A6 Ehe conditions imposed on transfer of gift
were invalid b/c donee accepted a gift on the assumption there were no conds attached6 However%
>+s alternative claim of CE for I in relation to gift of shares re$uired a new trial 9C EC did
not hear evidence re: >;s claim____________________________________________________-7 a$uaton o "ensons+ s 4(1)(c) ____________________________________________________-7
3 Stat Amen%ment ts 2009 ______________________________________________________-7
P&!e& and ensi!nsGs .(0.70 FLA 9 s def in7ls Ja s!se2s &i#1s nde& a PP 1a
'! 5very property in which a person has an interest and that is or% if the spouses have separated%
2! was at the time of separation ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their
family residence is 1H at Jday!__________________________________________________-D!ase$a; re S (18(1)) _______________________________________________________________-D
ahatche;t' K H owned a home at time of marriage% H& > lived in it for some time6 H went
away% and then H sold it6 arties separated6 1H was not Lordinarily occupied by the spouses as
their family residenceM at separation JBay!% it was not a 1H% and thus H was entitled to deductit as 1J6_____________________________________________________________________-D
Da!osta : H received an inheritance of money after his marriage% used it to purchase Cedar Bee
Aarm in part6 Court traced the funds to the farm6 Held: H was entitled to e=clude the inheritance
value from *A total b/c it was not considered a 1H the court held that > did not spend time at
the farm to meet s '@ test6_________________________________________________________-D
Ec$usons H De%uctons ________________________________________________________-D S 4(1)(b !Beductions on 1H .f pre marriage property is a house that is the matrimonial home at J
day% it cannot be deducted6__________________________________________________________-D
S4(2)T1 roperty% other than a 1H% that was ac$uired by gift or inheritance% from a third person%
after the date of the marriage______________________________________________________-D
S 19 __________________________________________________________________________-D
&ossessor =ghts K re?uste e$ement o entt$ement s s 18(1) ___________________________-D
#pouses have e$ual rights to possession% regardless of title potentially to a nontitled spouse!: it is a personal right% not enforceable against E______________________________________________-D
S 24 __________________________________________________________________________-D Secton 24(1)(b)F __________________________________________________________________-D
S 24( ! interim order for e=clusive possession% usually a timelimited order6 #tatute is silent about
how much weight to accord each factor @:.n %etermnng ;hether to ma#e an or%er or ec$usve
"ossesson+ the court sha$$ cons%er+: _______________________________________________-Da0 the best interests of the #hildren affe#ted in#l&des psy#hologi#al stresses and strains affe#ted
by separation of parents arising o&t of daily fri#tions bt/) parents" prote#tion of #hildren may
b0 any existing orders &nder Part ( Family Property0 and any existing s&pport orders or otherenfor#eable s&pport obligations_____________________________________________________2
#0 the finan#ial position of both spo&ses =osentha$ % typi#al" left home #annot s&pport and
*ids in M and himself 6 same time" )ants e!erything to stay the same )itho&t any #hangesW$son0________________________________________________________________________2d0 any )ritten agreement bet)een the parties_________________________________________2
e0 the a!ailability of other s&itable and affordable a##ommodation and_____________________2
f0 any !iolen#e #ommitted by a spo&se against the other spo&se or the #hildren in#l psy#hologi#al
!iolen#e" )arfare % Hill 0___________________________________________________________2 Secton 24(4)F Befinition of 9.C for applications for e=clusive possession of the 1H6__________-D
a! the possible disruptive effects on the child of a move to other accommodation" and___________-D
b! the child+s views and preferences% if they can reasonably be ascertained6___________________-D
Ev%entar cons%eraton un%er s 24() K e"ert H *& _________________________________-D
nanca$ resources H s 24() _____________________________________________________7F
19 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
R!sen1al $ R!sen1al .()*0 3 FL .3d0 (, .On "%0 G S , ali7ai!n &efsed________@-24()(c) er financial statements filed by both parties% apparent that there are not sufficient funds
to continue occupation of marital home% " it is in best interests of both parties that 1H be sold for
best price available% and e=cess moneys to be divided bt/w them and form a portion of each *A_7F
S 24()(a) !h$%s best nterests *o legal obligation upon to maintain two older sons in a style
to which they are accustomed " each of the ( boys owns and operates a motor vehicle__________7F
&er v &er (1986) 3 (%) 16, (nt Dst@ !t)= Ali7ai!n #&aned G Fal 6ased 7!nd79
ina&!&iael dis&!!&i!nae am!n !f weal1 .30 a 7!n&i6i!n ! 1e a77mlai!n
!f famil asses !& weal1 G 7!nside&ai!n !f:______________________________________@(a! IE pooling of effort & team wor, Becision to raise children together ength of
b! E. the more e=tensive the integration of couple;s finances the more li,ely a GJ will be found_7'
c! Actua$ ntent+ subGectve stan%ar% e=press or inferred " whether they held themselves asmarried% joint title to ppty__________________________________________________________7'
d! & Have parties acted on shared assumptions or understandings for the future% e=press or
impliedly foregoing career or educational advancement for fam benefit% acceptingunderemployment to balance dom and financial needs_____________________________________7'
If ? esa6lis1ed9 awa&d s1!ld 6e &!!&i!n ! a77mlai!n !f famil asses and
7!mensai!n &e7ei$ed s1!ld 6e dis7!ned f&!m !$e&all awa&d> @(
Pe<s $ Ce7<e& '()*-+ , S%R 3@= R%T f!& R 7laim is a$aila6le ! 7!1a6iin# s!ses
a &elai!ns1i 6&ea<d!wn___________________________________________________@,
S!&!71an $ S!&!71an'()*+ , S%R G A 7laiman ma esa6lis1 R%T 6 R 1&!#1
dem!ns&ain# a ne8s 6Kw 7!n&i6i!n and in 4esi!n a 7!n&i6i!n ! a7al
a74isii!n is n! &e4i&ed___________________________________________________@,
20 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
A 7laiman in a 4asi=s!sal &elai!ns1i 1a esa6lis1es R 7laim ma 6e eniled !
.M0_______________________________________________________________________@3 &e$echat S LB ______________________________________________________________@3
PL awa&ded %T !f ,- ine&es in DHs 1!se E 1e 1!me in w1i71 s1e li$ed> R and %T
ma 6e a$aila6le ! 7!les w1! a&e n! J7!1a6iin#J_______________________________@3
PL E de7eased in (@ ea& &elai!ns1i> D &71ased a 1!se f!& PL ! li$e in9 71a&#ed 1e&
&en and 1e li$ed sea&ael> PLHs 7!n&i6i!ns in7l 7!!<in# dinne& &e#la&l f!& D9 ""
se&$i7es !f de7easedHs 1!ses> PL 7laimed D saed s1e w!ld ne$e& 1a$e ! w!&& a6! 1e
1!se in w1i71 s1e li$ed>_______________________________________________________@3
no$$ S _____________________________________________________________________@3
"Hs esae E e8&a &es!nsi6ili aa71ed ! an ill s!se9 is a ma&ial nde&a<in# ! !f
l!$e E affe7i!n_______________________________________________________________@3
R E SS Relai!ns1is @orrest v &rce (1992) B!S! ____________________________________________________@ was entitled to remedial CE% given history of relationship and B;s assurances throughout%
reasonably e=pected to receive an actual interest in various ppties & B either was or ought to have
been cogniant of that e=pectation considered B;s debts% increase of value of ppty since sep%
process for ppty sale!____________________________________________________________74
Bust v <reaves 199, O o@ 2646 (<en Dv) ______________________________________@ artner that was the lawyer brought an I claim6 >hich was rejected by reason that there wasn;t
sufficient evidence of deprivation by absence of juristic reason6 1s 9 was not worse off personally
or professionally due to relationship________________________________________________74
!oh;%hur v Argent Estate+ 200, B!S! __________________________________________@ ;s claim for remedial CE failed6 found to have made no contribution of value to B;s home%
either in money or services % claim that had Ncontributed to 1 0;s happiness & made him
joyful was irrelevantN____________________________________________________________74 Iartn v Sansome 2014 !A K %RT f!& R 7laim &e ! ma&&ied 7!les : If 7laiman
see<s R 7laim &emed9 7!& ms 7!nside& if awa&d !f 1i#1e& / amen nde& s 5.0
&ed&esses &emed 6ef!&e en#a#in# in R%T analsis_________________________________@
Ine&&ein# S ,).a0: %!nin!s and 7!n;#ali_______________________________@5 Io$%o;ch G fa7!&s ! dee&mine w1e1e& , a&ies a&e in 7!1a6iin# &elai!ns1i_______@5
• She$ter a!Bid parties live under the same roof b! >hat were the sleeping arrangements
c!Bid anyone else occupy or share the available accommodations________________________7
21 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• Soca$ 7 (a) Bid parties participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community
activities (b)>hat was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their
respective fams and how did such fams behave toward the parties________________________7• Soceta$ 7>hat was the attitude & conduct of the comm toward each& as a couple_______7
• Su""ort economic!: >hat were arrangements re a!food% clothing% shelter% recreation%b!
ac$uisition of ownership of ppty% c! as to determinant of overall relationship________________7
• !h$%ren >hat was attitude & conduct of parties concerning children________________7
Slli$an $ Leni< @5
W1e1e& 7!les a&e sea&aed is a mae& !f inen9 n! #e!#&a1> .We2&e n! l!!<in# a
Iesser v De$age 198 2 S!= 401 _______________________________________________@@ atio: 0 divorced man bears the responsibility of supporting a former > who cannot provide for
her own needs 6 Held: H must pay reduced ## indefinitely to former #6 #CC upheld C0_________77
(se" s) ______________________________________________________________________@@ =ato: Ehe state bears the responsibility to support former spouses post separation% not former
spouses% unless applicant can demonstrate causal connection economic disadvantage & marriage
brea,down b! designed to promote certainty & to facilitate clean brea," c! focus on individual
autonomy% d! respect for 3s" -e$% state should pay social assistance to support applicant wife in
all ( cases_____________________________________________________________________77
Famil Law A79 RSO ()*__________________________________________________@@s 3- @@
s 33 @@
s 33.3 @@
ss 33.0 @*
s 5.0 @* Settng as%e %omestc re a!unconscionability% b!dependant who waivers ## and $ualifies for
Rai!: S!sal mis7!nd7 ma esa6lis1 an ali7ai!n f!& an !&de& ! e&minae SS if
mis7!nd7 alle#ed is !f s71 a m!&all &e#nan na&e9 as w!ld 7ase a RP ! sa S is
n! l!n#e& eniled ! s!& !f e8=" !& ! ;di7ial assisan7e in 7!mellin# " ! a "eld9
SS e&minaed ea&s afe& di$!&7e>______________________________________________*-
Sewa& $ Sewa& ,--- NSS% *-
Rai!: A deendan !& a!& s!seHs a6si$e !s=sea&ai!n 7!nd79 d!es n! fall nde&
7!nd7 in &elai!n ! ma&&ia#e9 and 1s is a fa7!& in dee&minin# w1e1e& ! den9 #&an
!& $a& an !&de& f!& SS________________________________________________________*-
FLA P&!$isi!ns a6! 7!nd7 and SS .s 33.(-0_________________________________*-M!&e $ M!&e .()@)0 , OR fa7!&s &ele$an ! dee&minin# a s!se was diseniled ! SS
!n 6asis !f 7!nd7 1a 7!nsied n7!ns7i!na6ili = as an !6$i!s and #&!ss &ediai!n
Le#a7 !f Mi#lin___________________________________________________________*3!oo"er v !oo"er K Q ___________________________________________________________*3
Held" Aollows 1igliin to deny >+s application for ## in conte=t of sep agreement66 arties
negotiated a fair settlement% change n crcumstances % it did not result in agreement being unfair
pursuant tos '62-!%B0__________________________________________________________@(
=c# v Bran%sema2009 S!! K _________________________________________________*3
&elies !n %ML n7!ns> $s> ON9 a le# &in7ile______________________________________*3 =ato : Ehe settlement agreement must ensure a fair distribution of assets% and the absence of
e=ploitation within the singularly emotional environment in which family bargaining ta,es place_@(
=easonngF Bistinguished from 1iglin #tarting point is not s D or '62% but C1 principle of
e$uity% Corollary to the finality of separation agreement in Ig$n+ that there be a duty to ma,e full
disclosure & not to ta,e advantage of other spouse;s vulnerabilities 6 .n evan% > as under
pressure to sign 3% here > suffered from mental instability % note mental vulnerability is a factor_@(
25 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
=ato: 1iglin principles apply to an application for ## under s '6 Betermination of an
application under # '7 orders for variation on e=isting ## order engages a diff treatment of
agreements in light of statutory lang% Lagreement% order% arrangementM% not used in s '7_______@(
Bhu"a$ v Bhu"a$ (2009)= ______________________________________________________*3F 5=H applied to vary obligation to pay on basis that > had remarried% close friend of e=H6
1inutes of settlement provided for review of ## obligations in years or based on Lmaterialchange in circumM______________________________________________________________@(
-e$%F C0 upheld EG decision that remarriage did not constitute change in circumstances b/c at
time of signing minutes of settlement% H ,new > was in new and serious relationship as supported
by evidence____________________________________________________________________@(
Ref!&m Iniiai$es: 1e S!sal S!& Ad$is!& idelines *3
R!le in 7!&&!!m_____________________________________________________________*
=esman v =esman + !A 2014 ________________________________________________* =easonng 29F a! long marriage: it lasted 2F years6 b! > primarily responsible for
maintaining the household and raising the children6 ObP > has not been employed AE since beforebirth of children6 c! d! marital #tandard of living 8 lived% well" L did not worry about income% e!
>ife will be - when ## order ends_________________________________________________@4
-e$%F C0 removed impose time limit of 'F years% and change to of indefinite duration6 ##0Q#
support this view% guideline that duration for marriages of 2FR years should be LindefiniteM____@4
Rai!: S 3,: Pa&en ms 1a$e 7a&ed f!& OR &!$ided s!& .7!n;n7i$e es0 A7
in7ldes n! defen7e !f fal !& mis7!nd7 in awa&d !f a&enal s!&9 n!& d!es i
7!nside& na&e and 4ali !f 7&&en &elai!ns1i 6Kw a&en=71ild>_________________*5
S#r'"ac' ____________________________________________________________________*5 .mmigrant mother sought interim support from son6 0pp dismissed6 1other never primary
caregiver did not file any evidence as to support entitlement under sponsorship agreement6_____@
Children and Family -issol&tion_______________________________________________________85
Oont custo% (%screton) s> (.0 *he court ma ma#e an or%er un%er ths secton grantng
custo% o+ or access to+ an or a$$ ch$%ren o the marrage to an one or more "ersons@ ____*
Iamum contact (ren%$ "arent:) s> (.(-0the court sha$$ gve eect to the "rnc"$e that
a ch$% o the marrage shou$% have as much contact ;th each s"ouse as s consstent ;th
the best nterests o the ch$% an%+ or that "ur"ose+ sha$$ ta#e nto cons%eraton the;$$ngness o the "erson or ;hom custo% s sought to ac$tate such contact@ (not abso$ute
an% a$;as subGect to B.!+ <or%on) _______________________________________________*
*erms an% con%tons s> (.0 *he court ma ma#e an or%er un%er ths secton or a %ente
or n%ente "ero% or unt$ the ha""enng o a s"ece% event an% ma m"ose such other
terms+ con%tons or restrctons n connecton there;th as t thn#s t an% Gust@ ___________*
!hange o res%ence (,) Wthout $mtng the genera$t o subsecton (6)+ the court ma
nc$u%e n an or%er un%er ths secton a term re?urng an "erson ;ho has custo% o a ch$%
o the marrage an% ;ho nten%s to change the "$ace o res%ence o that ch$% to not+ at
$east thrt %as beore the change or ;thn such other "ero% beore the change as the court
ma s"ec+ an "erson ;ho s grante% access to that ch$% o the change+ the tme at ;hch
the change ;$$ be ma%e an% the ne; "$ace o res%ence o the ch$%@ ____________________*
actors (B.!7no %eta$s) s@ 16(8) court sha$$ ta#e nto cons%eraton on$ the best nterests othe ch$% o the marrage as %etermne% b reerence to the con%ton+ means+ nee%s an% other
crcumstances o the ch$%@ ______________________________________________________*
!on%ucts@ 16(9) .n ma#ng an or%er un%er ths secton+ the court sha$$ not ta#e nto
cons%eraton the "ast con%uct o an "erson un$ess the con%uct s re$evant to the ab$t o
that "erson to act as a "arent o a ch$%@ ____________________________________________*
araton S 1,(1) ______________________________________________________________*
ma<e de7isi!ns a6! 71ild d&in# 1e ime 1a 71ild is in 1a a&en2s 7a&e !&de& ma
6e &e4i&edf!& a&ens ! 7!!e&ae_____________________________________________**
T1e Le#al P&in7ile: T1e “Ces Ine&ess !f 1e %1ild”___________________________**!arson v Watts 1998 = An a&!a71 a6! w1a de7isi!n will &esl in 1e leas 1a&m $s> 1e
an %e &erre v E%;ar%s G w1i71 a&en will f!se& nde&sandin# !f 71ildHs 1e&ia#e f&!m
6!1 a&ens is a &ele$an 7!nside&ai!n in dee&minin# 7s!dial a&en_______________*) =ato _________________________________________________________________________@D
ace is not a critical factor in custody and access cases% and importance of this factor will depend
greatly on many factual considerations% determined w/discretion on a casebycase basis incl%
parental ability to foster racial identity pride% need to develop a means to deal w racism and need
to develop a positive racial identity_________________________________________________@D
=ace an% B. custo% cases 7 !ourts are attentve as to ;hch "arent ;$$ ensure ch$%s
contnung contact ;th raca$'e% hertage (rench>!amba v S"ar#s) __________________*)
CI E Ideni: Si# !f Reli#i!nK%l&e *)
3bbus v 3bbus K A 7!& ma a77!&d wei#1 ! a a&enin# lan 1a is s!&ed 6
A77ess and &el!7ai!n !f 1e 7s!dial a&en: le#al &in7iles and ;di7ial ine&&eai!n
)-
!arter v Broo#s 1990 !A _____________________________________________________)-
%s!dial a&en did n! 1a$e an in1e&en &i#1 ! m!$e> /a71 a&en 6ea&san e$idenial
6&den ! s1!w m!$e is in CI%> M!1e& was n! e&mied ! m!$e f&!m ON ! C%>_____)- Iac<ver v =char%s 1995 ______________________________________________________)-
7& ma !&de& O%L ! &!$ide le#al &e&esenai!n f!& a 71ild .end ! 6e limied0 and__),
.,09 S ((, O%L ma nde&a<e an in$esi#ai!n9 &e!& and ma<e &e7!mmendai!ns in a
7s!d and a77ess &!7eedin# .DA !& %LRA0_____________________________________),
!3 has %screton n ;hether to res"on% to a re?uest ________________________________),
;hen courts or%er !3 assstance+ crt must regar% $mts o resources + an% s "ermtte% to
ma#e a re?uest ________________________________________________________________),
JS1a&in# %s!d and 7a&eJ : ?!in %s!d9 Pa&enin# Plans9 Pa&allel Pa&enin#____)3Ca<e& $ Ca<e& : A &ealisi7 and &a7i7al a&!a71 was &e4i&ed in &es!li!n !f 7s!d
lii#ai!n and ;!in 7s!d s1!ld 6e !&de&ed !nl in e87ei!nal 7i&7msan7es w1i71 a&e
&a&el if e$e& &esen in 7ases !f dised 7s!d )3
30 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
s ,.,0 .S!7ial a&ens0_______________________________________________________).,0 F!& 1e &!ses !f 1e definii!n “71ild !f 1e ma&&ia#e” in s6se7i!n .(09 a 71ild !f w!
.a0 an 71ild f!& w1!m 1e 6!1 sand in 1e la7e !f a&ens and )
.60 an 71ild !f w1!m !ne is 1e a&en and f!& w1!m 1e !1e& sands in 1e la7e !f a
a&en> )
F<A "s 1" B -efinitions" parent" dependant" spo&se________________________________________5S (“a&en” in7ldes a e&s!n w1! 1as dem!ns&aed a seled ineni!n ! &ea a 71ild as a
71ild !f 1is !& 1e& famil9 e87e nde& an a&&an#emen w1e&e 1e 71ild is la7ed f!& $ala6le
7!nside&ai!n in a f!se& 1!me 6 a e&s!n 1a$in# lawfl 7s!d )5
S ,) deendan” means a e&s!n ! w1!m an!1e& 1as an !6li#ai!n ! &!$ide s!&
nde& 1is Pa& )5
S ,) “s!se” means a s!se as defined in s6se7i!n ( .(09 and in addii!n in7ldes ei1e& !f
and dee&mine 1e am!n !f s!&>____________________________________________)5
%LRA s (.(0 E (.,9 .09 s *__________________________________________________)5S (.(0 Rle !f Pa&ena#e S6;e7 ! s6 .,09 f!& all &!ses !f 1e law !f ON a e&s!n is 1e
71ild !f 1is !& 1e& na&al a&ens and 1is !& 1e& sas as 1ei& 71ild is indeenden !f
w1e1e& 1e 71ild is 6!&n wi1in !& !side ma&&ia#e> )5
S (.,_0 /87ei!n f!& ad!ed 71ild&en W1e&e an ad!i!n !&de& 1as 6een made9 se7i!n s
(5*K) !f %FSA !f alies and 1e 71ild is 1e 71ild !f 1e ad!in# a&ens as if 1e we&e 1e
na&al a&ens> )5
S (.0%!mm!n law disin7i!n !f le#iima7 a6!lis1ed = An disin7i!n a 7!mm!n law
6eween 1e sas !f 71ild&en 6!&n in wedl!7< and 6!&n ! !f wedl!7< is a6!lis1ed and 1e
&elai!ns1i !f a&en and 71ild and <ind&ed &elai!ns1is fl!win# 1e&ef&!m s1all 6e
dee&mined f!& 1e &!ses !f 1e 7!mm!n law in a77!&dan7e wi1 1is se7i!n )5
S *.(0 P&esmi!ns !f ae&ni = nless 1e 7!n&a& is &!$en !n COP9 1e&e is a
&esmi!n 1a a male e&s!n is9 and 1e s1all 6e &e7!#nied in law ! 6e9 1e fa1e& !f a71ild in an !ne !f 1e f!ll!win# 7i&7msan7es: )5
(> T1e e&s!n is ma&&ied ! 1e m!1e& !f 1e 71ild a 1e ime !f 1e 6i&1 !f 1e 71ild>
)5
,> T1e e&s!n was ma&&ied ! 1e m!1e& !f 1e 71ild 6 a ma&&ia#e 1a was e&minaed 6
dea1 !& ;d#men !f nlli wi1in 3-- das 6ef!&e 1e 6i&1 !f 1e 71ild !& 6 di$!&7e w1e&e
1e de7&ee ns was #&aned wi1in 3-- das 6ef!&e 1e 6i&1 !f 1e 71ild> )5
3> T1e e&s!n ma&&ies 1e m!1e& !f 1e 71ild afe& 1e 6i&1 !f 1e 71ild and a7<n!wled#es
1a 1e is 1e na&al fa1e&> )5
32 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
7!& less li<el ! im!se %S !6li#ai!ns !n s!& a&en f!& 71ild w disa6ili .if 6i!
a&en is in$!l$ed9 1e &es!nden is n! a &ima& 7a&e#i$e&9 1e&e 1e 71ild&en 1ad a nann0
)
" alied f!& de7la&ai!n 1a W s!!d in l!7! a&enis ! , s!ns .!ne 1ad 7e&e6&al als9
!1e& 1ad 6e1a$i!&al &!6lems0 f&!m &e$ &elai!ns1i "eld: W was n! l!7! a&enis
nde& s ,.,0 6K7 s1e w!ld 1en 7a&& s!& !6li#ai!ns f!& &es !f ( 71ild2s na&al life
)@
Ion#man v Beau$eu IB!A (cohabtng s"ouses)F -e$%+ In l!7! a&enis is 1e same 1&ased
sed 6 DA9 1e&ef!&e %1a&e& &in7iles al ! dee&minai!n !f w1e1e& &es!nden is in
l!7! a&enis> %& will n! se$e& P%R w1e&e i is 7!n&a& ! CI% in 4esi!n )@
!heng v !heng !AF FLA d!es n! e87lde PS as e&s!ns w1! mi#1 6e &es!nsi6le f!&
s!& !f 71ild&en9 assmin# 1e a&e si#nifi7anl in$!l$ed w 71ild&en9 and ma 6e ;!ined
! a f!& %S s!& )@
C<RA % ss+ 4" 5" 8" and s+ 1." Maternity and Paternity -e#larations____________________________8
PART II /STACLIS"M/NT OF PAR/NTA/________________________________)*S 3 = %!& nde& ss> ! @ T1e 7!& 1a$in# ;&isdi7i!n f!& 1e &!ses !f se7i!ns ! @ is9
)*
.a0 1e Famil %!&9 in 1e a&eas w1e&e i 1as ;&isdi7i!n nde& s6se7i!n ,(>( .0 !f
1e !ourts o Oustce Act .60 1e Se&i!& %!& !f ?si7e9 in 1e &es !f Ona&i!> )*
S .(0 G Pae&ni and mae&ni de7la&ai!ns An e&s!n 1a$in# an ine&es ma al ! a
7!& f!& a de7la&ai!n 1a a male e&s!n is &e7!#nied in law ! 6e 1e fa1e& !f a 71ild !&
1a a female e&s!n is 1e m!1e& !f a 71ild> .N!e AA CC %% G PP ma 6e in$!<ed !de7la&e a e&s!n a ,nd m!1e&0 )*
S .,0 De7la&ai!n !f ae&ni &e7!#nied a law = W1e&e 1e 7!& finds 1a a &esmi!n
!f ae&ni e8iss nde& se7i!n * and nless i is esa6lis1ed9 !n 1e 6alan7e !f &!6a6iliies9
1a 1e &esmed fa1e& is n! 1e fa1e& !f 1e 71ild9 1e 7!& s1all ma<e a de7la&a!&
!&de& 7!nfi&min# 1a 1e ae&ni is &e7!#nied in law> )*
S .30De7la&ai!n !f mae&ni = W1e&e 1e 7!& finds !n 1e 6alan7e !f &!6a6iliies 1a
1e &elai!ns1i !f m!1e& and 71ild 1as 6een esa6lis1ed9 1e 7!& ma ma<e a de7la&a!&
!&de& ! 1a effe7 )*
S .0 Idem = S6;e7 ! SS =@9 an !&de& made nde& 1is se7 s1all 6e &e7!#nied f!& all
&!ses> )*
S 5.(0 Ali7ai!n f!& de7la&ai!n !f ae&ni w1e&e n! &esmi!n W1e&e 1e&e is n!
e&s!n &e7!#nied in law nde& se7i!n * ! 6e 1e fa1e& !f a 71ild9 an e&s!n ma al !1e 7!& f!& a de7la&ai!n 1a a male e&s!n is 1is !& 1e& fa1e&9 !& an male e&s!n ma
al ! 1e 7!& f!& a de7la&ai!n 1a a e&s!n is 1is 71ild> )*
S 5.,0 Limiai!n = An ali7ai!n s1all n! 6e made nde& s6se7i!n .(0 nless 6!1 1e
e&s!ns w1!se &elai!ns1i is s!#1 ! 6e esa6lis1ed a&e li$in#> )*
S 5.30 De7la&a!& !&de& = W1e&e 1e 7!& finds !n 1e 6alan7e !f &!6a6iliies 1a 1e
&elai!ns1i !f fa1e& and 71ild 1as 6een esa6lis1ed9 1e 7!& ma ma<e a de7la&a!& !&de&
! 1a effe7 and9 s6;e7 ! se7i!ns and @9 1e !&de& s1all 6e &e7!#nied f!& all &!ses>
)*
s (-.(0 = Lea$e f!& 6l!!d ess and DNA = On 1e ali7ai!n !f a a& in a 7i$il &!7eedin# in
w1i71 1e 7!& is 7alled !n ! dee&mine a 71ildHs a&ena#e9 1e 7!& ma #i$e 1e a&
lea$e ! !6ain 6l!!d ess !& DNA ess !f 1e e&s!ns w1! a&e named in 1e !&de& #&anin#
lea$e and ! s6mi 1e &esls in e$iden7e> )*S (-.0 Infe&en7e f&!m &efsal If a e&s!n named in an !&de& nde& s6se7i!n .(0 &efses !
s6mi ! 1e 6l!!d es !& DNA es9 1e 7!& ma d&aw s71 infe&en7es as i 1in<s
a&!&iae )*
=e =han an% &nsonneau$t (19,9) = )*
Fa7!&s f!& 7!nside&ai!n in ma<in# a s (-.(0 dee&minai!n_________________________)*
We&e ali7an and &es!nden ma&&ied a ime 1e 71ild !& 71ild&en we&e 6!&n____)*
Did a&ies 7!1a6i in a %ML &elai!ns1i !f s!me d&ai!n w1i71 ime !& s1!&l
1e&eafe& a 71ild was 6!&n____________________________________________________)*
34 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
.a0 ! esa6lis1 a fai& sanda&d !f s!& f!& 71ild&en 1a ens&es 1a 1e 6enefi f&!m 1e
finan7ial means !f 1ei& a&ens and9 in 1e 7ase !f di$!&7e9 f&!m 1e finan7ial means !f 6!1
s!ses afe& sea&ai!n (-,
.60 ! &ed7e 7!nfli7 and ensi!n 6eween a&ens !& s!ses 6 ma<in# 1e 7al7lai!n !f
71ild s!& m!&e !6;e7i$e (-,
.70 ! im&!$e 1e effi7ien7 !f 1e le#al &!7ess 6 #i$in# 7!&s9 and a&ens and s!ses9
#idan7e in sein# 1e le$els !f 71ild s!& and en7!&a#in# selemen and (-,
Am!n !f %1ild S!&__________________________________________________(-,s 3.(0P&esmi$e &le nless !1e&wise &!$ided nde& 1ese #idelines9 1e am!n !f an
!&de& f!& 1e s!& !f a 71ild f!& 71ild&en nde& 1e a#e !f ma;!&i is9______________(-,(a) the amount set out n the a""$cab$e tab$e+ accor%ng to the number o ch$%ren un%er the
age o maGort to ;hom the or%er re$ates an% the ncome o the "arent or s"ouse aganst
;hom the or%er s sought> an% __________________________________________________(-,
(b) the amount+ an+ %etermne% un%er secton ,@ _________________________________(-,
S 3.,0%1ild 1e a#e !f ma;!&i !& !$e&__________________________________________(-,
nless !1e&wise &!$ided nde& 1ese #idelines9 w1e&e a 71ild ! w1!m an !&de& f!& 1e
s!& !f a 71ild &elaes is 1e a#e !f ma;!&i !& !$e&9 1e am!n !f an !&de& f!& 1e
s!& !f a 71ild is9__________________________________________________________(-,
.a0 1e am!n dee&mined 6 alin# 1ese #idelines as if 1e 71ild we&e nde& 1e a#e
• Wrght v Raver 2002 !A # does not diminish a bio father;s obligation for C#6 #
focuses on person who stands in place of parent Ehe obligation to pay C# is not related to the
right access & must be determined according to 9.C" Bomestic 3 can be set aside in relation to
C# obligations if not in 9.C6______________________________________________________'F2• !orne$o v !orne$o 2008 S! : relies on Gane Boe " Ehe mista,en belief must be balanced
w 9.C " 1ista,en belief as to being a biological father of a child does not negate a finding that the
party has demonstrated a settled intention to be a parent6______________________________'F2
• BB v B!& 2005 (3A s 1) Betermination of settled intent turns on whether the relationship
that e=ist ? time that the fam was functioning as a unit to separation was one in which father
treated child as his own_________________________________________________________'F2
• =ght to !S s the rght o a ch$% an% s n%e"en%ent o a "arents o;n con%uct % whether it
be delay in pursuing support% an attempt to 3 out of support Gane Boe!or the failure to disclose
an e=tramarital affair that may have led to the conception of the child6 Aather is a social parent%
W1e&e a a&en !& s!se e8e&7ises a &i#1 !f a77ess !9 !& 1as 1si7al 7s!d !f9 a 71ildf!& n! less 1an - e& 7en !f 1e ime !$e& 1e 7!&se !f a ea&9 1e am!n !f 1e !&de&
f!& 1e s!& !f a 71ild ms 6e dee&mined 6 a<in# in! a77!n9________________(-
.a0 1e am!ns se ! in 1e ali7a6le a6les f!& ea71 !f 1e a&ens !& s!ses______(-
.60 1e in7&eased 7!ss !f s1a&ed 7s!d a&&an#emens and________________________(-
.70 1e 7!ndii!n9 means9 needs and !1e& 7i&7msan7es !f ea71 a&en !& s!se and !f
an 71ild f!& w1!m s!& is s!#1>___________________________________________(-
38 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• 33 v !! F Ehe court held that when deciding C# obligations% the hours spent in care of each
parent should be considered% not minutes &seconds6 Aather payer did not meet 4FS threshold% so
was re$uired to pay amount according to tables 6# D only ta,es effect w shared parenting if parent
has child for 4FS of the time6_____________________________________________________'F4
• B$$ar# v B$$ar# 1998F school and sleep time may be e=cluded from calculation_________'F4
• =osat v De$$a"enta (199,)F in determining calculation% court may have prefer to nature &
$uality of time spent by each parent________________________________________________'F4
• 3eone$$7!ontno v !onto 2005 S!= 21: how to assess s D support obligations:_______'F4
'! Determne sm"$e set o amt under s D0! of each parent;s table amount for < of child involved
in shared custody arrangement"___________________________________________________'F42! =eve; !h$% E"ense Bu%gets: crts must loo, at all e=penses of both parents based upon
S (- nde 1a&ds1i_________________________________________________________(-
(-> .(0 On 1e ali7ai!n !f ei1e& s!se !& an ali7an nde& se7i!n 33 !f 1e A79 a
7!& ma awa&d an am!n !f 71ild s!& 1a is diffe&en f&!m 1e am!n dee&mined
nde& an !f se7i!ns 3 ! 59 * !& ) if 1e 7!& finds 1a 1e a&en !& s!se ma<in# 1e
&e4es9 !& a 71ild in &ese7 !f w1!m 1e &e4es is made9 w!ld !1e&wise sffe& nde1a&ds1i>___________________________________________________________________(-
.,0%i&7msan7es 1a ma 7ase a a&en9 s!se !& 71ild ! sffe& nde 1a&ds1i
W1e&e 1e 7!& ma<es an !&de& f!& 1e s!& !f a 71ild in a diffe&en am!n nde& 1is
se7i!n9 i ms &e7!&d is &eas!ns f!& d!in# s!____________________________________(-5 Schm% v Smth 1999 S! : Crt dismisses application b/c he finds HH ratio of > is lower than
that of H applicant H supports ' child% has 5 vehicle not incl in income" > has to support 2
PART I: LAW AND FAMILY FORMATION“Families” and “Law”Parenspatriae
it refers to the public policy power of state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parentlegal guar!ian or infor"al careta#er an! to act as the parent of any chil! or in!ivi!ual who is innee! of protection
Seftn
!ldin"s#$airns
%&'(() *FLR&+'
,-n"$A$i#Di#.
$a"ilial approach what fa" ought to be% &f she is vulnerable she shoul! be supporte! by the'tate% (onse)uences of the !ecision not consi!ere! in *u!icial analysis
$acts+ P is lan!lor! of the pre"ises at issue who lease! it to a ,r - bt.w 1939/41 an! ,r - !ie!in 1965% is !aughter !a succee!e! to tenancy in 1965 who !ie! in 1986% ,s ( ca"e tolive w - fa"ily in 1941 at 23 years of age% er bf ha! !ie! in the war an! both her parents ha!!ie!% ,r ,rs - treate! P as their own !aughter who calle! the" ,o an! Pop% fter !a !ie! Pserve! ! with notice to )uit% clai"s she is entitle! to re"ain on in house as stat tenant
Issue+ &s a statutory tenant un!er governing statute hat is stat "eaning of fa"ily hereRati: T/e de0nitin f 1famil21 re34ires a 5radl2 re6"nisa5le defa6t familial ne74s t/r4"/ marria"e8 adptin f a minr ,de 94re rde fa6t.8 r w/ere t/e lin is 1step18 r w/ere t/e lin is 1in;law1 52marria"e< Tw stran"ers 6annt arti06iall2 esta5lis/ fam ne74sAnalysis+ !a an! regar!e! each other as sisters but is legally a strange% % cannot beregar!e! as being a "e"ber by !e facto a!option b.c )uestion is whether she was "e"ber of
!as fa" not -s fa"% o prece!ent of ent ct protecting a!ult a!option Conclusion+ ppealallowe! ,rs ( is not a stat tenant b.c she !oes not fall w. stat "eaning of fa"
41 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Familial approach -Facts+ , an! $ cohabitees enter into !o" stipulating that P has neither parental rights nor anyobligation to support chil! of who" he is not the bio father% : i"pregnate! via &%Issue+ &s !o" legally enforceable
Rati: A dm B t/at indemni0es partner f a parent in an intimaterelatins/ip a"ainst parental r s4pprt 5li"atins in re: t a 6/ildt/at partner did nt 5i parent 4nenfr6ea5le if nt in CI$<Analysis+ (a) s challenge constitutionality of ss 53 85/6 of $; ct which per"its a court tooverri!e agree"ents entere! into w regar! to parenting incl (s obligations(b) not legally enforceable b.c ,s e<press intention is not !ispositive is "erely a factor to
!eter"ine if he is in loco parentis% =c> '' !o not engage s 7 b.c s 7 !oes not apply to purelyecono"ic rights? not a personal fun!a"ental right which is what s 7 protects ,() ' 48 !ef ofparent incls person stan!ing in place of a parentif person was in a relationship of inter!epen!ence of so"e per"anence w "other%%%of chil! an has !e"onstrate! a settle! intention to treat chil! as person@s own chil!>% (e) applies Chartieranalysis A ,s sub*ective intent not to assu"e a parental role will inevitably yiel! to the nee!s=not "erely the physical nee!s> of the chil! in the sa"e househol! otherwise chil! woul! li#elysuffer har" perception of parental figure is a s 48 factor (!) Public policy arguably !oes notenforceability of !o" in light of B&( ,("> chil!s interests not represente!
$riti34e f=ane De
o assess"ent of relationship bt.w :ohn oe an! chil!ights an! responsibilities in relation to the chil! an! new partner "ay still arise !espite clearevi!ence of intention to abstain fro" !efault i"position of rights an! responsibilitiesPolicy i"plications A people hesitate to for" new relations where new partner has a chil! %C:
any "other li#e her / woul! be at ris# of losing her e<clusive parental rights si"ply by virtue ofcohabiting with a partner regar!less nature of relationship bt. hi" chil!%
Residential s6/l s2s A e"oving $ chil!ren fro" fa"ilies an! placing into e!uinstituions$/inese immi"rants ; prohibitively e<pensive1885 hea! ta< i"pose! on (hinesei""igrants so "any "en i""igrating left their wives behin! in (hina&'&+ le" A re)uiring every ' i""igrant have su" of D200 an! therefore !isrupte! fa"s
=apanese internment 6amps whereby "en an! ol!er boys were separate! in wor#ca"ps fro" wo"en an! chil!ren were relocate! to !ifferent enca"p"ents$ntra6t4al dmesti6 wrers per"itte! to i""igrate to (ana!a an! leavingfa"ilies in ho"e countries for "any years =Blac# (aribbean an! $ilipina wo"en>la6 f re6"nitin f "a2 and les5ian famil2 relatins/ips until late 20th century
$anada,Attrne2eneral. #Mssp%&''?) S$R
&ssue+ &s '' partner entitle! to EspousalE bereave"ent leave to atten! the funeral of his partner@sfather!eld: SSP was not entitled to spousal bereavement In order to define "family status", it is no error to examine the underlying families so that ...actual families, rather than theoretical stereotypes, may enjoy their protected status" (Lisa R Zimmer)
42 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
"arriage certificate"arriage by officer withauthority
vali! "arriage re)uires that the parties "eetthe following si< (,; criteria accor!ing to theseco""on law re)uire"ents =as a"en!e! byParlia"ent> F the provincial sole"niGationre)uire"ents parties "ust+
&< 5e J* persnsJ ; !2de n
ln"er applies*< /a#e 6apa6it2 t 6nsent tt/e marria"e8 i<e< ; t4nderstand8 t 5e free frmd4ress E wK tain" a664ntf reser#atins a54t rlimited p4rpses fmarria"e<
?< /a#e 6apa6it2 t6ns4mmate t/e marria"e<
< nt 5e wKin pr/i5itedde"rees f 6nsan"4init2
and anit2 ,as de0ned 5stat4te see left.@< m4st nt 5e a partner t an
e7istin" #alid marria"e < < T/e parties m4st /a#e
attained t/e a"e re34iredfr a #alid marria"e
44 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
,D4t6/ # D4t6/ ,&'>>. $MLmarria"e des nt /a#ele"al imprt e76ept asde0ned in sme stat4tes.54t ma2 e7ist w/ereA5ri"inal peples marr2in a66rdin" t 64stmar2pra6ti6es 54t wK6mpl2in" wit/ stat4tr2re34irements
,Berr # Berr A f AC # nderwdS$R. Pr# a4t/ e7tends tle"islatin" a re34irement fparental 6nsent asslemniatin re3<
Ann4lment G marria"e ne#ere7isted a5sent ne rmre re34isite 6riteriaa5#e ,t2pi6all2 s4"/t ta#id reli"i4s pr5lems.
Di#r6e G dissl4tin f e7istin" #alidmarria"e t
esta5lis/ a di#r6e a6tin8 ne m4stpr#e Jmarria"e 5readwnJ4nder DA
SS marria"e G Parliamentar2 refrm f ppsite se7 re34irement!alpern #
$anada
,A.,*++*.
Issue' oes (,; opposite se< re)uire"ent contravene s 15 of (harterCA+ clai"ants were the sub*ect of !ifferential treat"ent b.c (,; "arriage !ef creates afor"al !istinction bt.w opposite se< '' couples on the basis of orientation contravene!s 15 of (harter not save! by s 1
Important *uotes+Procreation is an untenable basis for institution of "arriage "arriage not !epen!ent uponthe presence of chil!ren? or incapacity or an unwillingness to have chil!ren nor is it a barto "arriage or a groun! for !ivorce%%% ,arriage is %characteriGe! by pivotal chil! rearing role %%% atten!ant obligations an!offerings of "utual care an! support of co"panionship an! shares social activities ofintellectual an! "oral an! faith base! sti"ulation as a couple of share! shelter econan! psychological inter!epen!ence A in!icia of purposes of "arriage in ( society
SSRef eren6e
'pea#s to anachronic !ef of "arriage in y!e(para 22)+y!e spo#e to a society of share! social values where "arriage religion werethought to be inseparable no longer the case% (ana!a is a pluralistic society% 'tate policyis "arriage is a civil institution% our (onstitution is a living tree which by way ofprogressive interpretation acco""o!ates an! a!!ress the realities of "o!ern lifeH(rejects frozen reasoning principle)
$ni6tin"Laws SSMarria"e
S 5(1) desi"ned t permit 64ples ,mainl2 SS 64ples. w/married in a $anadian pr#in6e t 5tain a di#r6e int/at same pr#in6e (S 5(2))retra6ti#e
S 7(1) SS parties 6an appl2 fr di#r6e 9intl2 r ne sp4se w6nsent f t/er part2 4nder $MA if separate and apartin t/eir /me 94risdi6tin,s. fr ne 2ear ,s< >,&..
DA does not apply to couples divorce under Civil Marriage Act (s ) inC!A
Criti"ue ; n pr#isin fr rders fr 6rllar2 relief in relatin ta di#r6e8 lea#in" t/ese iss4es t 5e ne"tiateda66rdin" t 94risdi6tin f t/e partiesH dmi6ile<
$riti34e•
By buying into this institution they lost the ability to re!efine inti"ate a!ult relationships• Iseful !evelop"ent for govern"ents that !o not want to provi!e support for fa"ily
Iss4es a54t 6apa6it2 t 6nsent t marria"e : #ental capacity(implie unerlyin" presumption o! marria"e) party ill be consiere not toha$e capacity i! spouse has mental illness or iminishe mental capacity /est nus on partyassertin" that 1 spouse lac0s capacity test is person is capable o! unerstanin" the nature o!the uties responsibilities that it creates it
45 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
uress an! un!ue influence in relation to consent A onus lies on party see#ing annul"ent to establish onBFP that a party lac#s consent by showing if "in! of party in )uestion was so overco"e by oppressionso as to constitute an absence of free choice? (onsi!er all circu"stances
• A"e8 mat4rit28 and emtinal state E #4lnera5ilit2 f part2 in 34estin
• $ns4mmatin f marria"e8 6/a5itatin 5tKw parties Q
• Time perid 5tKw ,&. 6nd46t alle"ed as d4ress E marria"e 6eremn28 ,*.marria"e E ann4lment re34est
• P/2si6al fr6e r t/reat f p/2si6al fr6e is nt re34ired(onsent an! li"ite! purpose "arriage &f parties "arry for the li"ite! purpose of a non/citiGen ac)uiring
i""igration status in (ana!a they will be regar!e! as "arrie! for purposes of fa"ily law sub*ect toi""igrant sanctions =li#e !eportation>=&antsis v Papatheo!orou>
46 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
sues for an annul"ent on groun! that "arriage was invali! b.c lac#e! capacity at ti"e ofprocee!ings hopelessly insane el!+ ha! capacity J ti"e of "arriage gave consent
Webb vW ebb(
1968
)
party "ay be consi!ere! to have proce!ural capacity to consent even absent capacity to!ischarge responsibilities flowing fro" "arriage? 2 schiGophrenic patients in ' hosp "arrie!an! per"anently separate! when year after chil! was born
Banton vBant on
( 1998)
Kl!erly "an an! young waitress in his nursing ho"e "arry% (hil!ren contest vali!ity of"arriage on basis of lac# of capacity el!erly "an ha! been !eclare! financially inco"petent%e ha! capacity to "arry but not "a#e will A ,una e<ercise! un!ue influence
re SungEst at
e( 2004
)
octor testifie! 'ung !i! not have capacity in Banton A sai! he probably !i! un!erstan!capacity of !ecision to "arry but no presu"ption of capacity to "a#e a will =reliance on e<pertevi!ence>
47 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
$aselaw; $apa6it2 t 6nsent in relatin t 4nd4e in4en6e andd4ress
Scott vSebrgh
t
nue in!luence test is subecti$e, not obecti$e% threatene! to shoot if she suggeste!at cere"ony she was not acting freely "arriage was annulle! few "onths later
!oo"er v!r ane
Lest is "i<e! ob*ective/sub*ective test? marria"e hel as $ali wo"an !i! not un!erstan!what she was !oing or that her powers of volition were paralyGe!%
Buc#$an%v Buc
#$an%
5el+ Consent $itiate by uress usban! agree! to "arriage b.c of his Mreasonablyentertaine!C fears reasonably entertaine!? arose fro" e<ternal circu"stances for which he wasnot responsible / Mfalsely charge!C for corrupting a "inor i"pregnate! of ,altese fa"ily
S(A) v. S(A)nonphysicalduress
5el' Consent o! au"hter, party see0in" annulment, o$erborne by pressure o! anonphysical nature that parents impose, ho sou"ht to obtain bene!it !rom marria"e =ha! left (ana!a an! they never consu""ate! "arriage>
48 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
5el' ife lac#e! capacity to consent strongly pressure! by s parents to "arry after havingse<ual relations ages 15 19 % er only ho"e at the ti"e was that of s
*hom"sonv * hom
"
son+19,1
5el' #arria"e as $ali, not vitiate! by pressure of "other an! urging of % ,arriage wasconsu""ate! reluctantly but P; => was not "e"ber of vulnerable class
-.ran v-r a
n1982/ !
A
5el' #arria"e as in$ali, Parents arrange! for to "arry in!u who ha! wante! to "arrya ,usli"% /est' 6arty lac0s capacity to consent here threats or pressure is such as toestroy the reality o! consent an o$erbears ill o! ini$iual
ote onarr
ange%v s o
ifference bt.w social cultural or parental pressures vs legal re)uire"ent of !uress + fearcause! by threat of i""e!iate !anger to life li"b or liberty
49 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Re34irements G 6ns4mmatin8 n prir s45sistin" marria"epr/i5ited de"rees f 6nsan"4init28 a"e 8
• $apa6it2 t 6ns4mmate t/e marria"e ; test n ln"er applied8
in6nsistent w mdern $DN law
• Pr/i5ited de"rees f 6nsan"4init2 ,see Pr/i5ited De"rees A6t. ;Persns nw permitted t marr2 relati#es ; a4nt8 4n6le8 nie6e8nep/ew relatins/ips f anit2 ; ma2 marr2 fam mem5ers f a di#sp4se8 step;relatins/ips
• N prir s45sistin" marria"e
• in case o# spouse disappearing8 S 6an 5e de6lared as dead fr p4rpses fremarr2in" ; (Dec$aratons o Death Act )
• Polygamy CC$ s 2%? G 6riminal en6e t /a#e a marria"e r 6n94"al 4ninw mre t/an & persn same time
A"e and #alidit2 f marria"e ; Matter f frmalit28 wit/in pr#in6iala4t/rit2
3egebe#ov3egebo#o
5el' #arria"e as $ali =long perio! of cohabitation> petitione! for annul"ent b.cshe was only 15 at the ti"e of religious cere"ony con!ucte!% ;ive! tog 16 yrs 3 #i!sen%
A$s"ector v A$s "ector195,
5el' 7eclaration o! marria"e $ali accorin" to s 31 #A. "arriage cere"onyre)uire"ents of :ewish faith but they !i! not obtain licence b.c they !i! not believe itwas necessary though was tol! it was re)uire!% Lheir intention was to live in &srael %Lhey live! in F for 7 years !ie! for trial inten!e! to live together in &srael%
Debora vDebor a(1999)
!A
5el' %* calculation !rom ate o! $ali marria"e. 6roceurally in$ali marria"e inot count, s 31. Parties "arrie! in cere"ony that they #new !i! not co"ply w ,% Lhey"arrie! 7 yrs later in vali! cere"ony% (re! )uestion
.sse v Sa%2012+!A
5el' 89s e$ience isclose intention to ha$e a $ali marria"e accorin" to la, thus a $ali marria"e pursuant to s 31 o! the Marriage Act . /he court alsohel that the parties ere :spouses; !or purposes o! the %* pro$s o! F<ABoth parties agree! to have an &sla"ic we!!ing cere"ony #nowingly w.o "arriagelicense that "arriage was not registere! in Fntario% ore tra! we!!ing !ress
50 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Trans"ender marria"e• ,Re Be#in in A4stralia .;egal !efinition of "an incls post operative $ to , transse<ual an! is
recogniGe! for purposes of !eclaring vali!ity of "arriage =I' only recogniGe! opposite se< "arriages>• ,$r5ett # $r5ett. -en!er an! se< is !efine! at birth an! is unchangeable =overrule! in I per
K( 812>
ParentK$/ild Relatins/ips re Famil2 Frmatinparenthoo is !ore$er !or so lon" as parent an chil e&ist.for"ation of Mfa"iliesC in relation to the creation of parent/chil! relationships create! in the absence of arecogniGe! con*ugal relationship between two people
• Biological relationship• By operation of law fa" relationship create! bt.w a!optive chil! parent an! bio P( is
e<tinguishe!• ssiste! repro!uction arrange"ents / legal uncertainty in this area since
• neman7s "ro"osa$ to ma#e the motherch$% bon% the "rmar bassor :am$ status; n $a< v% the inti"ate a!ult relationship os not consi!er Malternative
fa"s where there is no E"otherE within a parent/chil! relationship =chil!/gran!father chil!/father.father>
Cirt/ re"istratin ; fat/er /as ri"/ts t p4t name in 5irt/re"istratin frms
Tr6i4 # Critis/ $l4m5ia ,Attrne2 eneral. %*++?) & S$R (?@ ,s4pprtsa4tnm2. 6apa6it2 t mae de6isin a54t /w ne meanin"f4ll2parti6ipates in t/e life f ne1s wn 6/ild
Familialapproach
Kngage! rights of the father with respect to giving consent for a!option so he is per"itte! to registerhis na"e reaffir"s P( Presu"ption / both parents involve! "ust be in B&(ote' Father rarely e&ercise ri"ht to access
$acts L K are parents of triplets% (hil!ren@s "other registere! the birth an! "ar#e! father asunac#nowle!ge! by the "other an! registere! their surna"e as hers alone% ' 3=6>=b> preclu!e!father fro" altering registration %(ouple cohabite! for short perio!s of ti"e beca"e estrange! afterchil!ren@s birth% L petitione !or ' orer to compel => irector to re"ister his name as !ather onbirth re"istration !orms, to chan"e surname o! chilren to %rnst-/orciu0, relyin" on 66, > 1?challen"e o! s 31 o! =>A on "rounso! se& iscrimination
nalysis Provs allow per" e<clusion of a father@s particulars for" birth registration if a "other for any or no
reason chooses to unac#nowle!ge! hi" an! preclu!e hi" fro" altering particulars thereby toe<clu!e hi" fro" process of !eter"ining surna"e of his chil!ren =no recourse provi!e! for father>
!ecision &eld' ater is entitled to register is name as #ater on birt registration #orms$new trial to determine name cange (cildren already *now teir name$not necessarily in +,C)
S -(1)(b) and -(.)(b) were invalid b/c tey in#ringed s 15$ not saved by s 1 $drawing e0plicit distinction on enumerated ground o# se0 and tat tisdistinction gives rise to dierential treatment cildren3s name notcanged$ contrary to +,C
Criti"ue ;oo#s at for"al vs substantive e)uality b.c "erely status if bio relationship is what establishes L as afather for purposes for being allowe! to put his na"e on the birth registration%(ase is si"ilar to scenario so"eone has contribute! genetic "aterial an! wants that geneticconnection to be recogniGe! at law%ature of relationship bt.w K L s "uch "ore co""on that '(( "ight have
Gallant v Lewis 2008 ONSC G PP= is in#ed t "rant appli6atin f fat/ert /2p/enate 6/ildrenHs last name t in6l4de /is 5K6 6nsidered t 5e inCI$< nlie Tr6i48 dad e7er6ised a66ess dail2%$+ ,u" registere! chil! in her own na"e% Parents !ate! in pr 2006 cohabite! in Fct 2006 separate!in ec chil! born in 2007% $ather continue! to e<ercise access !aily% ,other oppose! application on
51 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
basis she was pri"ary caregiver an! that chil! live! with her%
-S # DL$ *++@ SB; $A denies a66ess rder 5K6 /e is nt a parent< T$Hsde6isin 4nderpinned 52 ass4mptins a54t a "d dad8 i<e< nntraditinal famil2 4nit
$acts , not in an inti"ate relationship , refuses to provi!e sper" for wo"an for but "anpai! part of her treat"ent% tten!e! prenatal classes present when twins were born% Bio "othereventually !enies hi" access% , applies for access or!er
L( accepte! evi!ence that , twins constitute a non tra! fa" unit an! there was ane"otional benefit to chil!ren "aintaining relationship w. "an ,other appeale!
( ppeal allowe! "an was "ore than a babysitter "uch less than a parent
Adptin and “5est interests”$nte7t !option laws historically pre"ise! on co"plete eli"ination of biological P( e<t% fa"ily
!option statutes enacte! to + =1> avoi! stig"a of illegiti"acy =2>for chil!less couples =inclstepparents in blen!e! fa"s>
$4rrentappra6/
!option or!ers in B&( chil! pro"ote "ore openness =aly> ? ;egislation still contains highlysecret historical antece!ents har#en bac# to earlier for"s of a!option legislaiton
Pr6ess 1% In$oluntary aoption / flowing fro" (' re"oval% parents@ rights are eventuallye<tinguishe! chil! eligible for a!option
2% =oluntary / ,u" an! !a! "ust give infor"e! written consent a!option or!er e<tinguishesparental rights
$nsent $FSA8 s &@ *,5. E &@>,&. G $nsent E Pli62 "als6rimary "oal is the best interests protection an! well being of chil!rensubsiiary policy "oal A to #eep fa" unit together encourage parents to loo# after chil!ren onthe basis of "utual consent
Stat4tr2Re"ime
s 1-7' Consent to adopt (and de4nition o# parent6 #or consent purposes)Consent o# cild3s moter e0pressly included or o# #ater i# under C8A (1)
(copied into statutory provisions) i# #ater does not #all into s (1)ten 9: rigt to give consent
s 1-.(2) ;e best interests o# te cild6 test #or adoptions 1-.(-) ;e best interests o# te cild6 test #or adoption o# an Aboriginal
cilds 1<- ;ermination o# access orders #or an adopted cilds 15 Status o# an adopted cild and adoptive parentss 1<5=1(-) !isclosure arrangements' openness6
Re Attrne2 eneral f Ontari and Ne#ins ,&'((. OR ,*d. ?&& ,!$.
$ ,other gave consent to a!option or!er =then 139 now 137> swore by affi!avit that father was nonparent% Bio father !i! not contact bio "other so"e until *ust before a!option or!er% L: raisesconstitutionality issue of prov
& &s s 139 now s 137=1> of ('$ constitutionally vali! &s bio fathers consent re)uire! to e<ecutea!option or!er
' 138 &nclu!es all biological "others w.in !efinition of parent but e<clu!es biological fathers unless theyhave "arrie! or cohabite! with "other or ac#nowle!ge! parent or otherwise !e"onstrate!responsibility for the chil!
L: + violate! s 15=1> of (harter iv (t+ !i! not violate! s 15 if so save! by s 1
52 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
L: conclusion !rawn fro" e<pert evi!ence / @s have ability to support infant through any i!entity crisisshe "ight face in teenage years% =usban! is ,Ntis>&n!ian heritage an! culture was an i"portant factor but !uration an! strength of her attach"ent to was "ore i"portantLhe closer the !eveloping bon! bt.w prospective parents the less i"portant race beco"es
! # M %&''') S$R & S$R ?*( G S$$ awarded 64std2 f FN 6/ild t adpti#eparents f /is 5irt/ mt/er 8 re#ersin" T= de6isin8 6n6l4din" t/at $A
s/4ld nt interfere wit/ T= 0ndin" 4nless #erridin" E palpa5le errr$acts !optive !aughter of white "erican parents was boriginal% 'he visite! her birth fa" in
Oancouver% fter chil!s birth she "ove! to Oan with son an! live! in ho"e of bio father an! otherfa" "e"bers A poor on social assistance% !optive parents initiate custo!y action for youngson% By ti"e case arrive! at '(( chil! ha! been with $ fa" for 4 years>
Lhe B&( principle "a!e the white a!optive parents the legal parents of the boriginal chil!
Assisted Reprd46tin and Parent/dComparing
adoption
> A8
• (reate non/biological parent relationships
• Aoption is a use!ul comparator law establishes non/biological P(s e<cept !istintivein cases of anony"ous !onors
•
A A process brings a chil! into e<istence ta#es place in "e!ical clinic involves s &vs% A legally regulate! chil! is alrea!y born sub*ect to investigaton• ee !or le"al re"ulation ffects parental autono"y nee! to regulate conflict at
brea#!own ? ;aw !oes not conte"plate situations involving two or "ore parents• A"ainst re"ulation / epro!uctive "aterial is so special that shoul! not be
co""o!itise! co""ercialiGe! or transferre! for consi!eration
:8C report Parties "ust enter into to use "ust be approve! by F to be enforceable%
1% +aby M • o"an believe! she coul! not gestate so her an! enter into of surrogacy with ,aryBeth hitehea!% t birth ,B refuses to give up chil!
• "eld (li#e Jane $oe) (ouple try to enforce % (ourt hel! is unenforceable but it is inB&( to chil! w wealthy couple vs% ,B =poor !rug a!!iction>
%-$ 8oyalCommission
eco""en!ations / cri"inaliGing co""ercial surrogacy arrange"ents no P' of eggsan! sper" gestational "other as "other for legal purposes approach re)uiring a!option
by intentional non/biological parent
2??<$ 2?11A&8A$largeparto#Actinvalid
o buying or selling sper" or eggs in (ana!a / illegalou can have surrogacy arrange"ents but cannot be pai! for / illegal
esearch / suggests that concerns that co""ercial surrogacy will lea! to co""o!ification e<ploitation that wo"en cannot give "eaningful consent to such arrange"ents havenot been realiGe! in countries where co""% surrogacy is lawful
2??% report$:9o legislation in F to fill in legislative gaps unli#e B Q( an! B(eport fin!ing / nee! to review Mthe process for establishing parentage to acco""o!ateassiste! repro!uction services%C
!onors %no&n v un#no&n is#s = ,arotta> vs% Benefits =#nowle!ge of i!entity healthhistory of !onor / coul! arrange for so"e care>
+C A 'tat !efinition of parent in !iff conte<tss 24(1) / !onor who provi!e! hu"an repro!uctive "aterial or an e"bryo for pro!uctionof chil! chil! is born the !onor Mis not by reason only of the !onation the chil!s parent%Cs 2B(2) provi!es that the chil!s birth "other is the chil!s parent%s 27=3> provi!es that a person "arrie! to or in a "arriage/li#e relationship with the chil!s"other is also the chil!s parent =unless !i! not.with!rew consent>
54 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Prpert2 andKr 6ntra6t appra6/es: =$M # ANA *+&* C$S$ @( : Reprd46ti#e material lie sperm straws 6an 5e6nsidered prpert2 fr p4rpses f prpert2 s/arin"Kdi#isin atrelatins/ip 5readwn<
$acts+ ;esbian use! therapeutic inse"ination with sper" fro" a single !onor an! each gave birth to onechil! =the chil!ren have the sa"e biological father? each partner bio "other%Parties separate! but sep agree"ent !i! not provi!e for !isposition of 13 re"aining sper" straws:(, wishe! to use sper" straws w new partner to have chil! that woul! be biologically relate! toe<isting chil!ren% oppose! wishe! to have it !estroye!%
&ssue Can reproucti$e material consiere property
el!+ &t was hel! that sper" straws woul! be !ivi!e! e)ually bt.w the two for"er partners act% Lhe casewas !ivi!e! before the $; ct 2013 ca"e into effect in 2013% Lhe provisions of the $; =2013>trie! to !eal with proble"s of !ivision%
WW # UU ,6ase settled . B w4ld pr5a5l2 nt /a#e 5een enfr6ea5lea5sent ILA8 n prprietar2 interest in sperm "rat4it4sl2 pr#ided<$ntrar2 t CI$Q,=ane De -S.
Facts' eblois entere! into w lesbian couple to provi!e sper" so they coul! conceive a chil!%
provi!e! that woul! not participate in babys life% (ouple eventually have baby birth% Parties !i!not receive &; re % then "a#es application for access changes "in! couple oppose!
otes Result' ;i#ely eBlois is entitle! to so"e accessonsider (hil!@s age= L 7 years ol! here 3 years ol!> #nown vs% anony"ous !onors
$acts '' partners of birth "others file co"plaint that refusal by Oital 'tatistics gency to registerthe" as parents of the chil!ren of their partners%(lai"ants argue !iscri"ination b.c "an in opposite se< couple with "other when chil! is born isentitle! without en)uiry if he wishes to have his na"e on birth registration
8atio Partners o# birt moters in a co@abiting relationsip are entitled to beregistered as parents o# cildren born to teir partner witout beingre"uired to prove a biological connection to te in#ant cild=
Oital 'tats has !iscri"inate! against co/"other But for gen!er they woul! not have been)uestione! as to se<.bio connection nor woul! they be !irecte! to ta#e steps to a!opt chil!%
A $/arter 6/allen"e: R4t/erfrd # Ontari ,*++. ONS$ A ;anguage of O'change! to 2 persons following this case
$acts ;esbian parents conceive chil!ren by anony"ous !onor inse"ination clai" they were entitle! toregister accurate particulars of their chil!ren@s parentage per (; s 4 as#e! crt to interpret
statute to recogniGe "o!ern "etho!s of creating P( alternatively to !o so pursuant to courtsinherent PP% &f relief coul! not be grante! then !eclare O' as violating '' 715 of (harter%
nalysis Lhe court uses the sa"e co"parator group analysis "ale in opposite se< relationship for who"there is no in)uiry as to if chil! is biologically relate! to "ale entitle! to register na"e
=ato *he %enton o "arent un%er SA or "ur"oses o regsterng ch$%ren7s "arentage contravenes !harter@ !h$%Fs "arents at brth nee% not bets bo "arents@
el! O' !iscri"inate! against non bio parents of '' parents by contrast w non bio F' partners%
55 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
A stat and PP 6/allen"e: AA # CC and $$ ,*++>. ?@ RFL ,t/. &8 ON$ A
$acts (o/"other not biologically relate! to "other an! wants to be legally !efine! as a parent in a!!ition tothe bio father an! "other but cannot be registere! b.c (; only allowe! for two parents to beregistere! for a chil!%
&ssue 'houl! court use its inherent PP *uris!iction to !eclare co/"other was @s parent
8atio Courts may invo*e PP urisdiction to ma*e a determination in te best interests o# te cild were tere is a legislative gap and may do so to recogniBe a
-rd
parent o# cild in conte0t o# A8 or #am w tree parents=
nalysis (;s purpose was to confer legiti"acy on all chil!ren regar!less of "arital status of their parentsto eli"inate concept of illegiti"acy in relation to chil!ren in F but it !i! not conte"plate possibilityof "ore than 2 parents incl conception by therefore leg gap
el! ( uses PP *uris!iction to !eclare co/"other as parent of chil! !ue to leg gap in (;
ote In!erlining the failure of the legislature to !eal with the challenges of Possible future repercussion b.c case !i! not !istinguish bt.w #in!s of parental rights an!responsibilities that that parents "ay wish to e<ercise
$acts ;esbian couple no longer wants involve"ent of bio father once she is 6 years ol!% she is si< years ol!% entere! into "an!ate! arbitration for any !isputes% Bio father applies for access or!er an! inresponse the co/parent "a#es an application for a!option
&ssue 'houl! father have this right to consent re"ove!
8atio aters rigt to consent under s 15 will not be dispensed wit i# not in +,C tosever bio PC8 relationsip (in conte0t o# - parent #amily)$ dom D noten#orced re' arbitration
nalysis 'ociety has place! affectional ties J centre of chil!@s best interest but chil!@s bio connections re"aina fun!a"ental value ? + Fr!er to !ispense w bio fathers consent is !enie!
otes state ay have an econoic interest in defining ultiple parents cople* case
Dis6ls4re #ers4s ann2mit2 in assisted reprd46tin• F / Policies of greater openness / chil! can have open relationship w bio parents a chil! have
an open assu"ing the biological parents@ willingness to !o so• (ollege of Physicians can in fact !estroy patient files patient not seen for 7R years but once
!estroye! no way clai"ant can fin! out who was the sper" !onor• e!orm options + co"pulsory i!entity release !onors or retroactive !e/anony"iGation
Pratten *+&&8 C$$A ; penness in AR 8 wman 6n6ei#ed 4sin" ann2m4ssperm E OS 64ple
$acts ;egal clai" / openness in a!option shoul! apply in conte<t% (lai"ant re)ueste! info fro"physician about i!entity of !onor but recor!s ha! been legally !estroye! =pursuant to rules>% 'hesee#s in*unction prohibiting !estruction%%%of recor!e! info re !onors chil!ren parents
el! B( ( uphel! unani"ously govt appeal% Lhere is open a!option but not open assiste!repro!uction !is"isse! Pratten@s cross/appeal in relation to ' 7 (harter violation
ppeal Pri"ary focus / relationship bt.w leg provs for a!optees to locate their birth parents by contrast withthe absence of any provisions to enable a chil! conceive! using anony"ous sper" to locate his orher !onorPurpose of provs / ;eg has intentionally regulate! a!option to provi!e a!optees w new per" fa"ilyties% Lo re!uce access barriers to biological origins -iven that purpose it cannot be sai! thate<clu!ing persons whose legal status has never change! goes Efurther than is *ustifie! by the ob*ectof the a"eliorative progra"E
56 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
PART II: LAW AND “INTA$T” FAMILI-S$/ild $are: $$ is a pri#ate matter8 de06ient state inter#entin
Stat 2008 8.10 "others in labour force see#ing pai! wor# A no sig bt.w labour force participation of"arrie! wo"en an! single or !ivorce! wo"en
$/ild6arePli6iesG apri#ate6n6ern
largely a "atter of private financial responsibility? !espite "any stu!ies reco""en!ing the a!optionof national stan!ar!s an! fun!ing for chil! care significant financial bur!en for all but wealthyabsence of regulate! options
nti/poverty progra"s =when "ar#et or fa"ily fails> an! lt! chil! care subsi!ies "in ta< brea#s=Iniversal (hil! (are Benefit D100."onth> but no entitle"ent
enderedim
pa6tf$$de06it
;abour "ar#et participation/ o"en with!raw $ in 2 parent high inco"e !ue to cost nee! forspecial nee!s. sche!uling constraints or wor# PL when (( not availablePolicy "a#ers assu"e that wo"en will provi!e care not offere! by state repro!uces house "ar#et !ivisions of labourisa!vantages "i!!le class an! low inco"e fa"ilies =esp fe"ale single parent s>
57 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
$/ild Prte6tin; le"al inter#entin8 primar2 "al is t param4nt62f CI$ w/en 6/ildren are at ris f /arm #s< s45sidiar2 "al fprmtin" pri#a628 inte"rit2 and a4tnm2 f inta6t famil2 4nit
Finan6ialres4r6es
Bigger legislative net cast in relation to chil! protection concerns increase! bu!getary constraintsaffects boriginal (P' on reserve
A5ri"inal6/ildren
,any for"s of prov leg provi!es for boriginal (P' on reserve that !ecision "a#ing reflectsco""unity values auth of boriginal co""unities wrp to their chil!renPoverty alcoholis" spousal violence fetal alcohol syn!ro"e chil! neglect se<ual abusea Mconnection bt.w over/representation of aboriginal chil!ren in the care syste" an! theprevalence of violent outco"es for aboriginal wo"en girls% &n B( B chil!ren represent only 8S of the chil! population "ore than 50S of chil!ren in care
$P Edi#r6e
ot unusual that sep.!ivo cororally relief (P procee!ings occur si"ultaneously=innipeg>Lhere is often a significant relationship bt.w chil! protection an! fa"ily !issolution
(P $; are not !iscrete though !eci!e! in !ifferent courts
$FSA G Stat4te$FSA8 s &,&. Param4nt p4rpse1% =1>Lhe para"ount purpose of this ct is to pro"ote the best interests protection an! well/being ofchil!ren%
Other purposes s 1(2)s 1=2>+ ther purposes =so long as they are consistent with s 1=1>>+
1> supporting the autono"y an! integrity of the fa"ily unit?2> recogniGing the nee! to a!opt Mthe least !isruptive course of actionC%%% an!5> recogniGing that &n!ian an! native people shoul! provi!e their own chil! services %%% an!recogniGe their culture heritage an! tra!itions%
$/ild prte6tin8 s ?> ,*."ar in the past (incl neglect+ patterns+ past conduct) , ris# of future har
s 37(2): e!nin" a #hil$ %in nee$ o& prote#tion' / our main concerna> Physical har"b> is# of physical har"c> 'e<ual "olestation or e<ploitation!> is# of se<ual "olestation or e<ploitatione> ee!ing "e!ical treat"entf> K"otional har"g> is# of e"otional har"%%%%
s 37(3): C o& a #hil$ * +an$ator, &a#tors &or #onsi$eration- in#lu$in" an, other
relevant #ir#u+stan#e'1% Lhe chil9s physical, mental an emotional nees, an the appropriate care or treatmen t to "eetthose nee!s%
2% Lhe chil9s physical, mental an emotional le$el o! e$elopment.3% Lhe chil!s cultural bac0"roun.4% Lhe reli"ious !aith if any in which the chil! is being raise!%5% Lhe importance !or the chil9s e$elopment o! a positi$e relationship ith a parent an a secureplace as a member o! a !amily.6% /he chil9s relationships an emotional ties to a parent, siblin", relati$e, other member o! thechil9s e&tene !amily or member o! the chil9s community.7% Lhe importance o! continuity in the chil9s care an! the possible e!!ect on the chil o! isruptionof that continuity%
8% Lhe merits o! a plan for the chil!s care propose! by a society inclu!ing a proposal that the chil! beplace! for a!option or a!opte! co"pare! with the "erits of the chil! re"aining with or returning to aparent%9% Lhe chil9s $ies an ishes, if they can be reasonably ascertaine!%10% Lhe e!!ects on the chil o! elay in the !isposition of the case%11% /he ris0 that the chil may su!!er harm through being re"ove! fro" #ept away fro" returne! to or allowe! to re"ain in the care of a parent%12% Lhe !egree of ris# if any that *ustifie! the fin!ing that the chil! is in nee! of protection%13% Any other rele$ant circumstance
s ?>,. G W/ere $/ild an Indian r Nati#e persn ,nt determinati#e8 ANR. Fr!ers in relation to a chil! who is an &n!ian or native person an! the !uty to ta#e account of preservingthe chil!s cultural i!entity%
Winnipe" S4t/ $FS A"en62 # S ,DD. ,&''+. V ,Man C. ,Fam Di#.8s ?>,*.,f.,#.
$acts ,other !i! not wish to #eep the chil! an! wante! to give hi" up for a!option ? $ather wants to #eep chil!upon fa"ily !issolution? but wou! provi!e ina!e)uate chil! car e are not co"fortable when hol!ing orinteracting w chil!Lhe evi!ence suggeste! chil! was scare! an! not responsive aroun! parents vs% foster parentsurses ho"e care wor#ers !octors psychiatrists chil! care "anagers were all helping parents
nalysis 1% Fitness credibility a #actor / eter"ining whether a chil! shoul! be "a!e a per"anent
(rown war! re)uires *u!ge to consi!er totality of evi!ence incl hospital recor!s%2% &ome o# natural parents > best interests / Per"anent war!ship not to be or!ere! solely
b.c that foster ho"e is provi!ing chil! w better living con!itions than those provi!e! by naturalparents% Lest is whether ho"e of natural parents provi!es living con!itions in accor!ance with B&(
3% Presumptive rigt o# natural parents to care #or teir cildren / epriving the right of anatural parent to the care an! control of a chil! re)uires cogent evi!ence of !anger to the chil!@s life
4% .e+p or$ers- e/#eptional / Lhe power to e<ten! te"p or!ers shoul! only be use! in thosecases where in!ications that con!uct shortco"ings frailties or !isabilities of the parent contributing tothe chil!@s neglect can be correcte! where concrete evi!ence supports parent@s recognition of thecause of such !eficiencies an! a !esire to pursue the "eans to eli"inate the"
5% ot e<ten!e! e<cept in cases where parent !e"onstrates ability to "a#e a real change< t is su#ient i& there e a reasonale apprehension that ph,si#al inur,
+a, o##ur- the #ourt shoul$ inter&ere e&ore it has happene$
( Fn totality of evi!ence the chil! has been an! is in nee! of protection% Parents unli#ely to provi!e care an!supervision for long perio! of ti"e if ever? gency appointe! per"anent guar!ian of chil! w.in B&(
CritiDue :u!ge struggles with war!ship vs or!ering bac# to fa" has a !ifficult !ecision :u!ge "ay get into trouble ifchil! is or!ere! bac# to the fa"ily an! the chil! !ies
ppropriate ris# ta#ing in a worl! of fallible !ecision "a#ing beco"es very !ifficult when one@s whole career"ay be !estroye! by a single !ecision to return a chil! to ho"e especially if sub*ecte! to further abuse%
59 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
A54se and ilen6e in Intimate Relatins/ips ; relati#el2 6lear ;w/ere t/ere is sp4sal a54se8 es6alates at t/e 94n6t4re ffamil2
A54sedwmen Edisad#
anta"ed6mm4nities
o"en an! girls for" "arginaliGe! co""unities are "ore li#ely to e<perience violence(oncerns about violence $ wo"en / inti"ate violence in so"e northern boriginalco""unities "ay be as high as 75/90S e<perience "ore severe for"s of violence higherrates of se<ual assaulti""igrant wo"en / stu!ies show "ay un!erreport 'O !ue to fears of police involve"ent
possibility of !eportation&n)uest of rlene ,ay sea"lessnes=#ille! by estrange! bf who then #ille! hi"self> A
reco""en!e! Ein!ivi!ual !o" violence initiatives "ust be coor!inate! an! integrate! into aunifie! plan an! that each sector of the response syste" wor# in concert with the others
ID &ntegrate! o"estic Oiolence court =&O> upon consent of O P a cri"inal charge is re)uire!to access these courts can !eal w intersecting issues re+ spousal abuse separation.!ivorcean! corollary issues property sharing an! spousal support chil! access
$riti34e Ps often have "ental illness i"poverishe! fro" "inority co""unities legal outco"es notalways e)uitable
Trts re Sp4salilen6e
'haw v Brunelle 2012 F '( 590 / court or!ere! D150000 for aggravate! !a"ages general !a"ages of D50000 for pain suffering b.c battery occurre! in spousal relationship
ccor!ing to 1 $; lawyer )uote! in press !ecision reflects the views of newer *u!gesappointe! to $;( who have ha! significant *u!icial e!ucation about O%
.he ehren$t #ase
a6ts Fi#e claims &s anti@social beaviour$ wo suered #rom mental ealt issues$created psycological violence$ also incidents o# violence towards 1 o#daugter living ome= - monts a#ter court reected app$ & murdered wi#e >
too* is own li#e= We $e% a"" or nterm ec$usve "ossesson un%er 24 o3A G or %vorce
nal2si ;e nature o# te allegations$ te contradictory view presented by one o# te cildren>te age o# te cildren living in te ome all militate against granting order=Parties are ma*ing completely dierent assertions based on evidence$diGcult #or parties to live under same roo#
K$ Material presentedH does not warrant granting e0clusive possession M& to Mrs= +Court sould only e0ercise its power to ma*e suc an order wit great care=9o live testimony$ court sould to delay adudication until trial=
iti)ue llegations not consi!ere! seriously !isruptive !espite evi!ence that psychological violence has negative on
security interests of other fa"ily "e"bers ? eight accor!e! to son@s affi!avit ? age of chil!ren not entitle! tolive in ho"e free fro" violence,ore weight given to inconvenience of "oving out vs% ris# of har" =here fatal>'ilences victi"s who are victi"s of violence / "ay be ensure! by !irect threats warnings not to to revealthe occurrence of violence to others
otes ffi!avit evi!ence / 'ons affi!avit supports father view but ha! been out of ho"e for several "onths% ,u"chooses not to involve !aughters who are being abuse! to accuse father of behaving i"properly%$inancial evi!ence+ was ta#ing "oney out of gol! bars sol! car on !isability pay"ents s position *u!ge was concerne! about his vulnerability A coul!nt affor! to live elsewhere for"er prof
60 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
"ental health issues%@s position+ can support hi"self if he lives elsewhere% &f she "ust "ove out an! go so"ewhere elsethen she cannot support herself an! !aughters% , "ortgage is pai! off ' 24=1> / ifficult to interpret conflicting evi!entiary base as sufficient to co"e w.in s 24Kvi!ence that "ay have change! outco"e+ psychological assess"ent affi!avits fro" !aughter
Prte6tin fr 4lnera5le -lders
De an vo$ent C abusve harm %one to an or%er "erson+ cause b a "erson <ho hascontro$ over that "erson (s"ouses+ ch$%ren+ other caregvers)+ mane$%er "ersons are at rs# or vo$ence
etorton an% <rongu$ use o a &A)eg$ect (aban%onment or <thho$%ng o oo% or hea$th servces a$ng to gve a
%e" "erson <hat the nee%)> an%Henta$ abuse (hum$aton+ nsu$ts+ threats+ or treatng an o$%er "erson $#e a
ch$%)Host $or" of abuse "aterial =persua!e! to give away "oney relin)uish title to ho"e sub* to un!ue threats
an! influence in "a#ing wills>
*as# inclu!e! recogniGing the nee! for ongoing e!ucation for staff to prevent abuse wor#ing with ealthQuality Fntario to i!entify in!icators of abuse neglect an! )uality of life issues an! a!!ressingstaffing nee!s in ho"es%
PART III: LAW E FAMILY DISSOLTIONT/e $nte7t fr Famil2 Dissl4tin Di#r6e as a “6mple7” le"al pr6ess
Law 6reates pst;di#r6eKseparatin famil2 4nit t/at is e6nmi6all2 tied52 n"in" 0nan6ial 5li"atins fr t/eir frmer sp4ses<
e"ergence of Mblen!e! fa"iliesC through re/partnering post separation.!ivorce ongoing responsibilitiesfor caregiving an! econo"ic well/being in re to for"er fa"s can be co"plicate!%;egislation balances societal goals for !ivorce an! separation $oster "arriage an! cohabiting relationshipsfacilitate access to fair an! efficient processes for recogniGing that a!ult relationships have en!e! protecting chil!ren vulnerable classes%
Di#r6e as a s6ial pr6ess E Statisti6s
*he rate o %vorce n !ana%a s 8I40I+ e<cl brea#!own of cohabiting relationships% butthere are regional variations% (ohabitation is on the rise separation an! !ivorce has increase! an!creates huge pressure in $;( have not been abe to response in entirely satisfactory waysLhe average !uration of "arriages in 2005 was 14%5 years an! the average age at !ivorce for "en was44 an! for wo"en 41%4 years%K"otional econo"ic parenting / cannot be a!!resse! in isolation fro" legal processes =Payne>Ear"is"E = a cli"ate of opinion> insists that the greatest har" to chil!ren is their parents@s !iv ?un!er"ines poverty !o"estic violence poor housing ina!e)uate financial provision an! the possibilitythat an ongoing "arriage "ight be worse for chil!ren than a !ivorce
61 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
T/e “r4nd” fr Di#r6e ,nte re34isite element t/at marria"em4st 5e #alid.
Nte: It is ne6essar2 t esta5lis/ r4nd fr Di#r6e: Marria"eCreadwn
Interpretin" Separate and apart4ushton v 4ushton (1568) 66 4 76 (SSC) 9 !rcumstances <here "artes are $vng
"hsca$$ se"arate% n same -- an% abstan rom conJuga$ re$atons a$$s <Cn meanng o se" Ga"art un%er s s 2(a)> Se"arate an% a"art re?ures () <th%ra<a$ rom matrmona$ ob$gaton <ntenton o %estrong matrmona$ consortum+ ) "hsca$ se"araton
$acts (ouple "arrie! in 1936 an! by 1960 they ha! begun to live separate lives though living in sa"esuite &n 1965they were no longer having inti"ate relations%hey live! in separate suite roo"s each !i! their own coo#inglaun!ry an! grocery shopping% e pai! her a "onthly su" for "aintenance Lhey continue! to live together b.cthey were *oint careta#ers of buil!ing an! to #eep position re)uire! to appear as % Lhey now "aintainsep suites in sa"e buil!ing as careta#ers of another buil!ing
Parties living un!er sa"e roo" !oes not !is)ualify Lhere can be a a been a physical separation of roo"sIn*ust to !eprive PK fro" re"e!y b.c econo"ic circu"stances preclu!e! her fro" "oving out
;< entitle$ to re+e$, un$er the ivor#e A#t
upere v upere (157) 15 4=L 270 (NSC (>) 9 u$i#ial approa#h o& &a+ilialis+ 9 & parties are livin" in the sa+e an$ have #hil$ren- it is +ore $i#ult to use sep? apart
"roun$ as reason &or +arria"e rea@$own$acts P sought !ivorce on groun!s of "arriage brea#!own spouses living sep apart for at least 3 yrs in ov
1973? counter petition for !ivorce alleging per" "arriage brea#!own !ue to spouse living un!er sa"eroof but sep apart for al"ost 5 years,arrie! in 1960 have three chil!ren separate! in 1966 reconcile! for one "onth in 68%Lhey began to occupy separate be!roo"s no intercourse since then? P gives a wee#ly allowance?,utual !iscussion an! agree"ent where chil!ren were concerne!? frien!ly with another "an theyclai"e! to stay #n sa"e house for #i!s:u!ge says that staying for econo"ic necessity not supporte! by evi!enceLhey have "ove! out of prev resi!ence / P bought a ho"e financing not finaliGe! "ove! into aptwith two chil!ren has net wee#ly inco"e of D66
atio (Cooper v Cooper) Spouses were livin" sep an$ apart where #ir#u+stan#es where
the &ollowin" #ir#u+stan#es were present- not ne#essar, to estalishall si/ ele+ents in ea#h #ase- $epen$s on &a#ts o& #aseSpouses o##up,in" sep e$roo+s
Asen#e o& se/ual relationsLittle i& an, #o++ etween spousesi&e provi$in" no $o+ servi#es &or her husan$<atin" +eals separatel, No so#ial a#tivities to"ether Spouses not share livin" roo+ an$ re#reational &a#ilities to"ether- su#h as .
ol!ing ivorce app counter !is"isse!% Kvi!ence !i! not support that 3 R years prior to presentation of thepetition parties were living sep part un!er ct . lac#e! intention to !estroy "atri"onial consortiu"
otes E "utual opting out in such circu"stances woul! be little "ore than !iv by consent so"ething
Parlia"ent has not yet provi!e! forE
Calvert v Calvert
$ ife leaves F to go to (algary to visit !aughter an! ha! lGhei"ers% hile in (algary she e<presses!esire to !ivorce to husban!% ;awyer testifie! that he ha! no !oubt that wife ha! a capacity to giveinstructions to co""ence !iv procee!ings% "e!ical !octor who e<a"ine! wife while she was in (algaryalso testifie! that she ha! the capacity to se fro" an! !ivorce her husban! % argues that !i! nothave capacity at ti"e of trial
63 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
4atio .hree #apa#ities relevant to a $ivor#e pro#ee$in"- that ;B4 +ust $e+onstrate inor$er to e hel$ to have
(1) Capa#it, to separate * si+plest(2) Capa#it, to $ivor#e * re +ore un$erstan$in"(3)Capa#it, to instru#t #ounsel Note it is not ne#essaril, to prove #apa#it, at ea#h point e,on$ the aove
ol!ing Base! on evi!ence L( foun! wife ha! all levels of capacity to succee!
ppeal istinct fin!ings of capacity in re to live separate an! apart at ti"e of petition for !ivorce for one year
perio! prior to granting of !ivorce / argu"ent re*ect
Ad4lter2 E $r4elt2 as prf f marria"e 5readwn8 6an nl2 5e 4sed 52inn6ent sp4se8 is 4sed infre34entl2
Orfrd # Orfrd ,&'*&. @( DLR *@& ,Ont !$.- adultery by a woman involves tepossibility o# introducing into te #am o# te usband a #alse strain o# blood= And tat ongrounds o# public policy$ donor insemination constituted adultery in law
Ma6lennan # Ma6lennan8 %&'@() sess $as &+@ ,S6tland $t Sess.8 donorinsemination did not constitute adulterly in law
.heeau v .heuau (2006) 27 4=L (6thD 30 (N >) * invo*es s 15 o# Carter @people are e"ual and sould be treated e"ually= !e# o# adultery in !A incl SS acts outside o#te marriage
;(S<) v ; () (200E)- 2E5 L4 (thD 3E8 (CSC)* A usband3s omose0ual acts witanoter man outside o# te marriage constitutes adultery=
$ applie! for a !iv fro" husban! of 19 years on basis he co""itte! a!ultery with another "an%
4atio nti+ate se/ual a#tivit, outsi$e o& +arria"e +a, represent a violation o& the+arital on$ ? e $evastatin" to the spouse ?+arital on$ re"ar$less
o& the spe#i!# nature o& the se/ual a#t per&or+e$
nalysis Lhe uncertainty about precisely what woul! constitute a!ultery in a '' elationship is not a reasonablebasis for !enying spouses the ability to !ivorce on basis of '' se<ual activity%
ct outsi!e of "arriage was sufficient to constitute a!ultery though '' act perfor"e!%
el! Kvi!ence of an inti"ate se<ual relationship outsi!e of P@s "arriage is sufficient to grant !iv on the groun!sof a!ultery notwithstan!ing that the act allege! was a '' se<ual act%
;roo& o& A$ulter,: ura"e v ura"e (158E ) 6 4=L (2$) 22 (Ont C)* ow courtsdetermine adultery as ta*en place
$ counter petitions for !iv on groun!s of a!ultery% Kvi!ence !e"onstrate! prior to sep wife ha! a closerelationship with a "an spent night at his house on two occasions no se<ual intercourse ha! ta#enplace b.c "an was i"potent !ue to bac# surgery% 'urgeon coul! not testify b.c he ha! !ie!
4atio ;ri+a &a#ie #ase o& a$ult is estalishe$ where there is (1) evi$en#e o& opportunit,(here overni"ht sta,s)- (2) evi$en#e o& in#lination (4 an$ Co*4 a"ree toe "oo$ &rien$s)- an$ onus +oves to other part, reut this presu+ptionon su#ient evi$en#e (Fn$er no le"- test woul$ not e applie$ in sa+ewa,- no &ault $ivor#e)
nalysis (o/ coul! have sub"itte! hi"self to a "e!ical report but !i! not no e<planation for failure put forth% /facts support an a!verse inference ? testi"ony of e</wife coul! have been calle!
64 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
el! Fn BFP allegation of a!ultery has been establishe!%
$r4elt, in Marria"e G Casis fr Marria"e Creadwn(noll v noll) ;e determination o# wat constitutes cruelty in a given case$ must in te4nal analysis$ depend upon te circumstances o# te part case aving due regard to tepysical and mental condition o# te parties teir caracter and teir attitudes towards temarriage relationsip @ (1)Conduct upon wic court relies sould be o# a Jgrave andweigty nature K more tan incompatibility o# temperament6 (2)Fat is te eect o# teconduct complained o# upon te mind o# te aected spouses (subective@obective test)
Stat4tr2 Cars t Di#r6e ,permit 64rt t den2 di#r6e e#ent/4"/ di# "r4nds pr#ided.
$ll4sin ; ,s&&,&.,a.8 a5sl4te 5ar t di#8 de0ned in s &&,.8 als appliest immi"ratin marria"e ,=/nsn # A/med.
$ndnatin and 6nni#an6e ,s &&,&.,6> a#aila5le fr (*,5. di#r6e"r4nds re34ires 6rt t determine n 6ndnatinK6nni#an6e n part fpetitinin" sp4se8 4nless p45li6 interest w4ld 5e 5etter ser#ed 52"rantin" petitin 64rt ma2 e7er6ise dis6retin
A5sen6e f reasna5le arran"ements fr t/e s4pprt f 6/ildren f t/emarria"e ,s&&,&.,C.. ; ade34ate 6/ild 6are arran"ements /a#e 5een madein a66rdan6e wit/ 6/ild s4pprt "4idelines8 64rt m4st sta2 "rantin" adi# if s46/ arran"ements /a#e nt 5een made
Reli"i4s Cars t Di#r6e S *&<& permits 64rt t tae a6tin in a 6nte7tw/ere ne sp4se ref4ses t rem#e reli"i4s 5arriers t t/e remarria"e f t/e sp4se as part t/eir di# ne"tiatins 4nder s<*&<&,?.,6.,d.
-6nmi6 $nse34en6es f Di#r6e and Separatin and eneralTrends; FL8 in prin6iple8 is in6apa5le f sl#in" t/e pr5lem fp#ert2 f wmen and 6/ildren< We1#e m#ed frm patriar6/2t indi#id4al respnsi5ilit2 mdel< T/e latter is premised n"ender e34alit2
65 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Liti"atin Pr6esses: T/e FL r4les ,defa4lt G '( 6ases are settled #ia FL5ar"ainin"8 64rts tend t defer t pri#ate a"reements a5sent iss4esrelatin" t pwer ine34alit2 r dmesti6 #ilen6e.
als Pro"ote private or!ering to encourage efficiency an! econo"y in use of *u!icial resources
e&ore +otion-CaseCon&er en#e
Settle+ent#on&ere
n#e.rial ne"otiation
• C> + ecourage settle"ent e<plores options to reach agree"ent
• S + parties "ust "a#e an offer to settle possible cost conse)uences associate!% &f notsettle"ent% ifferent *u!ges presi!e over these process
• /# con!ucte! accor!ing to rules of civil trials b4 a *u!ge% &f !ivi!e! success possiblycosts !enie! or awar!e! against a party who behaves unreasonably
At Separation$,nterimMotions
to obtain relief !eci!e! on basis generally of sworn affi!avit evi!enceules per"itting re)uests for !isclosure an! )uestions by the parties arrange"entsinten!e! to ensure relevant info available
Attendance atMandatory,n#ormationProgramto
pursuedivorceproceeding
• F proce!ural rules with few e<ceptions all parties !iv actions atten! "an!atoryinfo progra"s within 45 !ays after co""encing their procee!ings any a!!itionalsteps in their procee!ings are preclu!e! until certificates of separate atten!anceare file!
• 'houl! be "an!ate! before !iv procee!ings co""ence!
• O allegation coul! lea! to "ore abusive confrontations through encouragingco""unication an! co/operation
ssues about legalrepresentation
• ise of self/represente! litigants increases costs of legal process cases procee!"ore slowly
• =(icciarella v (icciarella> (ourt "ust *u!icial neutrality ' 1 party@s lac# of legalrep %iv (t or!ere! a new trial on s clai" that L: ha! interfere! unreasonably unfairly
nderlying policyrationales o#
bargaining
• ecrease in lawyers representing legal ai! certificates
• ;ac# of legal rep in litigation processes so nee! to !eflect "atters away fro" negotation
matters >privacymatters
CM tort o#invasiono#privacy
• Eoal Fpenness of court procee!ings so"eti"es )ualifie! to protect fa" privacy
• 'o"e clients choose non litigation processes in part b.c processes are private
• Meh v illias / court privatiGe! wife@s i!entifying infor"ation other than infor"ation inclin the reasoning in *u!ge"ents = !ivorcing who ha! co""itte! "ur!er> F !etailsabout (abinet ,inisters !ivorce lea#e! on Lwitter
68 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• M>hao o! la+ A =assu"es > parties #now their legal entitle"ents as they enter into fa"bargaining not always true particularly if spouses have ina!e)uate access to legal a!vice
• ene!its+ less e<pensive avoi! pain of a!versarial procee!ing less ris# an! !elay consensualsolution "ore consistent with parties@ preferences
• <imits' spouses "ay lac# capacity for such bargaining b.c they are not fully rational contractingparties J ti"e of sep !iv? parties "ay ta#e into account gen!er perceptions about ,. asnegotiators
• >ettlement moel lawyers representing each party w.o resorting to litigation% Parties ta#epri"ary role an! lawyers ta#e secon!ary role
• 6arties si"n a C< , to agree to openly engage in negotiations if are unable to reach settle"ent re)uires each client see# another counsel to provi!e representation for litigation%
• ene!its / ;ess a!versarial way to achieve goo! outco"es parties #nows legal entitle"ents
• <imits / re)uires lawyers lac# of protocols incl O screening process power ine)uality
Mediatin,TP.
• eutral /6 or0s ith parties to achie$e settlement a"reement
• ene!its+ =1> !ecision "a#ing process re"ains w.in client@s control% 2> avoi!s trau"a of trialprocess 3> proce!ures wor#ing better for clients than court or!ere! results 4> assists clients toachieve long ter" wor#ing relationships
• 7=% / Protocol to assess an! "anage O ris# bt.w partners !uring after "e! participation
• ;i"its + not operating in E'ha!ow of lawE litigation li"ite! to cases of abuse . power i"balance
:9 gov3tproectstreamsrelationsipbrea*downo
uto# negotiation
• (ourts auto"atic referral to "e!iation particularly for $; clients that )ualify for ;F
• in#ler J recoendation A free "e!iation litigation for cases involving / abuse poweri"balance or uncooperative party nee! for "ore I$(
• manatory meiation eucation attenance before filing !ivorce procee!ings
• "o$t ser$ices / 2h of free "e!iation services. 5 !ays per wee# first co"e for first serve
• off /site "e!iation after 2 hours on a sli!ing inco"e scale
• <imits+ eter"ination of "e!iator to reach resolution !espite wishes or intentions of parties "orecostly than litigation so"eti"es
69 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• Arbitration Act 1GG1, A per"its parties to choose an arbitrator to resolve !isputes con!uct
e<clusively in accor!ance w. law of F or another prov *uris!iction to be legally bin!ing• >tat pro$s' ing out is prohibite! =s 59%3>? no recognition of agree"ents entere! into prior to
!ispute arising =59%4> con!s of enforceability =s 59%6> &; arbitrator co"ply with • -ovt !oes not per"it religious arbitration unless con!ucte! in ccor!ance with $; provs
Pr6ess fr Resl#in" $4std2 and A66ess 6laims s ?&8 $LRA ,re6all ss ',&;*.8 DA EADR.• Parties are encourage to settle "atters at !issolution w.o litigation
•
<imits' 7= or abuse, an lac0 o! screenin" protocols in C< - nee !or le" re!orm meiation i%e% !isclosing son@s !ifficulties at school angering live! in sa"e ho"e pressures her to reach settle"ent )uic#ly• Family bar"ainin" an access to le"al a$ice + F gov@t policy !esigne! to strea" $; "e"bers away fro" a
litigation process into a "e!iation process+ $; &nfo (entres ,an!atory &nfo Progra" =spouses can@t fileapplications un!er until progra"s have been atten!e!> free onsite "e!iation at courts for litigants for 2hours=no particular eligibility gui!elines> off site "e!iation sli!ing scale service
Famil2 Law Car"ainin" G FLA *,&+. A dm B dealin" wit/ a mattert/at is als dealt wit/ in t/is A6t pre#ails 4nless t/is A6tpr#ides t/erwise ,a66rded s45stantial a4t/rit2.
Calf4r # Calf4r: At !H3 %om not $ega$$ bn%ng@ *he are no< statutor$ enorce%@
70 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
,n wat circumstances will a court set aside a separation or marriage agreementN
Part I8 s @&,FLBs.
stat de# incls Coabitation $ Arbitration Marriage$ Separation agreement$ MarriagePaternity
SS @*8@8@' ;le"als6pefrdmBs
S @*: de4nitions o# marriages DSS @: identi#y rigts and obligations about wic spouses may DS @'<& t ( (detailed provs re content and procedures #or negotiating #amily
arbitration awards)
SS @@;@> Gfrmalities8
94di6ialre#iew8"r4nds fr
settin"asideB
s @@,&. frmalities : @On#orceable dom D must be in writing$ signed by partieswitnessed = Parties are not re"uired to receive ,A prior to D signing$ ottan #am arbitration awards
s @@,*. K minor as capacity subect to approval o# courts @,&.: =4di6ial re#iew re provs respecting cild incl moral training$ custody$ a
+,C (and see s= 5.(1=1) re cild support arrangements)s< @,.: =4di6ial re#iew r e #ailure to (a) disclose signi4cant assets and debts
understanding nature and conse"uences o# $ encourages ,A (c)according to law o# D @ misrepresentation$ lac* o# consideration$ unduinuence$ duress$ coercion$ unconscionability$ illegality)
s< @,@.' Court may set aside D i# barrier to remarriage used as bargaining cip innegotiations
s< ??,.: court may set aside D provisions re support i# prov is unconscionable$ iresults in a dependent "uali#ying #or public support$ or i# tere is de#ault in paymsupport pursuant to D=
S E6()(#)-o#hu@ vo#hu@(1555)
court upeld validity o# D provs were tere was evidence tat usband ad wil#u#ailed to disclose relevant in#o b/c it would not ave aected te wi#edecision to sign te D Q o# #actors court must consider wen being ato e0ercise discretion under s 5.(<)
Feter tere ad been concealment o# asset or material misrepresentationFeter tere ad been duress or unconscionable circumstancesFeter petitioning party neglected to pursue #ull legal disclosure (Party must do
as* #or in#ormation and pursue it)Feter se moved e0peditiously to ave agreement set asideFeter se received substantial bene4t under agreementFeter oter party ad #ul4lled is or er obligations under agreementIt is desira5le t/at parties s/4ld settle t/eir wn aairs if pssi5leK In d
s parties s/4ld nw t/at t/e terms f s46/ settlement wil5indin" and re6"nied< T/e $A was 6lear t/at appra6/ is Nappli6a5le t Bs t/at are 4n6ns6ina5le<
S E6()()-4osen v4ose
n
,A not re"uired in :9$ D provs may be set aside i# eiter party did not understandnature and conse"uences o# D= &owever$ court will decline to set asidprovs o# D were party see*ing to set aside D re#used or decline ,A uterms are unconscionable< $4rt /ere 6n6l4ded t/at
W /ad a6ted #l4ntaril2 in de6idin" nt t 5tain le"al ad#i6e 5 si"nin"sep a"reement< $4rt als determined n ine34alit2 in 5ar"apwer
S E6()(#)Clai +saout$ure
Courts may set aside D i# party see*ing remedial action can demonstratecircumstances surrounding negotiation o# D disclose considerunconscionability$ duress$ undue inuence$ #raud$ misrepresentation mista*e
;uopolo v ;uopolo * !eld: Ct e0pressed concern about suc legal advice tat Fbe able to set aside D in #uture= Court eld F was not under duress w
71 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
uner s ? o! C FA, authoriJes court to reapportion ppty here marria"e a"reement oul beun!air ha$in" re"ar to list o! !actors in secto r
sue 1% &s "arriage agree"ent re !ivision of ppty unfair an! shoul! therefore be set asi!e on basis that it !i!not co"pensate for her (( an! responsibilities an! sacrifice in giving up her law practice an!postponing her career !evelop"ent ' that preserve! right to ''
2% &f provs re !ivision of ppty are unfair shoul! whole agree"ent shoul! be si"ply ignore!%
ule Court sould de#er to dom tat spouses ma*e #or division o# teir ppty on tebrea*down o# teir relationsip$ unless #ound to be un#air a#ter considering s
Anal2sis ; Central to any analysis under s .5(1) o# 8A is ,&. accuracy o# parties3contemplation at time o# D #ormation$ o# teir circumstances at time o#distribution$ ,*. weter tey considered te impact o# teir decision$ and$,?.weter parties subse"uently adusted D to meet demands o# a cange incircumstances or$ or implications inade"uately addressed/un realistic
• ccor!ing to B: Parties live! out intention to re"ain in!epen!ent re personal real property possesse! atti"e of agree"ent ? gree"ent unfol!e! in accor!ance with e<actly what was going to happen
• 8i!e >> entitlement as preser$e so ulti"ately not unfair un re; s 65? <A that i!e as recei$e
clearly forewarne! of @s shortco"ings% mae some chan"es to agree"ent re lawyer@s a!vice inclpreservation of spousal support
atio ;o determine weter a marriage agreement operates un#airly'a. Appl2 t/e a"reement8 assess and award 0nan6ial entitlements provided to eac
spouse under agreement$ > oter entitlements incl CS > SS5. Were t/ere an2 pr6ed4ral irre"4larities tat migt be reason to set it aside Fere
parties aware o# substantive entitlements$ and sign D anywayN6. $nsider fa6ts in li"/t f stat pr#s$ determine weter D is un#air aving regard to
personal and 4nancial circumstances> ow tey evolved over timed. !id parties *now teir lives un#old in way it wouldNe. P3s onus is eavier if 64rrent 6ir64mstan6es were wit/in 6ntemplatin f parties at
time B frmatin$ and circumstances surrounding it reect consideration and response totose circumstances$
olding Marriage agreement was #air at time o# triggering event considering all circumstances$ and s .5#actors
ss • intention of parties at ti"e of for"ation too !eter"inative shoul! not be !eviates focus fro" ine)uality ofbargaining power in situation at ti"e application is brought original / ere was out of wor#force forseveral years only ever wor#e! at appellants fir"
• ' 65 in)uiry shoul! turn on whether is substantively fair at ti"e application is "a!e ,ust be consi!ere!alongsi!e other con!s of separationhere was in wea#er position ha! been out of wor#force for twoyears only ever wor#e! at appellant@s fir"
an v Lean (Ont CA 2008)(. $e#ision uphel$: set asi$e)S E6() .<S.
cts • Parties cohabite! 1 year "arrie! ha! two chil!ren was ho"e"a#er pri"ary caregiver !uring "arriage
• usban! fa" owne! "a*or group of "anufacturing co"panies% s fa" ha! negotiate! arrange"ents toprotect fa" shares fro" outsi!e influence%
• #new when she agree! to "arriage she "ust sign to that effect% a!!e! prov to e<clu!e all @sbusiness interests an! severely restricte! s clai" to '' at sep.!iv%
• &; A receive! &; that , was unfair% referre! to 2 n! lawyer who ha! acte! for s !ivorce lawyer
• s initial failure "a#e full !isclosure of assets to %
oc L( set asi!e agree"ent? awar!e! KQ pay"ent of of D5%3 "illion 'ignificant '' an! ('% (osts for 1>
73 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
st failure to !isclose 2> !i! not un!erstan! nature an! conse)uences of ? @s appeal !is"isse!%
nalysis F did not receive eective ,A$ did not understand nature and conse"uences o# MD$ &misrepresented nature and terms o# MD to F$ &s #ailure to disclose was deliberate$ &ad inter#ered wit wi#es receipt o# legal assistance #rom 1st K breac o# set 5.(<)(A) > (+) (+ at part two application)
atio !etermine weter claimant as met s 5.(<) (2) !etermine weter it is appropriate to e0ercisediscretion to set aside #airness aving regard to #airness o# D $overall circumstancessuc as intention$ is breac suc tat it counteracts obectives o# underlying policies
rc v B$ar !A 2014 nless tere is proper ,A and #ull 4nancial disclosure$ te dom D mayset aside under s 5.(<)= ;ere is no duty on a spouse to investigate veracity o# 4nancial
sclosure made by oter spouse= ;e #act tat F *new D was not in best interests is notGcient to 4nd tat spouse does not understand nature and conse"uences o# D= (!ecisionre' new trial ordered)
cts K</spouses "eet while lawyer !oes wor# for co"pany of which is a presi!ent% stays ho"e for severalyears to ta#e care of chil!ren an! in!icates he wants a !ivorce% is 26 an! is 46% Lhey negotiate aseparate agree"ent% intentionally "isrepresente! value of assets%
M#Cain v M#Cain (2012) ONSC 73 (SC)(+arria"e a"ree+ent)e circumstances regarding its e0ecution$ te improvident result #or te Fi#e and te e0tentte &usband3s now wealt$ are suGcient to ave te spousal support provisions o# tentract set aside= Car"ain was 4na66epta5le in ln"er term marria"e f &@ 2ears a#ter
was signed$ did not provide #or &3s #uture earnings proections= Circumstances surrounding Drmation incl psycological duress$ minimal disclosure=
cts • were "arrie! for 20 years% s father wante! 's to enter into that preclu!es interest of spousefro" having an interest in fa"ily wealth an! if chil! fails to !o that he will be !isinherite!%
• ,arriage !i! provi!e so"e support for % Fn basis of ha! assets in the 500 "illion range an! only ha! assets in the 6 "illion range
arria"e #ontra#ts an$ the en&or#e+ent o& reli"ious oli"ations: (en&or#eailit, o&
ahr has een uphel$ in C #ases) .he #ourts ten$ to en&or#e reli"ious oli"ationsM unless in#onsistent with ON law
a%%our Mar was unen#orceable obligation pursuant to :9 law-ermann v !har$es<orth * Mahr is a religious matter so te resolution o# any dispute relating
to it are religious in conte0t and conte0t= i*e al&our v al&our $ contracts o#aection and love are not binding
han v court u"he$% va$%t o a n#a namma(H) o &a#stan as a %omestc "ursuant to Fs3A@ !ourt u"he$% Hus$m marrage + but %% not enorce W7s <aver o SS rght
ahr vahr
,ssues o# evidence are complicated and o#ten a need #or e0pert evidence to be able to litigatetem
.he ewish "et: ru@er v Mar#ovit SCC uphel$ CA $e#ision
cts Parties "arrie! in 1969 an! !ivorce! in 1981% Lhey negotiate! an agree"ent re+ corollary relief for the purposeof obtaining a ghat once !ivorce !ecree was grante!% ecree was grante! an! refuse! to grant get over aperio! of 15 yrs so wife was then nearly 47 years of age% 'he sought !a"ages for breach%
74 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
ati An agreement between spouses to ta*e necessary steps to permit eac o# tem to remarry inaccordance wit teir religious belie#s constitute a valid and binding agreement tatdid not represent a arm to te usbands religious #reedom by re"uiring damages
nal2s • (t is not interpreting substantive vali!ity of a religious obligation li#e is the particular get vali!
• Pro"ise to grant get was negotiate! by two consenting a!ults each represente! by counsel as part of avoluntary e<change of co""it"ents inten!e! to have legally enforceable conse)uences
• ,nternational law @ use o# damages as compensation #or spouse wose spouse as re#used toprovide a get (! v rance)
• P45li6 interest in protecting e"uality rigts$ dignity o# Lewis women in teir inability to div
and remarry$ as well as public bene4t in en#orcing valid and binding contractual obligations areamong interests and values outweiging MarcovitB claim tat en#orcing para 12 o# Consentwould inter#ere wit is religious #reedom
#enant marria"e and ,less. a66ess t di#r6e ,SA)@ ,# parties were married in A/A$omiciled in CA$ courts would probably grant civil divorce$ but conict o# laws principles maypply (loo* #or re#orm ideas ere)
'uch laws choose people to allow whether they want to be "arrie! in accor!ance with civil laws of"arriage or covenant "arriage legislation re)uiring spouses to ta#e all necessary steps such as counselling topreserve "arriage =li"its access to !ivorce>% ivorce legislation in state will not actually apply to covenant"arriage%
'pouse is not entitle! to !ivorce e<cept on basis of serious fault on part of other spouse an! relies on
support of =(hristian> co""s to provi!e support for institution of "arriage an! fa"ily
FAMILY PROP-RTYT/e Le"al and S6ial $nte7t f Famil2 Prpert2
M4rd6/ # M4rd6/ ,&'>.8 t/e 6atal2st t le"islati#e refrm
cts ife leaves after 25 years of "arriage% J sep she files clai"s for financial support re"e!ial (L for Iclai" ass trustee for her of an un!ivi!e! one half interest in ppty owne! by hi" an! in re to which sheclai"e! that they were e)ual partners% uring years of "arriage she wor#e! e<tensively in "aintaining large
rural properties in B an! couple ha! ac)uire! a T of a!!itional valuable ppties as a result of their successfulwor#% Litle to all ppties in husban!@s na"e alone%
ule Inless there was evi!ence to show that wife ha! "a!e a financial contribution to ac)uisition of ppty hel! inher husban!@s na"e she was not entitle! to a !eclaration of resulting trust =wife@s labour not sufficient>
nalysis ife !i! not wor# along with husban! on large ppties but "a!en o financial contribution
el!+ ,a*ority hel! that ,rs% , was not entitle! to a resulting trust an! M"et the e<pectations of what every ranchwife is e<pecte! to !o E
as#in : issenting ife is entitle! to re"e!ial (L for I clai" Ewife@s significant contribution of physical labourbeyon! or!inary house#eeping !uties to acco"plish goals of ppty sharing
W/ is a Sp4se fr P4rpses f Prpert2 S/arin" ,s &;*8 FLA.' 1 / MspouseC "eans either of two persons who
a> are "arrie! to each other or b> have together entere! into a "arriage that is voi!able or voi! in goo! faith on the part of a person
relying on this clause to assert any right%S 2 &o$gamous marrages
&n the !efinition of MspouseC a reference to "arriage inclu!es a "arriage that is actually or potentiallypolyga"ous if it was celebrate! in a *uris!iction whose syste" of law recogniGes it as vali!%
75 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
the '(( "a*ority e"phasiGe! private or!ering in!ivi!ual autono"y an! choice for fa"ily "e"bers% 'i"ilarargu"ents were later consi!ere! in ue!ec # ='(( 2013 ). (Miglin+ "artshorne)
cts ,s alsh argue! that the e<clusion of opposite se< cohabiting couples fro" ova 'cotias "atri"onialproperty regi"e =applicable at separation> contravene! s 15 of the $harter %
oc
story
is"isse! at trial L( overturne! by '( L( restore! by '(( /the "a*ority !ecision !enie! that there was
an infringe"ent of s 15 of the $harter =an! !i! not then go on to consi!er s 1>
atio ;e de4nition o# spouse is con4ned to married spouses #or purposes o# provincial maritalppty statutes and complies wit s 15 o# te Charter
nalysis 'pouses MchooseC whether to be boun! by the "atri"onial property regi"e when they choose to "arry =ornot> thus e"phasiGing goals of autono"y an! choice% Lhe "a*ority note! that these couples coul! "a#econtracts =Mopting inC> or hol! property as *oint tenants? coul! access (L re"e!ies
iss8 a.Perception o# coice6 #ocus on te #ormation o# relationsipsb) a couple3s initial intentions are not relevant at te end o# an interdependent
economic relationsip6. bot partners must coose to marry$ so tat it is not a matter o# individual coice=
responsibility #or post separation dependency sould be assigned to #ormer #amilymembers$ rater tan te state=d.SCC reected te argument tat coabitation was mainly te result o# a coice ine) $ marital status o#ten lies beyond te individuals eective control (para 15-)
T/e pli62 re6mmendatin ; OLR$ reprt re6mmend 6;/a5itin" 64pless/4ld /a#e a66ess t ppt2 re"ime 4nder FLA< Despite 6ases and LI8re6mmendatins /a#e nt 5een implemented
• Lhe nee! to co"pensate econo"ic contributions to fa"ily well/being
•
elationships between $; an! social assistance law;& absence of for"al "arriage has =little> bearing to intention of spouses or character of !o"estic
relationship or e)uitable consi!erations un!erlying clai"s bt. spouses at brea#!ownuse of law to !efine rights obligations of non/"arital cohabitants was unsatisfactory
hat is useful • ;i#e ollan! ;( re*ects opt/in legal regi"e but co/habiting couples "ust continue to !o so
Luebec v A 201 S!M o 5 G $laimantHs 6nstit4tinal 6/allen"e wrp t /ere76l4sin 4nder $ $i#il $de is re9e6ted< S$$ /eld t/at s/e was entitled tw/at t/e dm B ered
cts • (ohabiting spouse brought clai" wrp to her e<clusion =pursuant to Quebecs (ivil (o!e> fro" access toany property or spousal support at separation base! on the $harter %
• Lhe spouses "et an! began to cohabit when the wo"an was 17 an! the "an in his early 30s? he was asuccessful business "an an! the wo"an left BraGil to settle with hi" in Quebec% 3 chil!ren an! weretogether for seven years? P gave evi!ence that she ha! wante! to "arry but that her partner ha!e<plaine! that he !i! not believe in "arriage%
• t separation he agree! that she coul! re"ain in the , until the chil!ren were all of the age of"a*ority an! he also agree! to pay sig "onthly chil! support base! on e<tensive wealth
sue oes cohabitee@s !isentitle"ent to anything other than '' contravene s 15 &f yes is it save! by s1
oc istory (lai" re*ecte! at trial Q(( reverse! L( '(( restore! L( / partner gets what other partner offere!
76 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
ati TC3s Civil Code entitlements do not apply to unmarried spouses$ and does notcontravene s 15 o# Carter= ;ere#ore$ unmarried spouses cannot claim statppty rigts under Civil Code (5@<)
issentin"
(#c<achlin CHC) hel! provisions contravene! s 15 save! by s 1 =all "ale "a* !i! not invo#e (harter>3 Hu"es+ &"pugne! provisions contravene! s 15 ppty provs *ustifie! '' not save! by s 1 *u!ge(Abella H) / !enial of entitle"ent to property an! '' to a cohabiting spouse at separation contravene! s15 an! was not save! by s 1%
/mps
n $riti34e
,t is law#ul to e0clude coabiting couples #rom access to te ppty saring regime at
relationsip brea*down !ecision mar*s te end o# era in = = A #ormalisticvs= #unctional approac was ta*en save #or Abella L wo used #unctionalapproac to conclude tat access sould be e0tended on basis tat w/atmatters is nt 6/i6e r 6nsent8 54t w/at t/e famil2 des at sep
e"islati#e Re"imes fr Prpert2;S/arin" at Marria"e Creadwn
W/at is t/e 4nderl2in" ratinale fr prpert2 s/arin"Q : a pres4mptin fe34al 6ntri54tins t a634isitin E maintenan6e f fam assets
S @ G Pli62 Framewr
ON FLA
de0nitinsf“sp4se”:
Parts , and ,, (s 1) re ' married spouses6 :9UPart ,,, (s 2%) re SSe0panded de4nition o# Vspouse3 to include coabiting
spouses6
Le"islati#e59e6t
Oac spouse sares e"ually in economic wealt o# marriage R brea*down$<thout an change n ""t o<nersh"
Se6tin @,>.Purpose o#
e"ualiBationregime
(1) to recogniBe tat cild care$ ouseold management and 4nancial provisionare te 9int respnsi5ilities f t/e sp4ses - (2) and tatin/erent in te marital relationsip tere is e?ua$ contrbuton$weter 4nancial or oterwise$ by te spouses to te assumption o#tese responsibilities$ (3) entitlin" ea6/ sp4se to te e"ualiBationo# te 9Ps (<. s459e6t nl2 t t/e e34ita5le 6nsideratins setout sub (.)
>ection ?(1) MLriggering eventsC+ !ivorce nullity or Mwhen the spouses are separate! an! there is no reasonable
77 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
nconscionability6 test and speci4c #actors permits a court to awardsometing more or less tan te e"ualiBation payment=
Policy rationale A to pro"ote certainty an! pre!ictability re!uce litigationPractical bene4ts / pro"otes certainty pre!ictability less litigation re+ ppty rights vs% B( wherects have greater !iscretion!isadvantages in!ivi!ualiGe! *ustice restricte! gen rules pro!ucing a fair result in vast "a* of
cases but "ay cause unfairness in part circu"stancesOL4C / "aintaining high threshol! carries a price but reco""en!e! against lowering stan!ar! forfear of increase! inconsistency an! unpre!ictability4e#o++en$ations / a!! a!!itional circu"stances to s 5=6> + to recogniGe a substantial postvaluation !ate change in value of an asset if necessary to ensure an e)uitable result having regar!to fluctuation =courts shoul! consi!er i> cause of change in value ii>a"t of the change>
C$ ppt2s/arin"re"im
e
ote that the new B( %L# retains *u!icial !iscretion to re/allocate spousal property
Defa4lt Re"ime ; T/e -34aliatin Pr6ess in Ontari ,FLA8 Part I,&'(.. G Nte8 parties 6an B 4t f FLA8 s *,&+.8 s459e6t t@*,*.
*,&+. GOptin" 4t
ct sub*ect to contracts=10> !o"estic contract !ealing with a "atter that is also !ealt with in this ct prevails unless this ctprovi!es otherwise
@*,*. nB re M!
"/ts
provision in a "arriage contract purporting to li"it a spouses rights un!er Part && =,> isunenforceable
78 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
(sually) date te spouses separate and tere is no reasonable prospect tat tey willresume coabitation =2> !ate !ivorce is grante! =3> !ate of an or!er of nullity =4> Lhe !ate one of thespouses co""ences a =grante!> application base! on subsection 5 =3> =i"provi!ent !epletion> =5> !ateb4 !eath !ate of spouse the other spouse surviving
radl2interpreted8
ppt2
(any interest$ present or #uture$ vested or contingent$ real or personal) as encompassingbot e"uitable and legal interests$ e0cludes pro#essional licences ,$arat4n.8includes a negative balance ,Mena"e.
76l4dedppt2,s,*
..
>4(2) efinition of Me<clu!e! propertyC Ei!t@inheritance, !rom /6, a!ter marria"e ate, canKt be #5 interest) / interest.inco"e calculate! fro"gift.inheritance being e<clu!e! re)uires e<press lang fro" !onor.testator 7e! o! +"i!t+ - Mc/aee vs Mc/aee0 a transfer of property by way of gift "ay e)ually be"otivate! by co""ercial purposes provi!e! the transfer is gratuitous%C= therefore e<cl fro" @s $P butnot interest that is beneficially owne!>6I ama"es ri"ht to procees o! li!e insurance6roperty into hich property be trace - 1-46roperty e&clue by a om , an C66 pensionable earnin"s
=B+ o value of e<clu!e! property woul! be inclu!e! in calculating $P>>4(3) Fnus of proving M!e!uctionC =section 4=1>> or Me<clusionC =section 4=2>> =on clai"ant>
FP8 s,&.
Walue o# all te property$ tat a spouse owns on W@day$ e0cept property described insubsection (2)$ a#ter deducting “de5ts E t/er lia5ilities nt related tdire6tl2 t a634isitin r si"ni06ant impr#ement f M! ” and “pre;marria"e prpert2 G nt M!8 wned at date f marria"e8 6al64lated atdate f marria"e ”
e"ati$e S <(5) ,# a spouses 9P results ina negative value$ deemed to be ?
80 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Steps f Anal2sis&< Determine ;da2 r #al4atin date ,6t ma2 e7er6ise dis6retin if fa6t4al6nte7t is 4n6lear .
• Oswell v Oswell (1552) / marriage deteriorating bt/w Sep 7 and Marc $ ;Leld W@day at Lan 1%$ CA declined to inter#ere wit ;L determination
• Caratun v Caratun (1587) ; W@day re#ers to date wen tere was no
reasonable prospect o# resumption o# coabitation$ wen & le#t wit no intentionto return (wi#es e0pectation o# reconciliation was not reasonable incircumstances)
• 4awlu@ v 4awlu@ / wi#e le#t M& in <$ property value increased dramaticallya#ter W due to reBoning= Court /eld t/at it was nt permitted t alter#al4atin date p4rs4ant t s f FLA$ toug tey did not e0press viewabout weter suc increases in value migt constitute unconscionabilitypursuant to s 5(.)
Determine w/at ppt2 was wned 52 ea6/ sp4se n da2 ,If t/ere is a 5ene06ial
terest "i#in" rise t R$T fr R 6laim8 en"a"e /ere FIRST.• O0cludes pro#essional licences$ C; can be attaced to licence b/c its not ppty(Caratun)-
• ,# applicable$ apply trust principles to determine bene4cial ownersip (b/c pptycannot be e0cluded i# bene4cially owned by someone else) (M#Na+ee4awlu@)
Determine w/et/er an2 ppt2 6nstit4tes e76l4ded ppt2 ,s ,*. and nte tra6in" in,*..8 and is ded46ted frm NFP
• Post@W day ,ncrease in value o# e0cl real or personal ppty not include in 9Pcalculation
• Silverer" v Silverer"' S may not cange a represented caracteriBation o# ppty=
Mrs S tells er & tat boss gave er ewellery in lieu o# wages$ later argues it was a gi#t$was included in 9P=
• Le&evre v Le&evreN Ii#ts or #unds (oterwise entitled to be e0cluded)used #orpurcase o# M& may be included in spouse3s 9P calculation$ if tra6ed t ppt2 f M! at;da2
• arrin"ton v arrin"tonN Standard #or meeting s <(-) onus @ +:P
• Cartier v Cartier: Fen a spouse trans#ers gi#ted or inerited ppty into ointnames$ con#erring an interest in te oter spouse$ te trans#erring spouse loses tee0clusion :9U to te e0tent o# te gi#t e or se made to te oter spouse$ provided tatte result intended by te trans#er is oint ownersip
Assi"n #al4e t t/e prpert2 ,in#l#es 94di6ial dis6retin if t/ere are 6mpetin"
aims a54t #al4e.• Monta"ue v Monta"ue ' court assigns X? value to a ppty tat was so polluted$
clean cost e0ceeds inerent value o# ppt
• Oswell v Oswell 'Court e0ercises discretion to determine wic valuation measureto use in valuing Fs #urs and ewellery @ #air mar*et value at W dayN 8eplacement valueNFear > tearN
81 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Frm ttal ppt2 #al4e8 ded46t &. ,an2 6ntin"ent ta7. de5ts E lia5ilities f ppt2wned at ;da28 AND *. pre;marria"e ppt2 #al4e f assets sp4se 6al64lated atte f marria"e ,e#en if sld after marria"e8 di64lties f prf.
• M& @ S cannot deduct pre@marriage ppty value o# M&$ even i# owned at date o#marriage or value$ debts and liabilities o# M&$ incl tose related to ac"uisition/sigimprovement
• Sen"+uller v Sen"+uller @ 9on@speculative$ actual disposition costs i# supportedby evidence o# a plan #or disposition$ ;OS; ' (1) apply overriding principle o# #airness$ 2)case@by@case
• Pa&arella v Pa&arella 2013- ONCA K Presumption @ S3s debts at date o# marriagewill aect tat spouse3s entitlement in te e"ualiBation calculation$ unless evidence to tecontrary $ #rustrates policy obectives
• Stein v Stein SCC ' contingent ta0 liabilities constitute liabilities in relation to 9P
• & retained business interests F ac"uired M&$ and contingent ta0 liabilitiesdeducted
• Abella L$ dissenting @ un#air to ma*e deduction due to mani#est un#airness resulting#rom ine"uality created by division bt/w bot parties
• =ol"a v =ol"a i# spouses asset not M& at Wday$ toug once was$ ten spouse mayredeem rigt to deduct pre marriage value
ep ; $al64late ea6/ sp4se1s NFP 8 determine am4nt t/at is &K* t/e dieren6eKw "reater and lesser ,S @,&.. ; represents a de5t win"8 nt an entitlement t
pert2 ne" NFP s/all 5e J+J ,s ,@..
• Mena"e @ A spouses indebtedness$ negative balances$ is added to a spousesassets a W day
• Fere a PMW is a negative amount$ it becomes a positive amount$ tat is added tovalue o# 9P
ep >; Assess an2 6laim fr entitlement t mre t/an ne /alf t/e dieren6e (s @,.)rmits court to e0ercise discretion to award an amount tat is Y/@ tan 1/2 dierence bt/wP IF court is o# opinion tat e"ualiBing 9Ps would be unconscionable K iger tresold tan
e"uitable
82 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• Step > 6ntin4ed wit/ 6ase law Junconscionable represents iger tresoldtan ine"uitable ,n tis case e"ual saring would be grossly un#air$ unreasonable$repugnant to anyones sense o# ustice to te level o# unconscionabilityJ (Braas#ma)
• (aters v aters ) $ee+e$ e34alit2 f 6ntri54tin @ As a matter o# publicpolicy$ contributions are deemed e"ual (even wen tey are not) @ Vcompelling publicpolicy reason by departure #rom e"uality sould be uncommon= Court concluded eretere was no basis #or revising OT claim
• S@ri v S@ri: 4e#@less $epletion o& N=; (s E(6)(h) Ct awards une"ual saringon basis tat & too* X.$--? more tan F #rom oint account= 1/2 o# tat amount award to
Fs OT payment • (Sullivan v Sullivan) Ct preserved business as asset #or wi#e and er #uture ability
to support ersel# > cildren Jpatently > grossly un#air' to permit & to sare in e"uity o#tis bus dismal J
• (Lelan# v Lelan#) F awarded une"ual sare$ er contributions e0tensive$ isnegligible
(=utia ),t would be unconscionable #or Petitioner to receive an e"ual division wen secontributed virtually noting to ac"uisition o# M& wose value increased substantially bt/wpurcase date > date o# sep Sort marriage b/c spouse claims oter spouse was abusiveCt awarded une"ual sare to responded even toug P argued 8s cruelty was reason #orduration o# sort marriage
• ( Ma#neill)E(6)(e )Coabitation period interpreted to include pre@marital Y maritalcoabitation periods
Serra v Serra- interpretin" s E(6)(h)- in#lu$es spousal +is#on$u#t an$ un#ons#ionaleresults o& the <> pro#ess -gh unconsconab$t thresho$% %oes not "rec$u%e ct rom ta#ng ntoaccount a "ost se"araton %ate change n va$ue o s"ouseFs assets an% the crcumstancessurroun%ng or "ur"oses o s 5(6)h)
•.<S. !t shou$% on$ a<ar% an une?ua$ %vson () crcumstances gvng rse to change
n va$ue re$ate to the ac?uston+ %s"oston+ "reservaton mantenance o m"rovement o ""t+ AN ) <here e?ua$'ng & <ou$% be unconsconab$e+ havng regar% to thosecrcumstances (a$one or n conJuncton < 5 (6) actors)
%ecrease% EL "ament "ermts a ocus on resu$t o EL "rocess o s 5(1)> %stngushe%that mar#et %rven %ec$ne * re$ate% to economc %o<nturn+ not suOcent <Co more toa<ar% une?ua$ sharng
• (ean v Clausi ) /nconsconab$e resu$t or <e to have to bear entre bur%en o a
%ecrease n asset va$ue create% at nstgaton o -+ or "ur"ose o mantanng H-+ out oe?ut o H-+ an% $arge$ manage% b -
4aliatin at deat/ r di#r6e ,spousal rigts re marital ppty constitute en#orceable legalobligations)
• Stone v Stone (1555) 6 O4 (3$) 31
• ' wealty usband wo *new e was #atally ill trans#erred assets wortX1=- million to cildren to avoid e"ualiBation w wi#e R is deat= ollowing
deat$ widow success#ully callenged trans#ers as contrary to raudulentConveyances Act$ 8S:$ 1%%?
4atio: =LA #reate$ a #re$itor $etor relationship whi#h ta@es &or+ o& an open or runnin"a##ount whi#h e#o+es a settle$ a##ount on separation or $eath #onsistent with "oal o&spouses sharin" their net a##retion in wealth $urin" +arria"e
pert2 E Prfessinal De"rees G sp4sal 6ntri54tins t PPDs 6an 5e6mpensated #ia SS awardsCorless v Corless + @s law !egree was property ha! no value for purposes of calculating wife@s$P?(rt awar!e! '' to co"pensate wife ta#ing into account she postpone! her legal career to assist
83 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
' 4=1>=c> > in the case of a spouses rights un!er a pension plan the impute $alue, !or F< purpoo! the spouse9s interest in the plan, as etermine in accorance ith section 1L.1, !or the pbe"innin" ith the ate o! the marria"e an enin" on =-ayRead 1LA in conjunction &ith 2ensions 3enefits Act to calculate value of pension (2ension 3enefits Ac+ 45.4) Pension a!"inistrator will !eter"ine value of pension plan beforeapportion"ent for fa"ily law purposes in accor!ance with O !ay =value fro" "arriage !ate to O/!a
FL Stat
Amendmentts *
++'
$; 'tatute "en!"ent ct 2009 a"en!e! $; to prov gui!ance on valuing pensions as o! 2L1
C66 bene!its - e<clu!e! ppty fro" e)ualiGation regi"e splitting entitle"ent to pension cre!its pursto ((P is !iv.sep but necessary to "a#e an application>ettlement o! a pension interest by eDualiJation / > 1L.1(3> i""e!iate transfer of a lu"p su" oa pension plan per $; ss 9/10 sub*ect to 10%1=4> Pension Benefits ct restrictions continue to ap6ensions subect to amenments / a"en!"ents apply whether O!ay before on or after !ate o:an 2012 restriction on or!ers "a!e before section ta#es effect%7omestic s an pensions - > ?.1 allows for application of sa"e rules re pensions in relation to!o"estics s =incl sep agree"ent> or arbitration awar!s ?Cohabitin" couples "ay "a#e sepagree"ents incl provs concerning pensions
rpert2 and pensinsGs ,&.,6. A $ s < ppty de# incls Ja spouses rigts under a PP tatave vested=
T/e Matrimnial !me: FLA Parts I and IIard # Ward8 %*+&&) O= N< ?8 ONS$ @>+ ,Ont S4p $t =. K CA aGrmed ;L decision tormit une"ual saring and awarded wi#e OT payment o# %?D on basis o# s 5(.)(c)()=conscionable result in award o# e"ual saring invo*ed s 5(.)
cts &n 2006 s father conferre! on ti"e gift of D200000 on an! , persua!e! her to pay !own ;F(secure! against fa"ily ho"e% ,arriage alrea!y in trouble for 4 years% 2 "onth later , purchases con!oan! leaves $% ( staye! in $ agree! to buy ,@s interest in the ho"e after receiving an or!er fore<clusive possession of ,% Lhey also agree! on an or!er for '' (' only re"aining issue was a"t ofKQ pay"ent
85 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
6pe ZParts , and ,, o# te A do not apply to coabitees$ Spouses may D out o# Partde#ault ppty saring regime$ but may not D to limit a spousespossessory rigts in te M&' A s 52(2)
ection 1(1) (1) Overy property in wic a person as an interest and tat is or$ i# te spouses aveseparated$ (2) was at te time o# separation ordinarily occupied by te personand is or er spouse as teir #amily residence is M& (at W@day)
aselaw reS
,&(,&..
Nahat#hewit 9 & owned a ome at time o# marriage$ &> F lived in it #or some time= &went away$ and ten & sold it= Parties separated= M& was not ordinarily
occupied by te spouses as teir #amily residence6 at separation (W@!ay)$ itwas not a M&$ and tus & was entitled to deduct it as PMW=
aCosta ' & received an ineritance o# money a#ter is marriage$ used it to purcaseCedar !ee arm in part= Court traced te #unds to te #arm= &eld' & wasentitled to e0clude te ineritance value #rom 9P total b/c it was notconsidered a M& te court eld tat F did not spend time at te #arm to meets 1 test=
76l4sinsEDe
d46tins
S ,&.,5)!eductions on M& @ ,# pre marriage property is a ouse tat is te matrimonialome at W day$ it cannot be deducted=
S,*.X& Property$ oter tan a M&$ tat was ac"uired by gi#t or ineritance$ #rom a tirdperson$ a#ter te date o# te marriage
&' Pssessr2 Ri"/ts G re34isite element f entitlement is s &(,&.Spouses ave e"ual rigts to possession$ regardless o# title (potentially to a non@titled
spouse)' it is a personal rigt$ not en#orceable against ;P
* Se6tin *,&.,5.: 8egardless o# title and s 1%$ section con#ers aut on court to ordere0clusive possession$ generally time limited$ precludes titled spouse to sell ome(radicallycanges trad ppty principles)
S *,?) interim order #or e0clusive possession$ usually a time@limited order= Statute issilent about ow muc weigt to accord eac #actor<” In determinin"w/et/er t mae an rder fr e76l4si#e pssessin8 t/e 64rt s/all6nsider8”
(a) te best interests o# te cildren aected (includes psycological stresses and strainsaected by separation o# parents arising out o# daily #rictions bt/w parents$protection o# cildren may outweig 4nancial issues @ ;i&er )
(b) any e0isting orders under Part , (amily Property) and any e0isting support orders oroter en#orceable support obligations
(c) te 4nancial position o# bot spouses (4osenthal @ typical$ & le#t ome cannotsupport F and *ids in M and imsel# R same time$ F wants everyting tostay te same witout any canges ilson)
(d) any written agreement between te parties
(e) te availability o# oter suitable and aordable accommodation and(#) any violence committed by a spouse against te oter spouse or te cildren (incl
psycological violence$ war#are @ -$$)
Se6tin *,.: !e4nition o# +,C #or applications #or e0clusive possession o# te M&=(a) te possible disruptive eects on te cild o# a move to oter accommodation and(b) te cild3s views and pre#erences$ i# tey can reasonably be ascertained=
88 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
LP evi!ence frien!s provi!ing sworn affi!avits =ill> babysitter =Pifer>&"portance of e<pert evi!ence as to an<iety physical !istress =ill> vs% Beh!ren!t =none financialresources>
ge of chil!ren ol!er chil!ren an! their ability to fin! other acco""o!ation$inancial stability of both spouses
nan6ialre
s4r6esEs*,?.
ilson v ilson K *ey #actor in granting interim e0cl possession to wi#e K !W$ drin*ingproblem on part o# &$ +,C$ aordable accommodation
+ i> B.c of @s li"ite! "eans realises she will have to acco""o!ate her nee!s beyon! @s ability to
pay? ii> @s behaviour incl assault ten!encies uncontrolle! !rin#ing / factor to grant e<clusivepossession of , to iii> B&( / re"ain in si"ilar surroun!ings woul! be in best interests of chil!renbearing in "in! that wife has been a full ti"e "other an! will continue to be so if interi" custo!y carean! control of chil!ren were grante! to w generous access to iv> lac# of alternative affor!ableacco""o!ations(+ ife e<pecte! to pay househol! e<penses incl "ortgage pay"ent grant of e<clusive possession of, to ?
Appli6atins fr e76l4si#e pssessin f M! ; $aselawRsent/al # Rsent/al ,&'(. ? FL ,?d. &* ,Ont !$. G S * appli6atin ref4sed
$acts Lhree ol!er sons are resi!ing application% Fne is atten!ing school two are receiving inco"e / K& an!inco"e fro" wor# relate! in*ury% is renting 1 be!ro" apt for D600."onth% presents evi!ence that shee"otionally !istresse! believes her stan!ar! of living shoul! not be affecte! by @s situation
nalysis *,?.,6. @ Per 4nancial statements 4led by bot parties$ apparent tat tere are not suGcient#unds to continue occupation o# marital ome$ it is in best interests o# bot partiestat M& be sold #or best price available$ and e0cess moneys to be divided bt/w
89 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
$/a5itin" $4ples and t/e se f Tr4st D6trine ,Pett4s # Ce6er PeterCe5lw8 Berr # Caranw anasse Se"4in.R
prin6iple
,Pett 4s.n4snP
L
&. S45stantial 5ene0t 6nferred 4pn respndin" part2 526ntri54tins f 6laimant relatin" t maintenan6e r a634isitin tppt2 in 34estin
a> 'orochan Pett#us? ,ur!och A non/tra! e<traor!inary wor# outsi!e of ho"e re)uire! to estaclai" was )uite e<traor!inary sa"e wor# as B laying floor lifting beehives
b> (6verson v Ric+ S%) / (lai"ant not successful where househol! wor# only perfor"e!? (%uSa) here a wo"an wor#e! outsi!e ho"e househol! services awar!e! 25S of interest in ='tewart v hitley> courts !enie! clai"s b.c tra!itional !ivision of labour =with wo"an !oinghousehol! wor# an! "an wor#ing at pai! labour> "eant there was no enrich"ent or !eprivation
c> 3elo& A e<pan!s wor# re)uire! to inclu!e services chil!care for"erly servicesinterprete! as e)ual !ivision of wor# in relation to "ales wor# outsi!e of the ho"e*. $rrespndin" depri#atin s4ered 52 6laimant fr w/i6/ n
6mpensatin was re6ei#ed?. A5sen6e f 94risti6 reasn re54tta5le 52 e#iden6e n part f D t
(elow):nus on P to sow tat M w4ld nt appropriately compensate
person #or #or services rendered by claimaint in te circumstances (Sanso+If Y G t/en M awarded= Consider probability o# award being paid=8esponding party will attempt to sow it3s appropriate K bargain$ reasonablee0pectations
,= If N8 t/en $T determinatin @ ,s tere a ne0us between claimantscontributions and ac"uisition o# ppty in "uestion w/in wic claimant see*sproprietary interestN A direct contribution is not re"uired (Soro#han) (4awlM#La#hlin in ;eter v elow)
,,= If Yes8 t/en $T and determine award< If N8 pr6eed t =< ,,,= IF8 $T$ interest awarded$ determine portion o# value o# ppty in "uestion tat
attributable to to direct or indirect contributions o# claimant= Actual valuecon#erred by C is irrelevant= Fere contribution is une"ual$ sares are une"u
,W= (erranasse) If =$ wic$ does not mandate a presumption o# e"ual saten claimant must demonstrate (1) parties ave been engaged in LW K ointeorts o# parties > accumulation o# #amily assets or wealt (2) tat respondiparty as retained an inappropriately disproportionate amount o# wealt (-) contribution to te accumulation o# #amily assets or wealt G 6nsideratin
a) M- @ pooling o# eort > team wor*N !ecision to raise cildren togeterN engt relationsipN
b) -I @ te more e0tensive te integration o# couples 4nances te more li*ely a LW wbe #ound
c) A6t4al intent8 s459e6ti#e standard @e0press or in#erred weter tey eldtemselves as married$ oint title to pptyN
d) PF @ &ave parties acted on sared assumptions or understandings #or te #uture
e0press or impliedlyN @ #oregoing career or educational advancement #or #am bene4taccepting underemployment to balance dom and 4nancial needs
If = esta5lis/ed8 award s/4ld 5e prprtin t a664m4latin f famil2assets and 6mpensatin re6ei#ed s/4ld 5e dis64nted frm #erallaward<
91 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
ory : (alls for a "ore rela<e! stan!ar! vs% co""ercial conte<t when applying re"e!y of (L without "inute scrutinyof spouse@s respective financial contributions =75 568>ee! for fle<ibility an! !iscretion ? ,c;achlin : is a!vocating a "ore !octrinal an! rigi! approach
cts O ' en*oye! a relationship for 12 yrs% $or first 4 yrs they ha! each pursue! in! careers an! are cohabitingwithout chil!ren% couple! "ove! fro" Fttawa to alifa< for i"p bus opp an! O too# a leave fro" her pos%uring perio! in al couple ha! 2 chil!ren% O prov chil!care an! !o" labour while ' wor#e! long hours travelle! e<tensively in relation to bus% Lhey@re in alifa< for three an! a half years% Kventually ' steppe!
!own as (KF of bus couple! "ove! bac# to Fttawa bought a house in their *oint na"es% ' in 200 sol!shares in buss for about 11 "il then participate! "ore in fa"@s !o"estic chores%
atio (o""on intention resulting trust has no "ore application $; in I clai"s% (lai"ant@s "onetary awar! is assesse! accor!ing to share of accu"ulate! wealth proportionate to clai"ant@scontributions = consi!er "utual benefit here>#utual ene!it conferral shoul! be a!!resse! J !ef an! re"e!y stage to? at *uristic stage a li"ite! role to!eter"ine whether or not enrich"ent was *ust not its e<tent =Prof not concerne! about this either> Beblow at re"e!y stage of !ecision for e%g% !iscounting proprietary interest by a"ount of benefits receive!%"itigating roleParties@ e<pectations / shoul! have a li"ite! an! clearly circu"scribe! role
el! ,rs% O is entitle! to accu"ulation of wealth !uring perio! where there is I i%e% in alifa<% e!uctions were"a!e for P' ,rs% O@s contribution to fa"ily results in so"e access to fa" wealth=1.6 overall>
cts o"an ha! relationship with "arrie! "an for 24 years whose "arriage an! fa" responsibilities continue!%13 years into relationship "an bought far" an! the two resi!e! there "ost wee#en!s% "a!e variouscontributions / coo#ing cleaning gar!ening organiGing social events% ,an was fa"ous artist an! gifte! toher paintings worth 12000R which she sol!%
ati A claimant in a "uasi@spousal relationsip tat establises 8 claim may be entitled to(TM)
nalysis Ct loo0s at + elationship was not casual "any verbal assurances of Lown to that he woul! loo# after her!e"onstrate! in part by gifts to her
I / es Lown was focal point of owell@s life
iti)ue Prof ,c;eo! raises that the reasons in owell v Lown Kstate co"e close to asserting an al"ost auto"aticright to relief to long ti"e loversProf says this case has not ha! a huge i"pact
ele#hat, S >
PL awarded $T f *+ interest in DHs /4se E t/e /me in w/i6/ s/eli#ed< R and $T ma2 5e a#aila5le t 64ples w/ are ntJ6/a5itin"J
P > deceased in 17 year relationsip= ! purcased a ouse #or P to live in$carged er rent and e lived separately= P3s contributions incl coo*ingdinner regularly #or !$ && services o# deceased3s ouses= P claimed !stated se would never ave to worry about te ouse in wic se lived=
noll #ase2001)
Facts' clai"e! I against @s estate in relation to her increase! fin an! caregiving services after fell illan! was barre! fro" "a#ing clai" pursuant to a prenuptial agree"ent signe! by her an! !ecease! agreeing not to "a#e a clai" against her @s estate =both ha! grown chil!ren fro" 1st "arriage when!eci!ing to "arry>Ct denied claim $ relying on prenuptial agreement barring er #rom ma*ing claims
against &3s estate > e0tra responsibility attaced to an ill spouse$ is amarital underta*ing out o# love > aection
93 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
P was entitled to remedial C;$ given istory o# relationsip and !s assurances trougout$P reasonably e0pected to receive an actual interest in various ppties > ! eiterwas or ougt to ave been cogniBant o# tat e0pectation (considered !s debts$increase o# value o# ppty since sep$ process #or ppty sale)
uist vGr ea
v es J 1557 KO N
o266( Geniv
)
Partner tat was te lawyer brougt an 8 claim= Fic was reected by reason tat terewasnt suGcient evidence o# deprivation by absence o# uristic reason= Ms + wasnot worse o personally or pro#essionally due to relationsip
o I because there was no evi!ence that Buist@s contributions contribute! to increase in value of anyof assets? B !i! not enhance earning potential of -? no parties share! e)ually in !ivision of !uties? noevi!ence that B was financially worse of personally or professionally b.c of relationship
;esbian couple sep after 10 year relationship B substantial clai" by filing vols of !oc ite"iGing e<pensesthat she pai! for !uring their relationship an! cohabitation
ohw$hur ,v Ar "
Ps claim #or remedial C; #ailed= P #ound to ave made no contribution o# value to !some$ eiter in money or services $ claim tat P ad Jcontributed to M8 Asappiness > made im oy#ul was irrelevantJ
95 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Martin v Sanso+e 201 ONCA 9 C8; #or 8 claim re to married couples ' ,#claimant see*s 8 claim remedy$ court must consider i# award o# iger OTpayment under s 5(.) redresses remedy be#ore engaging in 8C; anaylsis
easonning ife did not re#ei!e (<A" the fa#t that she *ne) dom < )as not good for her does not mean that she &nderstoodeither the nat&re or #onse&en#es of the domesti# #ontra#t+ ( see no error in the trial G&dgeHs finding that she did not+
el! =1> I clai" was establishe! but a higher awar! of KQ pay"ent a!e)uately a!!ress I clai" s 5=6> wpre/ an! post *u!ge"ent a charge place! on far" ppty as security for pay"ent
96 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
SPOSAL SPPORTJSp4sesJ in pr#in6ial le"islatin in relatin t s4pprt
DA pplies to "arrie! spouses if one of the spouses has "a!e an application for !ivorce%
FLA8III
s *'8 def f sp
4se
ef of spouse e<pan!e! to inclu!e! cohabitees for purposes of '',arrie! spouses use $; to apply for '' at "o"ent of separation before spouse applies for !ivorce
dependant: a persn t w/m ant/er /as an 5li"atin t pr#ide s4pprtsp4se: &,&. eit/er f * persnsK4nmarried E /a#e 6/a5ited ,t li#e t"et/erwKin a 6n94"al relatins/ip8 inside r 4tside marria"e.8 ,a. 6ntin44sl2 fr
a perid f ? 2ears r are ,5. nat4ral r adpti#e parents f a 6/ild inrelatins/ip f sme permanen6e
S ? Param4nt62 &f there is an app un!er both $; not a!*u!icate! for '' then the $; app isstaye!
S*,&+.
&f !epen!ent an! payor out of $; provs an! arrange"ents are low such that )ualifies for socialassistance officers are entitle! to apply for or!er of variation to increase '' you "ay beco"e !isentitle!
97 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• S/elter (a)!id parties live under te same roo#N (b) Fat were te sleepingarrangementsN (c)!id anyone else occupy or sare te available accommodations
• Se74al and Persnal Ce/a#i4r ,a.se0ual relationsN ,# not$ wy notN ,5. attitudes4delityN ,6. #eelings towards eac oter$,d.communicated on a personal levelN
• ,e.ate meals togeterN ,f. !id tey do anyting assist eac oter w/probs or illness!id tey buy gi#ts #or eac oter on special occasions
• Ser#i6es ; ,a. Fat was te conduct o# te parties in relation to' a)preparation o#
meals$5.
wasing and mending clotes$6.
sopping$d.
ouseold maintenance$ anany oter domestic services N
• S6ial ; ,a. !id parties participate togeter or separately in neigbourood andcommunity activitiesN ,5.Fat was te relationsip and conduct o# eac o# tem towmembers o# teir respective #ams and ow did suc #ams beave toward te partiesN
• S6ietal ;Fat was te attitude > conduct o# te comm toward eac> as a coupleN
• S4pprt (economic)' Fat were arrangements re (a)#ood$ cloting$ selter$ recreatio(b) ac"uisition o# ownersip o# ppty$ (c) as to determinant o# overall relationsip
,rs ' is applying for '' an! ,r ; contests that they were in a cohabiting relationship%7ecision' Parties were in a cohabiting relationship% Lrial is re)uire! to !eter"ine issue of spousalsupport
98 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Feter couples are separated is a matter o# intent$ not geograpy= (Fere notloo*ing at geograpical location$ co@residence$ but rater intention o#parties)
Applicationgifts / 60 car!s sent fro" ; to ' calls her oral evi!ence / ,rs% '@s witnesses i"press "ore upon L:cre!ibility / ; is less than forthright about what was going on% ,rs ' was foun! "ore cre!iblecontinuity / ; e"phasiGes ti"es when they were on separate ships
*u!ge fin!s not !eter"inative relationship "ay be continuous even if parties live apart%
Sandersn #R4ssell
,n some cases te test sould be realistic and e0ible enoug to recogniBe tatbrie# cooling o period does not bring te relationsip to an end= Succonduct does not convincingly demonstrate === tat te relationsip is an end
Interpretin" S *',5.: A t46/ f permanen6e
Ma/ne2# Bin"
$+ Parties are in inti"ate relationship for 5.6 yrs live! on her own live! separately w his "arrie!spouse who !i! not #now about e<tra"arital relationship% applies for support after relationship bro!ownAn intimate relationsip in wic one party is married$ and spouses are living a
may constitute a relationsip o# some permanence&' A entitled to SS$ #alls under de# o# spouse under s 2%(b)
La55e #M6$4ll4"/
$+ oung wo"an live! w "an for 6 w#s over perio! of 19 "onths% was pregnant an! en!e!relationship% applies for spousal supportA party may be entitle to >> e$en thou"h parties are li$in" to"ether !or short perio o! time are parents o! a chil5' A is a spouse, circu"stances isclose a touch o! permanence '' D150 "onth.1yr
Cre5i6 #
Nisi6+
$+ an! were in an 1M "onth cohabiting relationship an! bught a ho"e together% Lhe parties sh
e<penses incl e<penses for P@s two sons fro" an earlier relationship an! planne! to "arry in 1994%!ies in a collision an! wo"an wants to sue !river for !a"ages but her right to sue !epen!e! on whshe coul! !e"onstrate that was a spouse pursuant to s 29 =a>%An obecti$e stanar ill be use to etermine hether or not a party !alls uner the e!initispouse pursuant to s 2G(a).>pouses must li$e to"ether !or at least 3 yrs uner s 2G(a), thou"h may not correspon prec@all characteristics o! C#< relationships5' o"an !i! FL fall un!er !ef of spouse
99 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• '' was for"erly ali"ony ha! !uty to provi!e econo"ic support for post/separation
• :u!icial !ivorce / li"ony was available to Ean innocent wifeE% In!erlying rationale above / !utpay coul! not be ter"inate! by spousal "iscon!uct
• "o!ern refor"s un!er"ine! this rationale / no fault !ivorce pro"oting gen!er neutrality
SS mdels • three moels - are consiere hen eterminin" entitlement to spousal support
• no clear consensus as to basis for spousal support =1> !ifferent #in!s of "arriages =2> !iff ob*e factors in statute not all consistent =3> !iscretion / aspects use! as appropriate
SS tpr#idein6mese64rit2 fradependentsp4se,“need”.
• being "arrie! R economic nee which gives one an entitle"ent to !raw on resources of othespouse with financial resources%
• pri"ary responsibility of fa"ily un!erta#en in "arriage to provi!e support to !epen!ants pos
• not necessarily *ustifiable to the person who "ust pay spousal support% 'houl! !epen!ant ougprovi!e for the"selves
$mpensatr2 fr e6n
lss d4rin"MK$O!
• nee! to co"pensate a spouse =usually > who has Esacrifice! labour force participation in or!perfor" fa"ily responsibilitiesE for the loss of econo"ic opportunity suffere!
•
(o"pensate for econo"ic !isa!vantage flowing fro" pri"ary chil! care responsibilities after !• ;ength of "arriage "ay also be consi!ere!
SS as ,6lean5rea.
"o!el recogniGes "arriage has en!e! an! shoul! encourage econo"ic !isengage"ent of the p the assu"ption of responsibility by spouses for their own support as )uic#ly as possible
-#l4tin f Le"islati#e Prin6iples A54t Sp4sal S4pprt
frmerprin6iple
!A$ 1%. 1(1)$ spousal support ordered on basis o#'conduct$ condition$ means and oter circumstances [o# te parties\
Fo bears obligation o# providing 4nancialsupportN
Lhe 'tate or the for"er spouse
ase atio.ecision
Messier vela"e J1583K 2SC401
F' $or"er applie! to vary '' or!er on groun! that although ha! not yet secure! here"ploy"ent she ha! co"plete! her stu!ies an! ha! 5 years to beco"e self/sufficient% $or"er was "arrie! for 12 years ha! custo!y of 3 chil!ren ha! never wor#e! outsi!e the ho"e8atio' A divorced man bears te responsibility o# supporting a #ormer F wo cannot
provide #or er own needs = &eld' & must pay reduced SS inde4nitely to#ormer S= SCC upeld CA
• 7issentin" (<amer )+ 'upport ought to be rehabilitativean! that each spouse ha! a "utualobligation to beco"e self /sufficient an! '' is not the responsibility for the for"er spouse%
;ele#hriolo", sep s)
6elech' ,rs P receive! '' in lu"p su" in conte<t of sep agree"ent an! eventually ran out% erhealth !eteriorate! an! therefore unable to wor#% brings an or!er for variation to increase ''on a!vice of social assistance officers 15 yrs after !ivorceRati' ;e state bears te responsibility to support #ormer spouses post separation$
not #ormer spouses$ unless applicant can demonstrate causal connectioneconomic disadvantage > marriage brea*down (b) designed to promotecertainty > to #acilitate clean brea* (c) #ocus on individual autonomy$ (d)respect #or Ds !eld state sould pay social assistance to supportapplicant wi#e in all - cases
100 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
pplication+ ,rs% P@s econo"ic nee! arose fro" illness not fro" pattern of econo"ic !epen!encyarising fro" "arriage? therefore not entitle! to clai" ''
Famil2 Law A6t8 RSO &'(
?+ bli"ation o! spousal supportevery spouse has obligation to support herself an! other spouse accor!ing to "eans an! nee!s to e<tentperson can provi!e support
?? Fr!er for support / ct has auth to "a#e a '' or!er
s??,?>Applications by #C>>, etc/ Fther agencies that can "a#e or!ers for (' of the respon!ent@s chil! %
s?,.
,.
Settin" asi$e $o+esti# re (a)unconsconab$t+ (b)%e"en%ant <ho <avers SS an% ?ua$esor <e$are
S#heel v en@el+an- ONCA) (ohabiting partners wo"an wor#e! as assistance to "an in Kactivities? appeal allowe! fro" L: !ecision uphol!ing waiver of ''% E'hoc#ing to the court to allow appellantto live on her "o!est pensionE% Inconscionable transaction resulte! fro" wo"an@s age =6> inability to wor#"onthly pension of D00 an! for"er cohabiting partner worth D2%5 "illion
?,(.
Purposes of '' or!er
?,'.
$actors for !eter"ination in relation to '' or!er
?,&+ Conuct in relation to spousal support/ ct "ay consi!er unconscionable con!uct constituting obvious an!gross repu!iation of relationship
? Provs reapplications un!er $; if there is application$; app is staye! if or!er un!er "a!e
?> =ariation o! spousal support orers only if there has been a material change in epen!ant or respon!ent@scircu"stances or evi!ence not available on previous hearing has beco"e available
101 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
give ct auth to "a#e "a#e ss or!er =reasonable su">
s&@<*,*.
auth to "a#e interi" or!ers lu"p su" or perio!ic
s&@<*,?.
auth court to i"pose ter"scon!s pay !efinitely or in!efinitely
s&@<*,.
,dis6retin. fa6trs 64rt m4st 6nsider needs8 means and t/er6ir64mstan6es f ea6/ sp4se in6l: ,a.len"t/ f time8 ,5.f4n6tins perfrm52 ea6/ sp4se d4rin" 6/a5itatin8 ,6. an2 rder8 a"reement rarran"ement relatin" t s4pprt f eit/er sp4se
s&@<*,@.
for =interi"> or!er court cannot consi!er spousal "iscon!uct re+ the "arriage =!oes not li"it consi!ericonse)uences thereof>
S&@<*,.,ree6tsR"ersnmdels.
a> recogniGe econo"ic a!vantages or !isa!vantages to the spouses !ue to "arriage.brea#!ownb> apportion chil! care costs of any chil! of "arriage =over above chil! support>c> relieve any econo"ic har!ship of the spouses arising !ue to "arriage.brea#!own!> in so far as practicable pro"ote the econo"ic self/sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable
perio! of ti"e%O59e6ti#es f SS rders K need$ compensation and sel# suGciency !rt?ue crt cannot accom"$sh a$$ goa$s+ ma#es actua$$ %rven choces+ <%e eercse o
%screton
s&@<?,&.
Priority for ('
s &> Oariation / vary rescin! or suspen! an or!er if there has been a change in nee!s "eans an!circu"stances of either spouse
SSA create! to encourage unifor" re )uantu" an! !uration
102 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Prin6iples f SS8 =4di6ial iews f DA8 &'(@ 8 SS as 6mpensatin
M"e # M"e E s &> a;d ,5radens 5asis fr SS t in6l 6mpensatr2.F+ $or"er applies for variation of a ''F in 89 9 yrs after !iv b.c she !oes not have enough inco"e% 'he raise!chil!ren Both were i""igrants !i! not spea# Kng well low pai! *obs% K</ re"arrie! owne! house an! !oingnancially well%
easonin"' there has been a change in circu"stances since last ''F "a!e,rs% , has sustaine! substantial econo"ic !isa!vantage !ue to "arriage / sole provi!er of chil!ren pt.ti"e wor#ho"e"a#er =s 17=7>=a>earning ability i"pacte! by upbringing of #i!s= s 17=7>=b>continues to suffer econo"ic har!ship =s 17=7>=c>
aile! to beco"e self sufficient !espite conscientious effort =17=7>=!>5el' ,r% , "ust continue to pay ''F his appeal is !is"isse! ( !ecision uphel!8atio @ Courts ave an overriding discretion wen ma*ing SS:$ and will be e0ercised
according to te particular #actors o# eac case$ aving regard to #actors andobectives in !W
) ;e clean@brea* obective is not pre@eminent$ attenuated$ in determination o# SS: $ii)compensatory model adopted by Parliament attempts to ensure e"uitablesaring o# eco conse"uence at marriage brea*down iii)
consider sort term vs= long term marriages cildless marriage 2 income ouseoldN
east v east ,Caratun Linton) iss4e f s/arin" prf de"rees resl#ed t/r4"/mpensatr2 s4pprt rat/er ppt2 pr#isins.
F' $or"er wor#e! as nurse an! sacrifice! *ob so coul! obtain "e!ical !egree% 2 separate! she lost her *ob"ental health issuesRati: SS: can be used to compensate a spouses eorts towards te oter spouses pro
degree''F can be "a!e to recogniGe a wife@s sacrifices an! contributions to the realiGation of her @s prof aspirationseasonin"+ woul! continue to e<perience uncertain health her substantial financial contribution to @s careerchange =!uring a perio! of !eteriorating health> woul! have potential substantial increases in earnings
te#ens # Ste#ens *+&* ONS$ >+5el+ (rt assesse! '' e)ualiGation% B.( re"aine! at ho"e !uring the "arriage the court or!ere! to paypu"p su" retroactive compensatory '' of D136182%easonin"n this respect is entitle! to co"pensatory support for =i> role in househol! "aintenance while sacrificing career
potential =ii> her li"ite! pai! wor# serve! to further @s financial interests% Lherefore "ust co"pensate forher contributions to "arriage% , set asi!e !ue to error in !raft that !i! not correspon! to ; for @s ? unable toun!erstan! nature.conse)uences of J ti"e of negotiationRati: reaGrms Moge === economic conse"uences o# marriage brea*down must be sared
e"ually$ given tat wor* inside te ome as an undeniable value=
103 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Fa4lt and SS ,DA8 s&@<*,@..$4rt is pre6l4ded frm rel2in" n sp4sal mis6nd46t8 ma2 l t
impa6t f sp4sal mis6nd46t
es4n # Les4n %*++) & S$R '*+$or"er spouse left his for"er after 20 years who significantly financially contribute! to his ongoing e!ucation"aintaine! househol! left her so"ewhat i"poverishe!% 'hortly after sep she seriously in*ure! bac# lai! off% (tor!ere! at !ivorce in 99 for to pay '' until she coul! return to wor#% 2003 / brings application for ter"ination b.che was une"ploye!.financial !ifficulty at ti"e wife is 60 yrs ol!%5el' ppeal !is"isse! was in nee! of '' b.c she ha! not yet co"e self sufficient
Rati: (Omo) Conse"uences o# spousal (mis)conduct may be considered in loo*ing at needsand circumstances to determine entitlement to SS= &ere dep S3s #ailure to acieveemployment in part due to emotional devastation caused by e0@&3s spousalmisconduct$ wi#e3s age$ poor ealt=
easonin"' 'pousal abuse triggering a !epression so serious as to "a#e a clai"ant une"ployable is highlyelevant in !eter"ining entitle"ent )uantu" an! !uration to '' as here (21) ?failure to achieve self/sufficiency not a
BF of clean brea# !uty?is 1 of several factors to be ta#en into account (2B)% evi!ence is !esirable not essential
n"erer # n"erer ,&''(. applies to ter"inate '' b.c $or"er no effort to beco"e self/sufficient? was in conte"pt for resisting accessprovs for to chil!ren? encouraging !aughter to clai" falsely ha! "oleste! her%8atio' Spousal misconduct may establis an application #or an order to terminate SS i#
misconduct alleged is o# suc a morally repugnant nature$ as would cause a 8P to
say S is no longer entitled to support o# e0@& or to udicial assistance in compelling& to pay !eld8 SS terminated . years a#ter divorce=
tewart # Stewart *+++ NSS$@s abusive con!uct post/!ivorce !i! not constitute con!uct in relation to "arriage one of several factors to support!enying @s clai" for ''Rati: A dependant or payor spouse3s abusive post@separation conduct$ does not #all under
conduct in relation to marriage$ and tus is a #actor in determining weter to deny$grant or vary an order #or SS
FLA Pr#isins a54t 6nd46t and SS ,s ??,&+.Lhe obligation to provi!e support for a spouse e<ists without regar! to the con!uct of either spouse but the court"ay in !eter"ining the a"ount of support have regar! to a course of con!uct that is so unconscionable as toconstitute an obvious an! gross repu!iation of the relationship%
Mre2 # Mre2 ,&'>'. * OR fa6trs rele#ant t determinin" a sp4se wasisentitled t SS n 5asis f 6nd46t t/at 6nstit4ted 4n6ns6ina5ilit2 ; as an5#i4s and "rss rep4diatin f relatins/ip8 6laimant m4st s/w(a) e0ceptionally bad conduct(b) conduct reasonably e0pected to destroy marriage(c) conduct must ave persisted in te #ace o# innocence > virtual blamelessness on part o#
oter spouse$(d) commission o# so@called matrimonial oence not necessarily suGcient(e)party raising issue o# relevant conduct sould be prepared to underta*e tat tere is a
bona 4de belie# tat te test ==can be satis4ed [w ris*s o# punitive costs i# crt 4ndsissue is #rivolous\ and
#)pleadings===sould set out a summary o# conduct relied on to meet te test===
3runi v 3runi (7545) 78 9RF' 'pouses "arrie! for 11 years an! after sep both repartnere! sep agree"ent woul! have solecusto!y.father w reasonable access% see"e! to have alienate! chil!ren fro" their father% brings app to setasi!e sep agree"ent% &n sa"e action clai"e! ''Rati: S --(1?) Junconscionable conductJ interpreted to include post@separation conduct$ >
relationsip incl co@parent relationsip$ tere#ore post@separation misconduct is abasis #or termination o# SS order $n6l4sin' F3s conduct reects intent to
105 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
destroy #ater@daugter relationsip$ amounts to ideous repudiation o# relationsipbt/w #ormer spouses as co@parents #or daugter= Moters alienation o# daugterand & must be condemned $made eective by way o# terminating SS
106 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Ret/inin" Pele6/ E t/e Rle f Famil2 A"reements8 Mi"lin # Mi"lin *++ 8S$$
$acts 'pouses signe! a sep agree"ent that li"ite! !uration of '' payable to ,rs ,% pays "ortgage an!receives ,? gets lo!ge% gets 60 of (' for their 4 chil!ren%%N + gets 15 .year fro" lo!ge for 5 years upon renewal% fter 5 years ,r% , refuses to give confor e<ten!ing consulting agree"ent% ,rs% , is bringing an application to set asi!e this provision of seagree"ent% Both ha! receive! &; before signing ' but years later ,rs , files clai" for initial ''? o'' provi!e! no ''
107 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• crts cannot assu"e that settle"ent agree"ents provi!e a clear an! transparent gui!e to their inten=para 28>%%alrea!y !ifficult to ascertain in any area of law ? presence of counsel not always sufficienre!ress proble"s ='tevens? ;evan>
• principles !or eterminin" s 1?.2 applications 1> is agree"ent ob*ectively fair J ti"e of applicati%e% actually pro!uce e)uitable sharing of econo"ic conse)uences J "arriage brea#!own
• other test proble"atic b.c ina!e)uate to !eal with proble"s that fa"ily law e<perts i!entify flowing finherently prospective nature of '' agree"ents
• approach reflects !riving consi!eration as !eter"ine! by Parlia"ent / achieving an e)uitable!isentangling of parties@ econo"ic relationship upon "arital brea#!own
ct encourages negotiation of fair settle"ent in accor!ance with s 15%2=6>not privileges private settlenot per"itte! to out
109 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
$+ applies for '' so"e years after parties !ivorce! an! negotiate! sep agree"ent? &eld ollows Migliin to deny F3s application #or SS in conte0t o# sep agreement== Parties
negotiated a #air settlement$ 6/an"e in 6ir64mstan6es$ it did not result inagreement being un#air pursuant tos 15=2(.)$!A
i#@ vr an$ se+a2
005SCC9N
lies onCM
uncons=vs=:9$ale
gprinciple
$+ K< spouses negotiate agree"ent with inter"ittent legal representation 5 chil!ren% applie! 1 yearlater to set asi!e on groun!s of unconscionability un!er s 65 of B( $% '(( uphel! L: agree"ent wasunconscionable in circu"stances b.c ha! e<ploite! @s "ental instability un!ervalue! assets / assetswere not !ivi!e! e)ually =failure to "a#e full !isclosure> receive! substantially less%Rati ' ;e settlement agreement must ensure a #air distribution o# assets$ and te
absence o# e0ploitation witin te singularly emotional environment in wic#amily bargaining ta*es place
Reasnin": !istinguised #rom Miglin Starting point is not s % or 15=2$ but CM principle o#e"uity$ Corollary to te 4nality o# separation agreement in Mi"lin- tat tere bea duty to ma*e #ull disclosure > not to ta*e advantage o# oter spousesvulnerabilities = .n 3evan+ F as under pressure to sign D$ ere F suered #rommental instability $ note mental vulnerability is a #actor
&> Iss4e: ariatin
111 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
F' 'pouses agree to consent *u!ge"ent pursuant pays (' an! '' w. review !ate no re)uire"entthat see# training.e"ploy"ent ha! ,'% applies to increase '' b.c s inco"e increase!% appliesto ter"inate ''% Q( grants s app% Q(( uphel! L:% ppeal to '((%!eldK$: Appeal allwed= Consent udgement treated as order= ;L erred to consider
material cange in circumstances$ so tere was no basis #or cange in variation=Applications re#used$ SS reinstated=
Rati' Miglin principles apply to an application #or SS under s 15= !etermination o# anapplication under S 17 orders #or variation on e0isting SS order engages a ditreatment o# agreements in ligt o# statutory lang$ agreement$ order$arrangement6$ not used in s 17
hupal vhu pal ( 2
005 )O4
=: E- a""$e% to var ob$gaton to "a on bass that W ha% remarre%+ c$ose ren% o e-@ Hnutes o sett$ement "rov%e% or reve< o SS ob$gatons n 5 ears orbase% on :matera$ change n crcum;
!eld: CA upeld ;L decision tat remarriage did not constitute cange in circumstances b/cat time o# signing minutes o# settlement$ & *new F was in new and seriousrelationsip as supported by evidence
urpose bring "ore certainty pre!ictability to !eter"ination of '' un!er encourage applicants to apply lea!to "ore fre)uent '' awar!s
ntent for"ula generating ranges if inco"es + =i> inco"e sharing / '' !eter"ine! as percentage of spousalinco"es ii>with / raise co"pensatory principle superse!e! by chil! support or without chil! support =or no !ep chil!ren> relies heavily on length of "arriage an! !uration of "arriage iii>ite"iGe a series ofe<ceptions to assist in assessing !epartures fro" ''-s
59e6ti#es
re!uce conflict encourage settle"ent create consistency an! fairness re!ucing costs an! i"provingefficiency in $; syste" provi!ing basic structure for further *u!icial elaboration
'-' an!vatiGation
''-s confer no power to re/open or overri!e final spousal agree"ent but play i"portant role as provi!estructure! fra"ewor# an! bench"ar#s of fairness in negotiation of agree"ents
112 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Lool of stat interpretation tool of argu"ent li#e any other article te<t govern"ent !oc ? tool of appellatereview where awar! substantially above . below range an! there are no acceptable circu"stances
esmanv =esman
+!
A 2014
Reasnin" %*'): (a) long marriage' it lasted 2? years= (b) F primarily responsible #ormaintaining te ouseold and raising te cildren= [b\ F as not been employed; since be#ore birt o# cildren= (c) (d) marital Standard o# living K lived$ well did not worry about income$ (e) Fi#e will be 5. wen SS order ends
!eld: CA removed impose time limit o# 1? years$ and cange to o# inde4nite duration= SSAISsupport tis view$ guideline tat duration #or marriages o# 2?Y years sould beinde4nite6
mtatons
!o not confer power to reopen.overri!e final agree"ents re '' ? apply to interi" initial !eter"inations of'' not review or variation of e<isting or!ers
113 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
?* FLA Overy cild wo is not a minor as an obligation to provide support$ in accordancewit need$ #or is or er parent wo as cared #or or provided support #or te cild$ tote e0tent tat te cild is capable o# doing so
--(1) :rder #or support @ A 64rt ma28 n appli6atin8 rder a persn t pr#idepprt fr /is r /er dependants and determine t/e am4nt f s4pprt
??,'. GDeterminatin f am4nt fr s4pprt f parents8 sp4sedetermining te amount and duration$ i# any$ o# support #or a spouse or parent in relation to
need$ te court sall consider all te circumstances o# te parties$ including$
) te dependant3s and respondent3s 64rrent assets and means (b) te assets and meanstat te dependant and respondent are liel2 t /a#e in t/e f4t4re (c) tedependantHs 6apa6it2 to contribute to is or er own support (d) te respondent3scapacity to provide support (e) t/e dependantHs and respndentHs a"e andpysical and mental ealt (#) t/e dependantHs needs8 in determining wic tecourt sall ave regard to te accustomed standard o# living wile te parties residedtogeter
) te measures available #or te dependant to become able to provide #or is or er own
support and te lengt o# time and cost involved to enable te dependant to ta*etose measures
) any legal obligation o# te respondent or dependant to provide support #or anoter person
te desirability o# te dependant or respondent remaining at ome to care #or a cild
a 6ntri54tin by te dependant to te realiBation o# te respondent3s career potential
m) any oter legal rigt o# te dependant to support$ oter tan out o# public money=
ra"ulin
ra"ulin aughter%ere% to
a su""ort Da%)
F' $ather applie! for support fro" !aughter un!er $; s32 an! recently une"ploye!% 'he co/owne!house with "other sister pai! rent% 'he was (ana!a Post wor#er% 'he won lottery live! "o!estly !i!not wish to support father Rati: S -2' Parent must ave cared #or :8 provided support (conunctive test) Act
includes no de#ence o# #ault or misconduct in award o# parental support$nor does it consider nature and "uality o# current relationsip bt/w parent@cild=
Application+ $ather provi!e! support for fa"ily when was a chil! w.in "eaning of s 32% . Kntitle"entbase! on nee! not to i"prove stan!ar! of living%5el' to pay support to father after bu!get is calculate! an! non/necessities !e!ucte!%
@,rpa#
,mmigrant moter sougt interim support #rom son= App dismissed= Moter neverprimary caregiver did not 4le any evidence as to support entitlementunder sponsorsip agreement=
114 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
DA Married sp4ses w/ initiate a di#r6e a6tin ,wit/ 6rllar2 relief p4rs4antt t/e ivor#e A#t . and
LRA 6/a5itin" 64ples w/ separate ,and married 64ples w/ d nt initiatedi#r6e.8 w/se iss4es a54t 64std28 a66ess and 6/ild s4pprt aredetermined p4rs4ant t pr#in6ial le"islatin<
ederal Lurisdiction $ !AGeneral authorit, s< &,&.
Mont custo% (%screton) s= 1.(<) *he court ma ma#e an or%er un%er ths secton grantncusto% o+ or access to+ an or a$$ ch$%ren o the marrage to an one or more
"ersons@
Ma/i+u+ #onta#t (%&rien$l, parent') s< &,1?)the court sha$$ gve eect to the "rncthat a ch$% o the marrage shou$% have as much contact <th each s"ouse as sconsstent <th the best nterests o the ch$% an%+ or that "ur"ose+ sha$$ ta#e ntocons%eraton the <$$ngness o the "erson or <hom custo% s sought to ac$tatsuch contact@ (not abso$ute an% a$<as subJect to B.!+ Por%on)
.er+s an$ #on$itions s< &,. *he court ma ma#e an or%er un%er ths secton or a%ente or n%ente "ero% or unt$ the ha""enng o a s"ece% event an% mam"ose such other terms+ con%tons or restrctons n connecton there<th as tthn#s t an% Just@
Chan"e o& resi$en#e (7) Wthout $mtng the genera$t o subsecton (6)+ the court manc$u%e n an or%er un%er ths secton a term re?urng an "erson <ho has custo%o a ch$% o the marrage an% <ho nten%s to change the "$ace o res%ence o thach$% to not+ at $east thrt %as beore the change or <thn such other "ero%beore the change as the court ma s"ec+ an "erson <ho s grante% access tothat ch$% o the change+ the tme at <hch the change <$$ be ma%e an% the ne<
"$ace o res%ence o the ch$%@
=a#tors (C*no $etails) s 16(8) court sha$$ ta#e nto cons%eraton on$ the best ntereso the ch$% o the marrage as %etermne% b reerence to the con%ton+ means+nee%s an% other crcumstances o the ch$%@
Con$u#t s 16(5 ) .n ma#ng an or%er un%er ths secton+ the court sha$$ not ta#e ntocons%eraton the "ast con%uct o an "erson un$ess the con%uct s re$evant to the
ab$t o that "erson to act as a "arent o a ch$%@
ariation S 17(1)
115 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Ontari le"islatin: $/ildren1s Law Refrm A6t8 sle r 9int 64std2 arran"ementss= 2?(1) O"uality o# parents te #ater and te moter o# a cild are e)ually entitle! to custo!y of thechil!s= 2?(2)Custodial rigts and duties person entitle! to custo!y of has parental rights of a chil! an! "uste<ercise those rights an! responsibilities in B&(s= 2?(-) Loint rigts and duties here "ore than one person is entitle! to custo !y of a chil! any one ofhe" "ay e<ercise the rights an! accept the responsibilities of a parent on behalf of the" in respect of the chil!s= 2?(<) Assumed custodial rigts here the parents of a chil! live separate an! apart an! the chil! lives
with one of the" with the consent i"plie! consent or ac)uiescence of the other of the" the right of the other toe<ercise the entitle"ent of custo!y an! the inci!ents of custo!y but not the entitle"ent to access is suspen!e! until
a separation agree"ent or or!er otherwise provi!ess= 2?(5) Access Lhe entitle"ent to access to a chil! inclu!es the right to visit with an! be visite! by the chil! an!he sa"e right as a parent to "a#e in)uiries an! to be given infor"ation as to the health e!ucation an! welfare ofhe chil!s= 2?(7) Contracting out / ny entitle"ent to custo!y or access or inci!ents of custo!y un!er this section issub*ect to alteration by an or!er of the court or by separation agree"entpplications an! *uris!ictionC8A $ s 21$ s 2<(2)@(<) Access claims by IPs or oters K care plan$ criminal cec*$ aGdavitper"its custo!y .access clai"s by persons other than parents but app re)uires sub"ission of an affi!avit inclpropose! plan for chil!@s care an! upbringing? info about perosns@s current or prev involve"ent in fa" procee!ingsncl any relate! to chil! protection an! to sub"it to police an! (' recor! chec#sS *&,*.Fa6trs ,CI$.est interests o! chil (!actors to loo0 at)
T/e 64rt s/all 6nsider all t/e 6/ildHs needs and 6ir64mstan6es8 in6l4din"8(a) te love$ aection and emotional ties between te cild and$(i) eac person entitled to or claiming custody o# or access to te cild$(ii) oter members o# te cild3s #amily wo reside wit te cild$ and(iii) persons involved in te cild3s care and upbringing(b) te cild3s views and pre#erences$ i# tey can reasonably be ascertained(c) te lengt o# time te cild as lived in a stable ome environment(d) te ability and willingness o# eac person applying #or custody o# te cild to provide te
cild wit guidance and education$ te necessaries o# li#e and any special needs o#te cild
(e) te plan proposed by eac person applying #or custody o# or access to te cild #or tecild3s care and upbringing
(#) te permanence and stability o# te #amily unit wit wic it is proposed tat te cild willlive
(g) te ability o# eac person applying #or custody o# or access to te cild to act as a parentand
() te relationsip by blood or troug an adoption order between te cild and eacperson wo is a party to te application
s= 2<(-) and (<)Past conduct persons past con!uct shall be consiere only,
=a> in accor!ance with subsection =4>? or =b> if the court is satisfie! that the con!uct is otherwise relevant to the persons ability to act as a parent%S 2<(<)Wiolence and abuse=4> &n assessing a persons ability to act as a parent the court shall consi!er whether the person has at any ti"eco""itte! violence or abuse against=a> his or her spouse?=b> a parent of the chil! to who" the application relates?
=c> a "e"ber of the persons househol!? or =!> any chil!%
116 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
*+,*. $4stdial parent ' legal aut to decide about cild re ealt$ education andwel#are usually$ coice o# religion
*+,@. A66ess persn' rigt to spend time w cild$ receive in#o about cilds sitsually in accordance wit terms o# order or sep agreementint custody' +ot parents ave legal aut to ma*e decisions #or cildren re ealt$
education$wel#are$ religion
/2si6al 64std2 and 6are"i#in" respnsi5ilities May be negotiated $ and reecta range o# responsibilities arentin" plans: ICIDarallel parentin" ,ncl detailed parenting plans > aut #or parent wit pysical
custody to ma*e decisions about cild during te time tat cild is in tatparents care order may be re"uired#or parents to cooperate
T/e Le"al Prin6iple: T/e “Cest Interests f t/e $/ild”!arson v Watts 1998 ; An appra6/ a54t w/at de6isin will res4lt in t/eleast /arm #s< t/e CI$Q t2pi6al anal2sis8 mt/er was a664sed f dr4" 4se8al6/l a54se8 fat/er1s 6laim ; s/e messed 4p ne 6/ild ,n e7pert e#iden6ere34ired8 witness 6redi5ilit2.
cts $ather applie! to custo!y to son% ,other oppose! application or alternatively *oint custo!y provi!e! hehas !aily care an! control of chil! with ? liberal an! gen access for "u"
eason: believes ,rs% @s testi"ony that ,r% ( was controlling =particularly in financial "atters> =!i! not nee! e<pertvi!ence to assess integrity of her !e"eanour or that ,r ( was e"otionally abusive >: re*ects counsel@ s re)uest to ta#e her !eliberate an! thoughtful !e"eanour as atte"pt to !eceive crtr ( a very controlling in! points to her !rin#ing an! one ti"e !rug use an! inability to raise ol!er sonocial wor#er !i! not testify that ,rs was an inept parent
eld: 9ot in +, o# ;eague to grant sole or oint custody to Mr C$ subected to li#e w/controlling rigid ind$ sole custody to mum$ wo will ensure and #acilitate access(#riendly parent)$ not con4dent Mr C would do same w/ attacing strings toperpetuate emo abuse se as endured
Assessin" 5est interests in trial 64rt
• (ai$er v Mala#h 1555 Sas@ CA;erron v ;erron) Appeal courts will notintervene in relation to custody and access decisions unless tere is an error inprinciple or a clear or #actual error in a matter o# signi4cance (75%) reasoning o# evidence in relation to #actors used to identi#y cilds best interests
• Gere+ia v ar 2008N Crt may ma*e an order to preclude eiter parent #romcommencing #urter legal proceedings w/o leave o# crt b/c its in te +,C weresatis4ed tat a person as persistently and witout reasonable groundsHinstitutes ve0atious proceedings in any court under s 1<?(1) o# Courts o# LusticeAct = ;ey separated in 2??1= At time o# divorce order 2??2$ crt awarded
custody to moter= 2??2@= di udges made at least 2< orders$ Q o# contemptorders=@
• Convention on 4i"ht o& Chil$ - Art 3 @+,C sall be a primary consideration inall actions concerning cildren$ considered in +a*er scope #or cange wenused as an interpretive guideN (still indeterminate)
117 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
CI E Identit2: Si" f Ra6ean $e ;erre v <$war$s K wic parent will #oster understanding o# cild3s
eritage #rom bot parents is a relevant consideration in determiningcustodial parent
cts wo"an has a long affair with a bas#etball player fro" the I' an! they have a chil!% Lhey in so"ewhat of a cohabiting relationship% ,other applies or a custo!y or!er?
ati 8ace is not a critical #actor in custody and access cases$ and importance o# tis #actor will dependgreatly on many #actual considerations$ determined w/discretion on a case@by@case
basis incl$ parental ability to #oster racial identity pride$ need to develop a means todeal w racism and need to develop a positive racial identity
eason ( shoul! not intervene absent a "aterial error L: foun! overarching nee! for chil! to be in a stable an! lovingenv which outweighe! neg fin!ings against factor of race which was not !eter"inative "in weight place!on it by parties reflecte! by L:@s li"ite! fin!ings%
el! ( reverse! custo!y to "u" access to !a! ? ( !i! not apply the correct stan! or review shoul! not haveintervene!
ote =ace an% B. custo% cases !ourts are attentve as to <hch "arent <$$ ensure ch$%Fscontnung contact <th raca$'e% hertage (=&ren#hCa+a v Spar@s)
CI E Identit2: Si" f Reli"inK$4lt4re Lius v Lius 9 A court may accord weigt to a parenting plan tat is supported
by e0pert evidence$ moter submitted e0pert evidence in case tat courtaccepted re' issues o# religion
cts 'pouses were "arrie! in a :ewish cere"ony an! agree! to raise their chil!ren in :ewish religion% $ather fullysupporte! chil!ren@s :ewish faith%$a" also celebrate! (hristian holi!ays for paternal gran!"a Parentsseparate!% ,u" wante! to "ove to Lhornhill to foster : i!entity in :ewish co""unity an! father preferre!I<bri!ge only school they atten!e! $ i""ersion
easo ,ssue to address is despite #aters eorts and intentions$ weter Lewis identity o# cildren canbe better #ostered in present scool or at a scool in ;ornill= ;o success#ully raisete cildren in Lewis and as cultural Lews someting more tan strong #am values areneeded= Walue is enanced especially as cildren get older not only by #amily but also#rom peers and wider comm=
,other@s plan is the one that woul! suit the B&(% $ather@s plan for their care is a goo! plan but law re)uires "eto !eter"ine best plan% Parties re)uire! to renegotiate access an! care %
118 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Parental a66ess is determined 52 appli6atin f CI$ test N pres4mpti#eentitlement t a66ess A66ess ma2 5e wit//eld if fa6ts dis6lseappre/ensin f /arm t 6/ild
rai" v Ant one158
7Ont ;rov Ct (78*E)*#aterre#usedacce
ss
9o statutory presumption o# entitlement to parental access #or non@custodialparent e0ists were onus #alls on oter parent resisting access to rebut tatpresumption= !etermination o# parental access made on basis o# +,C (Courtsconsider conduct o# applicant towards custodial parent cild@access parent
relationsip$ general li#estyle in relation to cild)Lo i"pose father@s presence on chil! in any way woul! be co"pletely contrary to B&( ? chil! wasthrown asi!e by a co""it"ent to an aberrant lifestyle has behave! opportunistically an! callouslytowar!s wo"an? evi!ence is that he threatene! to #i!nap chil! only to cause e"otional har" toapplicant? no *ustification for father having even supervise! access =though so"ewhat unusual whene<isting rights suspen!e!.ter"inate!>
enial.uspension ofccess
Access is o#ten suspended or denied o# deemed contrary to +,C o# cild (S v S-Gor"i#hu@)
$ather was !enie! access where chil! !i! not wish to see hi" after he acte! i"properly (&orgichu'$# *+++) $ather !enie! fro" pursuing further suits to co"pel access to his chil!ren borne of an incestuousrelationship w !aughter ( *++ $$#)
std2 a66ess 6laims 52 nn parents DA8 ss &,*.,?.
rnin@ v Arnin@ 1555 Irandparents were appropriate parties #or purposes o# custody andccess claims in divorce proceedings between spouses
119 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
-ran!parent access =bill !ie! !ue to election> bill was intro!uce! in the Fntario legislature to a"en! the $LR# with respect to gran!parent access+ seeBill 67 =secon! rea!ing 31 ,ay 2012>% 'ee also a criti)ue of gran!parents MrightsC to access =reflectingthat "ost parents per"it access to relatives who respect boun!aries>
6esseli"in
a#hor v Le#h+ann a#hor (2001 ACA)Custodial parents aut as sole andprimary responsibility to oversee all aspects o# a cilds daily li#e and longterm well being and is not subect to access
oun" v oun" SCC: test #or determining i# access parent can sare religion witcild is +,C
120 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
A66ess and rel6atin f t/e 64stdial parent: le"al prin6iples and 94di6ialinterpretatin
arter Custodial parent did not ave an inerent rigt to move= Oac parent bearsanevidential burden to sow move is in +,C= Moter was not permitted to move #rom :9to +C=Interests o! cust parent oul be "i$en reasonable amt o! respect ,other was restraine! fro" "ovingfro" F to B( b.c it was that living in pro<i"ity to access parent w.in B&(
a#G, Cts must ave de#erence to custodial parents decision to relocate absent e0ceptionalcircumstances li*e bad #ait or unreasonableness (relationsip w custodial parentmore important tat w non custodial parent courts sould ac*nowledge +,C > custparents interests ine0tricably lin*ed)
"other wishe! to "ove with parties@ chil! to be w. fiancN an! father applie! for *oint custo!y or!er whichwoul! restrict "ove?
or$on Moter wanted to move to Australia to pursue educational goals$ wile access #aterremained in SD
Principles applicable to relocation by custodial parents in circumstances wererelocation may aect access parents contact w cild pursuant to s 17 o#!ivorce Act
Appra6/: tresold re"uirement o# a material cange in circumstances udge mustembar* on #res in"uiry #ocus is +,C involved$ not rigts/interests o# parents$
relationsip (b) e0isting access arrangement and access parent@cildrelationsip (c) desirability o# ma0imiBed contact bt/w cild > bot parents(d) views o# te cild ,e. cust parentsreasons #or moving only i# relevant tocust parents ability to meet cilds needs (#) disruption to te cild o# acange in custody (g) disruption to cild conse"uent on removal #rom #am=scools and community
easonin"+ ,ove to ustralia "et "aterial change re)? an! woul! li"it parent access contact but overallcust shoul! be continue! w . "other? father coul! e<ercise access in (ana!a an! ustraliaConcurrin" easons+ <57 isa"ree courts stance on cust parentKs ri"hts% ny restriction on rights
of custo!ial parents shoul! be e<ception not rule an! shoul! not be inferre! fro" gen.specific access provsan! specific stips "ust have been inclu!e! in court@s or!er?
rtua$ =N200 ONSC moter was allowed to move to Cali but #ater was entitled toe0ercise access troug unlimited telepone$ email webcam and postcommunication R all reasonable ours/ Mum was ordered to purcasenecessary e"uipment and supply it to te #ater
Le"al Fp$ate: ;erron v ;erron 9 consider imposing custody order w conditionswen cildren3s language o# education is engaged
cts $ather appeale! custo!y or!er granting hi" access to 3 chil!ren e wante! chil!ren to atten! $ school? atti"e of appeal chil!ren were in $ i""ersion school %
eason U44V &n a linguistic "inority environ"ent ho"ogeneous $rench/language schools are generally preferable to$rench i""ersion progra"s for ensuring that both languages na"ely $rench an! Knglish are "aintaine! atthe highest level an! ensuring stu!ents "aintain cultural an! linguistic lin#s %
121 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
?+ $LRA G a4t/ 64rt t rder a parentin" assessmentriteria ,&. nt t 5e rdered in e#er2 6ase8 will nt de6ide w/at is in CI$8 6rts d ,*.4tine rder if assessments is dis64ra"ed a5sent 6lini6al iss4es8 ,?. rle fssessr is nt mediate 5tKw parties
!earin" 6/ildrenHs #i6es in 64std2 and a66ess de6isins• Lhrough an assessor or another "ental health professional who ha! been in contact with the chil!
• Lhrough the parties an! their witnesses who coul! provi!e hearsay evi!ence of a chil!@s state"ents outsi!e the
court• by "eans of a *u!ge@s interview with a chil! outsi!e the courtroo"
• by having a chil! provi!e !irect evi!ence to the court has part of the procee!ing
• ;ast two "ost often use! in cases of teenagers
• ssess"ent usually e"ploye! when chil! is young
• Lhe Fffice of the (hil!rens ;awyer / the courts can re)uest that F(; co""it to an un!erta#ing of an assess"entof the chil!@s wishes
O$L :tat
A4t/
!ourts o Mustce Act+ pr#ides fr O$L t assist 64rt: ,S (',?<&. crt may order :C to provide legal representation #or a cild (tend to be limited)
and ,*.8 S &&* :C may underta*e an investigation$ report and ma*e recommendations
in a custody and access proceeding (!A or C8A) !3 has %screton n <hether to res"on% to a re?uest<hen courts or%er !3 assstance+ crt must regar% $mts o resources + an% s
"ermtte% to ma#e a re?uest
123 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
JS/arin" $4std2 and 6areJ : =int $4std28 Parentin" Plans8Parallel Parentin"
+a*er v +a*er ' A realisti6 and pra6ti6al appra6/ was re34ired in resl4tin f4std2 liti"atin and 9int 64std2 s/4ld 5e rdered nl2 in e76eptinalir64mstan6es w/i6/ are rarel2 if e#er present in 6ases f disp4ted 64std2ruger (Dss+ W$son MA) A$t ve<: Court shoul$ or$er oint #usto$, #ir#u+stan#es
where it is in the est interests o& the #hil$ren short an$ lon" ter+ shoul$ assess pre&eral, w pro& assistan#e- ailit, o& parents to #o*operatin" in
uprin"in" f t/eir 6/ildren in li"/t f t/at assessment and t 6/seran"e f ptins frm it , ften referred t w/en main" =$ rder.
Mst $4std2 and A66ess disp4tes are liti"ated in relatin t de6isin main"4t/
9int 64std2 ; parents s/are a4t/ t mae de6isins a54t a 6/ild inrelatin t /ealt/8 ed46atin8 welfare in6l reli"in 9int p/2si6al64std2 ; 6/ild spends e34al am4nts f time in 6are f ea6/ parent8pssi5le t als /a#e 9int le"al 64std2 OR ne parent t /a#e le"al64std2 and t/er /a#e a66ess
aplanis v aplanis 200EL: "a!e or!er that counsellor is a 3P arbitrator where parents can@t "a#e !ecisions? or!ere! counselling
=father was unrepresente!>Facts+ 'pouses "arrie! in 98 !aughter in 2001 tu"ultuous "arriage father left after uttering !eath threat to"other? "other gave affi!avit that was not violent% ,other wante! sole not *oint custo!y b.c they coul! notco""unicate w.o screa"ing at each other% o e<pert evi!ence of chil!@s nee!sRati: $ourt must determine courts must assess ability o# parties to communicate to
determine weter to ma*e a oint order #or custody Loint custody is notappropriate i# parties were unable to communicate/co@operate eectively= ;erewas evidence ere to te contrary= (;L assumed comm would improve)
$A !eld: allowed appeal= 9ew trial ordered= Ovidence #ound did not address bonds bt/wcild and eac parent and ability to parent er$ #aters caring plans > bene4ts o#suc arrangements ;L erred in order #or oint custody and counselling bt/w parties$not spec aut by leg
Parallel parentin" rders ; 6riti6s septi6al f its 4tilit2 94d"es remainent/4siasti68 allws fr 5alan6in"Q
nvolves det arrangements #or decision ma*ing by parent in re' to te cild most importantto tat parent on an ongoing basis ordered by many courts to avoid ongoinglitigation in ig conict parental disputes post dissolution$ bot parents avee"ual status but e0ercise rigts > responsibilities associated wit custodyindependently o# one anoter
124 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
• O5li"atin ; Determine w/et/er parent falls wit/in stat4tr2 meanin"4nder DA r FLA ,demnstrated settled intentin G s6ial parent. E $LRA,5il"i6al parent r pres4mpti#e paternit2.
• Determine 4ant4m and D4ratin 52 Referen6e t $Ss
Paras #Paras&'>+Ont$A
$S s/4ld 5e set at a le#el t/at w4ld maintain t/e 6/ild at,&.t/e pre;di#r6e standard f li#in" ,*.and t/at t/e 6sts f a6/ie#in" t/at standards s/4ld 5e apprtined 5tKwparents in prprtin t t/eir respe6ti#e in6mes
=aspirational principle>create! concerns about fairness an! consistency
tep orlendedams
6reated after t/e deat/ f a sp4se8 after t/e dissl4tin f marria"e r6/a5itin" relatins/ip8 a fam wit/ at least & 6/ild frm a pre#relatins/ip f M r F r 5t/8 & 6reated in 64rrent relatins/ip
stepparents /a#e 5een rdered t pa2 $S fllwin" ln"standin"relatins/ips
Determinin" w/et/er a respndent is a parent fr $S p4rpses8Parent E $/ild Defs
s< ,*.&:DA
“ 6/ild f t/e marria"e” ; 6/ild tw sp4ses r frmer sp4ses w/8at t/e material time8
,a. is 4nder t/e a"e f ma9rit2 and w/ /as nt wit/drawn frm t/eir6/ar"e8 r,5. is t/e a"e f ma9rit2 r #er E4nder t/eir 6/ar"e 54t 4na5le8 52 reasnf illness8 disa5ilit2 r t/er 6a4se ,in6l pst;se6ndar2 ed46atin.8 t
wit/draw frm t/eir 6/ar"e r t 5tain ne6essaries f life
s *,*.,S6ialpar
ents.
,*. Fr t/e p4rpses f t/e de0nitin “cild o# te marriage6 in s45se6tin ,&.8a 6/ild f tw sp4ses r frmer sp4ses in6l4des ,Pla6e f parent test$/artier.,a. an2 6/ild fr w/m t/e2 5t/ stand in t/e pla6e f parents and,5. an2 6/ild f w/m ne is t/e parent and fr w/m t/e t/er stands int/e pla6e f a parent<
125 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
FLA 8s &8 *' De0nitins:8 parent8 dependant8 sp4seS 1parent6 in6l4des a persn w/ /as demnstrated a settled intentin t treat a6/ild as a 6/ild f /is r /er famil28 e76ept 4nder an arran"ement w/ere t/e 6/ildis pla6ed fr #al4a5le 6nsideratin in a fster /me 52 a persn /a#in" lawf4l64std2S 2% dependant” means a persn t w/m ant/er /as an 5li"atin t pr#ides4pprt 4nder t/is PartS 2% spouse6 means a sp4se as de0ned in s45se6tin & ,&.8 and in additinin6l4des eit/er f tw persns w/ are nt married t ea6/ t/er and /a#e
6/a5ited8,a. 6ntin44sl2 fr a perid f nt less t/an t/ree 2ears8 r,5. in a relatins/ip f sme permanen6e8 if t/e2 are t/e nat4ral r adpti#eparents f a 6/ild
FLA s ?+ O5li"atin f sp4ses fr s4pprt-#er2 sp4se /as an 5li"atin t pr#ide s4pprt fr /imself r /erself and frt/e t/er sp4se8 in a66rdan6e wit/ need8 t t/e e7tent t/at /e r s/e is 6apa5lef din" s
FLA s ?&8 O5li"atin f parent t s4pprt 6/ild?&< ,&. -#er2 parent /as an 5li"atin t pr#ide s4pprt fr /is r /er 4nmarrie6/ild w/ is a minr r is enrlled in a f4ll time pr"ram f ed46atin8 t t/ee7tent t/at t/e parent is 6apa5le f din" s
(2. eliminates parental 5li"atin t s4pprt a 6/ild & w/ /as wit/drawn frmparental 6ntrl
FLA8 s ?? Order fr s4pprtA court may$ on application$ order a person to provide support #or is or er dependants an
determine te amount o# support<
$LRA s &,&. E &,*8 ,.8 s (S 1(1) 8ule o# Parentage S459e6t t s45 ,*.8 fr all p4rpses f t/e law f ON apersn is t/e 6/ild f /is r /er nat4ral parents and /is r /er stat4s as t/eir 6/ilis independent f w/et/er t/e 6/ild is 5rn wit/in r 4tside marria"e<
S 1(2]) O0ception #or adopted cildren W/ere an adptin rder /as 5een made8se6tin s &@(K' f $FSA f applies and t/e 6/ild is t/e 6/ild f t/e adptin"
parents as if t/e2 were t/e nat4ral parents<S 1(<)Common law distinction o# legitimacy abolised ; An2 distin6tin at 6mmn law5etween t/e stat4s f 6/ildren 5rn in wedl6 and 5rn 4t f wedl6 isa5lis/ed and t/e relatins/ip f parent and 6/ild and indred relatins/ipswin" t/erefrm s/all 5e determined fr t/e p4rpses f t/e 6mmn law ina66rdan6e wit/ t/is se6tin
S (1) Presumptions o# paternity @ nless te contrary is proven on +:P$ tere is apresumption tat a male person is$ and e sall be recogniBed in law to be$ te #ater o# acild in any one o# te #ollowing circumstances'&< T/e persn is married t t/e mt/er f t/e 6/ild at t/e time f t/e 5irt/ f t/e6/ild<
*< T/e persn was married t t/e mt/er f t/e 6/ild 52 a marria"e t/at wasterminated 52 deat/ r 94d"ment f n4llit2 wit/in ?++ da2s 5efre t/e 5irt/ f t/e
6/ild r 52 di#r6e w/ere t/e de6ree nisi was "ranted wit/in ?++ da2s 5efre t/e5irt/ f t/e 6/ild<?< T/e persn marries t/e mt/er f t/e 6/ild after t/e 5irt/ f t/e 6/ild anda6nwled"es t/at /e is t/e nat4ral fat/er<< T/e persn was 6/a5itin" wit/ t/e mt/er f t/e 6/ild in a relatins/ip fsme permanen6e at t/e time f t/e 5irt/ f t/e 6/ild r t/e 6/ild is 5rn wit/in?++ da2s after t/e2 6eased t 6/a5it<
127 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Statisti#s A#t r a similar A6t in ant/er 94risdi6tin in $anada<< T/e persn /as 5een f4nd r re6"nied in /is lifetime 52 a 64rt f 6mpeten
94risdi6tin in $anada t 5e t/e fat/er f t/e 6/ild<
Impa6tf dmBs
Bs entered int 52 parents s/4ld nt pre6l4de s45se34ent appli6atinsfr $S8 at least in re: t 6/ildren attendin" pst;se6ndar2 ed46atinalinstit4tins $4rt ma2 nt 4p/ld a dm B pr# in relatin t a matter
ae6tin" a 6/ild if nt in CI$ , Mane Doe> -%e> 3astman),$e v De6isin' ;e crt granted support on te basis tat te cild was entitled to
support pursuant to s-1(1)= Stating te A was rooted in dependency$te court eld tat te cilds rigt to support sould not be aected byte #act tat parent did not e0ercise access $nor #rom any arrangemententered into by er parents tat compromised er rigt to support
,other of the chil! wants father to pay lu"p su"p of chil! support an! they !o not re/establish arelationship% !ult "a#es chil! "a#es an application for support b.c they are pursuing post secon!arye!ucation%
Louis v !: Appeal dismissed= Ad4lt 6/ildren nt entitled t retra6ti#e $S 5K6 nt/e "r4nds t/at R dd /a#e a FD t ens4re t/e 34alit2 f life f/is ad4lt 5il"i6al 6/ildren<
' Adult cildren bring an application #or retroactive cild support b/c tey did nave bene4t o# bio #aters wealt wile growing up= Moter ad arelationsip #or several years wit bio #ater wo was married > ad twoter boys= Moter signed agreement releasing astman #rom allobligations #or payment= Applicant male cildren argued tat tere was! on part o# bio #ater to ensure teir teir "uality o# li#e= ;C deniedclaim=
,# application ad been brougt be#ore boys came age o# maority$ app may avsucceeded
;arson
(1556)
Tuality o# PC relationsip is one o# many #actors$ not determinative in a 2(1)determination o# weter respondent is a parent
!eld: !augter was a Jcild o# te marriageJ pursuant to s 2(1) o# te !A$ 1%
and tat se ad not disentitled to ersel# #rom assistance= wasordered to pay CS to wi#e o# X<?? #or 1 year #or 2< yr old daugter$ woad no ongoing relationsip wit er #ater=
ote+ crt a!vise! father that he coul! apply for review of the support after 1 year if no P( relationshipha! been establishe! by that ti"e
128 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
Parent;$/ild Relatins/ips: JStandin" in t/e Pla6e f ParentJ rJSettled IntentJ Parents
!harterv!harter1999 1S!= 242
A s6ial parent w/ Jstands in pla6e f parent 4nder s *,*. f DA will /a#e$S 5li"atins8 6annt terminate P$R w/en t/e intimate relatins/ip wit/6/ild1s 5i parent ended<
Mst 94d"es a66ept t/at it it is apprpriate t interpret t/e DA and FLAF+ Parties were "arrie! for 1 year ha! one bio chil!% ha! a chil! fro" a prev relationship for who" stoo! Ein place of a parentE pursuant to s 2=2> of % hen "arriage en!e! applie! for supportboth chil!ren
• Rati: (9ote= Dey tat person stepparent #orms a new #amily is *ey #actor indrawing in#erence) Feter a person stands in te place o# a parent is a #acts@based$ obective determination made by loo*ing to relevant #actors tat de4ne PCrelationsip$ among wic is intention$ e0press or implied$ include but not limitedto
• weter te cild participates in te e0tended #amily in te same way as would abio cild
• weter te person provides 4nancially #or te cild (depends upon ability to pay)
• weter te person disciplines te cild as a parent
• weter te person represents to te cild$ te #amily= te world eiter e0plicitlyor implicitly tat te or se is responsible as a parent to te cild
•
te nature or e0istence o# te cilds relationsip w te absent bioparent Par%ner
64rt less liel2 t impse $S 5li"atins n s4pprt parent fr 6/ild wdisa5ilit2 ,if 5i parent is in#l#ed8 t/e respndent is nt a primar26are"i#er8 /ere t/e 6/ildren /ad a nann2.
! applied fr de6laratin t/at W std in l6 parentis t * sns ,ne /ad6ere5ral pals28 t/er /ad 5e/a#i4ral pr5lems. frm pre# relatins/ip&eld: W was nt l6 parentis 4nder s *,*. 5K6 s/e w4ld t/en 6arr2s4pprt 5li"atins fr rest f & 6/ild1s nat4ral life
Hon#man v Beau$eu HB!A (cohabtng s"ouses)N el$- In l6 parentis is t/e samep/rased 4sed 52 DA8 t/erefre $/arter prin6iples appl2 t determinatin fw/et/er respndent is in l6 parentis< $rt will nt se#er P$R w/ere it is
6ntrar2 t CI$ in 34estinFacts+ Parties cohabite! for 4 yrs% Lhey ha! 1 chil! together an! "other ha! 3 other chil!ren one who" of wasfocus of this case% (hil! calle! a! an! not connecte! to bio father %5el' stoo! in place of a parent an! thus ha! (' obligations to 4 yr ol! chil!%
!heng v !heng !AN FLA des nt e76l4de PS as persns w/ mi"/t 5erespnsi5le fr s4pprt f 6/ildren8 ass4min" t/e2 are si"ni06antl2 in#l#ed w6/ildren8 and ma2 5e 9ined t app fr $S s4pprt$acts / -ran!parents were *oine! the chil! support procee!ing b.c they ha! contribute! )uite heavily to supportingthe chil!ren was the relationship was intact% F( allowe! appeal%
129 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
PART II -STACLIS!M-NT OF PAR-NTA-S - @ Court under ss= < to 7 T/e 64rt /a#in" 94risdi6tin fr t/e p4rpses f se6tins t > is8,a. t/e Famil2 $4rt8 in t/e areas w/ere it /as 94risdi6tin 4nder s45se6tin *&<&
,. f t/e Courts o& usti#e A#t ,5. t/e S4perir $4rt f =4sti6e8 in t/e rest fOntari<
S ,&. K Paternity and maternity declarations An2 persn /a#in" an interest ma2appl2 t a 64rt fr a de6laratin t/at a male persn is re6"nied in law t 5e t/e
fat/er f a 6/ild r t/at a female persn is t/e mt/er f a 6/ild< ,Nte AA CC $$ GPP ma2 5e in#ed t de6lare a persn a *nd mt/er.
S <(2) !eclaration o# paternity recogniBed at law @ W/ere t/e 64rt 0nds t/at apres4mptin f paternit2 e7ists 4nder se6tin ( and 4nless it is esta5lis/ed8 nt/e 5alan6e f pr5a5ilities8 t/at t/e pres4med fat/er is nt t/e fat/er f t/e6/ild8 t/e 64rt s/all mae a de6laratr2 rder 6n0rmin" t/at t/e paternit2 isre6"nied in law<
S <(-)!eclaration o# maternity ; W/ere t/e 64rt 0nds n t/e 5alan6e f pr5a5ilitiest/at t/e relatins/ip f mt/er and 6/ild /as 5een esta5lis/ed8 t/e 64rt ma2mae a de6laratr2 rder t t/at ee6t
S <(<) ,dem @ S459e6t t SS ;>8 an rder made 4nder t/is se6t s/all 5e re6"niedfr all p4rpses<
S 5(1) Application #or declaration o# paternity were no presumption W/ere t/ere is npersn re6"nied in law 4nder se6tin ( t 5e t/e fat/er f a 6/ild8 an2 persnma2 appl2 t t/e 64rt fr a de6laratin t/at a male persn is /is r /er fat/er8 ran2 male persn ma2 appl2 t t/e 64rt fr a de6laratin t/at a persn is /is6/ild<
S 5(2) imitation ; An appli6atin s/all nt 5e made 4nder s45se6tin ,&. 4nless5t/ t/e persns w/se relatins/ip is s4"/t t 5e esta5lis/ed are li#in"<
S 5(-) !eclaratory order ; W/ere t/e 64rt 0nds n t/e 5alan6e f pr5a5ilities t/att/e relatins/ip f fat/er and 6/ild /as 5een esta5lis/ed8 t/e 64rt ma2 mae ade6laratr2 rder t t/at ee6t and8 s459e6t t se6tins and >8 t/e rder s/all5e re6"nied fr all p4rpses<
s 1?(1) @ eave #or blood tests and !9A ; On t/e appli6atin f a part2 in a 6i#ilpr6eedin" in w/i6/ t/e 64rt is 6alled n t determine a 6/ildHs parenta"e8 t/e64rt ma2 "i#e t/e part2 lea#e t 5tain 5ld tests r DNA tests f t/e persnsw/ are named in t/e rder "rantin" lea#e and t s45mit t/e res4lts in e#iden6e<S 1?(<) ,n#erence #rom re#usal If a persn named in an rder 4nder s45se6tin ,&.ref4ses t s45mit t t/e 5ld test r DNA test8 t/e 64rt ma2 draw s46/inferen6es as it t/ins apprpriate
=e =han an% &nsonneau$t (19,9) =Fa6trs fr 6nsideratin in main" a s &+,&. determinatin
• Fere applicant and respondent married at time te cild or cildren were bornN
• !id parties coabit in a CM relationsip o# some duration wic time or sortly terea#tera cild was bornN
• did 8 admit se0ual intercourse wit applicant at or near time calculated to be point o#conception but now denies e is actual #ater o# cild but alleges anoter isN
• altoug tere was not a CM union$ did 8 admit to an e0tramarital relationsip w te
131 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
applicant werein se0ual intercourse occurred #rom time to time tus ma*ing it possiblee is te putative #aterN
8as the applicant able, throu"h a!!ia$it an other e$ience to establish a 6F case o! putati$e !atherhoonotithstanin" enial o! as to !atherhoo an or e$er ha$in" se&ual intercourse applicant1 ,other applie! for a court for leave for bloo! test to !eter"ine parentage of her 22 "onth ol! chil! re)uire! to!o so to obtain entitle"ent to social assistance% ccusation arise! out of allege! e<perience of two hours bt.wparties who ha! no prev.subse)uent relationshipConclusion - it was not appropriate to "a#e an or!er for bloo! tests b.c the applicant@s evi!ence reveale! a 1night stan! J a "otel w the respon!ent al"ost 2 years earlier% an! b.c her application was file! only to "eet he
re)uire"ents of the welfare authorities% Lhere was a !uty not to infringe on personal rights of respon!ent thattru"pe! !uty to protect interests of the chil!ote+ (onstitutional challenges have been unsuccessful b.c respon!ents are not re)uire! to un!ergo bloo! test=P v P 1988>
$S and t/e $S 4idelines ; Stat4tr2 FramewrCS Gui$elines a$opt a +o$el usuall, $eter+inin" CS a+t , re&eren#e to pa,orRs in#o+e ? T o& #hil$ren
FLA8 P4rpse and determinatin f rder fr $S
S --(7) Purposes o# cild support ; $S s4pprt rder s/4ld8 ,a. re6"nie t/at ea6/parent /as an 5li"atin t pr#ide s4pprt fr t/e 6/ild ,5. apprtin t/e5li"atin a66rdin" t t/e 6/ild s4pprt "4idelines%
CS guidelines s --(11) to (15)(11) Application o# cild support guidelines @ A 64rt main" an rder fr t/e s4pprt f a 6/ild s/all d s in a66rdan6e w $S "4idelines
(12)O0ception' special provisions Despite s45se6tin ,&&.8 a 64rt ma2 award anam4nt t/at is dierent frm t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined in a66rdan6ew $S "4idelines if t/e 64rt is satis0ed8,a. t/at spe6ial pr#isins in an rder r a written a"reement respe6tin" t/e0nan6ial 5li"atins f t/e parents8 r t/e di#isin r transfer f t/eir prpert28dire6tl2 r indire6tl2 5ene0t a 6/ild8 r t/at spe6ial pr#isins /a#e t/erwise5een made fr t/e 5ene0t f a 6/ild and
,5. t/at t/e appli6atin f t/e 6/ild s4pprt "4idelines w4ld res4lt in an am4ntf 6/ild s4pprt t/at is ine34ita5le "i#en t/se spe6ial pr#isins<
(1-) 8easons W/ere t/e 64rt awards8 4nder s45se6tin ,&*.8 an am4nt t/at isdierent frm t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined in a66rdan6e wit/ t/e 6/ilds4pprt "4idelines8 t/e 64rt s/all re6rd its reasns fr din" s<
(1<) O0ception' consent ordersDespite s45se6tin ,&&.8 a 64rt ma2 award an am4nt t/at is dierent frm t/eam4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined in a66rdan6e wit/ t/e $S "4idelines n t/e6nsent f 5t/ parents if t/e 64rt is satis0ed t/at8
,a. reasna5le arran"ements /a#e 5een made fr t/e s4pprt f t/e 6/ild tw/m t/e rder relates and, 5. w/ere s4pprt fr t/e 6/ild is pa2a5le 4t f p45li6 mne28 t/e arran"ementsdo not pr#ide fr an am4nt less t/an t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined ina66rdan6e w $S "4idelines
(15) 8easonable arrangements (determining weter arrangements are reasonable)Fr t/e p4rpses f 6la4se ,&. ,a.8 in determinin" w/et/er reasna5learran"ements /a#e 5een made fr t/e s4pprt f a 6/ild8 t/e 64rts s/all
132 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
,a. /a#e re"ard t t/e 6/ild s4pprt "4idelines E ,5. 64rt s/all nt 6nsider t/earran"ements t 5e 4nreasna5le slel2 5e6a4se t/e am4nt f s4pprt a"reedt is nt t/e same as t/e am4nt t/at w4ld t/erwise /a#e 5een determined ina66rdan6e w $S "4idelines
DA8 $S prin6iples8 s &@<&
S 11(1)(b) +ar to divorce K fail4re t satisf2 t/e 64rt t/at reasna5le arran"ements/a#e 5een made fr $S fr 6/ildren f t/e marria"e8 /a#in" re"ard t t/eappli6a5le "4ideliness= 15=1(1) CS order @ A 64rt f 6mpetent 94risdi6tin ma28 n appli6atin 52 eit/err 5t/ sp4ses8 mae an rder re34irin" a sp4se t pa2 fr t/e s4pprt f an2r all 6/ildren f t/e marria"e<
(2) ,nterim order ; W/ere an appli6atin is made 4nder s45se6tin ,&.8 t/e 64rt
ma28 n appli6atin 52 eit/er r 5t/ sp4ses8 mae an interim rder re34irin" asp4se t pa2 fr t/e s4pprt f an2 r all 6/ildren f t/e marria"e8 pendin" t/edeterminatin f t/e appli6atin 4nder s45se6tin ,&.<
(-) Iuidelines apply A 64rt main" an rder 4nder s45se6tin ,&. r an interimrder 4nder s45se6tin ,*. s/all d s in a66rdan6e wit/ t/e appli6a5le"4idelines<
(<) ;erms and conditions ; T/e 64rt ma2 mae an rder 4nder s45se6tin ,&. r aninterim rder 4nder s45se6tin ,*. fr a de0nite r inde0nite perid r 4ntil aspe6i0ed e#ent 664rs8 and ma2 impse terms8 6nditins r restri6tins in6nne6tin wit/ t/e rder r interim rder as it t/ins 0t and 94st<
(5) Court may ta*e agreement$ etc=$ into account @ NWS s45se6tin ,?.8 a 64rt ma2award an am4nt t/at is dierent frm t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined ina66rdan6e wit/ t/e appli6a5le "4idelines if t/e 64rt is satis0ed,a. tat special provisions in an rder8 a 94d"ment r a written a"reement respe6tin"t/e 0nan6ial 5li"atins f t/e sp4ses8 r t/e di#isin r transfer f t/eirprpert28 dire6tl2 r indire6tl2 5ene0t a 6/ild8 r t/at spe6ial pr#isins /a#et/erwise 5een made fr t/e 5ene0t f a 6/ild and,5. t/at t/e appli6atin f t/e appli6a5le "4idelines w4ld res4lt in an am4nt f6/ild s4pprt t/at is ine34ita5le "i#en t/se spe6ial pr#isins<
(.) 8easons @ W/ere t/e 64rt awards8 p4rs4ant t s45se6tin ,@.8 an am4nt t/atis dierent frm t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined in a66rdan6e wit/ t/eappli6a5le "4idelines8 t/e 64rt s/all re6rd its reasns fr /a#in" dne s<
Consent orders (7) NWS s45se6tin ,?.8 a 64rt ma2 award an am4nt t/at isdierent frm t/e am4nt t/at w4ld 5e determined in a66rdan6e wit/ t/eappli6a5le "4idelines n t/e 6nsent f 5t/ sp4ses if it is satis0ed t/at reasna5le arran"ements /a#e 5een made fr t/e s4pprt f t/e 6/ild t w/mt/e rder relates<
() 8easonable arrangements ; Fr t/e p4rpses f s45se6tin ,>.8 in determinin"
133 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
w/et/er reasna5le arran"ements /a#e 5een made fr t/e s4pprt f a 6/ild8 t/e64rt s/all /a#e re"ard t t/e appli6a5le "4idelines< !we#er8 t/e 64rt s/all nt6nsider t/e arran"ements t 5e 4nreasna5le slel2 5e6a4se t/e am4nt fs4pprt a"reed t is nt t/e same as t/e am4nt t/at w4ld t/erwise /a#e 5eendetermined in a66rdan6e wit/ t/e appli6a5le "4idelines<
15=- (1) Priority to CS ; W/ere a 64rt is 6nsiderin" an appli6atin fr a $S rderand an appli6atin fr a SS rder8 t/e 64rt s/all "i#e pririt2 t 6/ild s4pprt indeterminin" t/e appli6atins<
(2) 8easons ; W/ere8 as a res4lt f "i#in" pririt2 t 6/ild s4pprt8 t/e 64rt is4na5le t mae a sp4sal s4pprt rder r t/e 64rt maes a sp4sal s4pprtrder in an am4nt t/at is less t/an it t/erwise w4ld /a#e 5een8 t/e 64rt s/allre6rd its reasns fr /a#in" dne s<(-) Conse"uences o# reduction or termination o# cild support order@ W/ere8 as a res4lt f"i#in" pririt2 t 6/ild s4pprt8 a sp4sal s4pprt rder was nt made8 r t/eam4nt f a sp4sal s4pprt rder is less t/an it t/erwise w4ld /a#e 5een8 an2s45se34ent red46tin r terminatin f t/at 6/ild s4pprt 6nstit4tes a 6/an"e f 6ir64mstan6es fr t/e p4rpses f appl2in" fr a sp4sal s4pprt rder8 r a#ariatin rder in respe6t f t/e sp4sal s4pprt rder8 as t/e 6ase ma2 5e
Steps f Anal2sisStep 1: @s= -' sin" ta5les f ann4al “"rss in6me”8 determine ta5leam4nt: %$Ss pr#s t/at permit a 64rt t determine “a pattern fin6me” ,s &>.8 t in6l 6rprate in6me ,s &(. E t imp4te in6me ,s &'.Step 2' Ad94stments fr spe6ial e7penses: ss >,&. and >,&<&. 6/ild6are8 medi6al and dental ins4ran6e premi4ms8 /ealt/;relatede7penses “e7trardinar2 e7penses” t meet ed46atinal needs 8 pst;se6ndar2 ed46atin ,Lewi v Lewi . “e7trardinar2 e7penses” fre7tra64rri64lar a6ti#ities:,de0nitin in s< > ,&<&.Step -' Spe6ial 6nsideratins ,nte 94di6ial dis6retin.Z s< @ “Standin" in pla6e f a parent” ,ri"ht v Paver and Cornelio vCornelio.Z s< ( Split 64std2 Y s% 9 'hare! custo!y =$ontino>
134 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
ZZ T/e $/ild S4pprt 4idelines; O Re" ?'&K'> S4pprt 4idelinesSP obJectves. t esta5lis/ a fair standard f s4pprt fr 6/ildren t/at ens4res t/at t/e2 5ene0tm t/e 0nan6ial means f t/eir parents and8 in t/e 6ase f di#r6e8 frm t/enan6ial means f 5t/ sp4ses after separatin. t red46e 6ni6t and tensin 5etween parents r sp4ses 52 main" t/el64latin f 6/ild s4pprt mre 59e6ti#e. t impr#e t/e e6ien62 f t/e le"al pr6ess 52 "i#in" 64rts8 and parents and
p4ses8 "4idan6e in settin" t/e le#els f 6/ild s4pprt and en64ra"in" settlement
nd> to ensure consistent treat"ent of parents or spouses their chil!ren in si" circu"stances%
m4nt f $/ild S4pprt?,&.Pres4mpti#e r4le nless oterwise provided under tese guidelines$ te amount o# an
order #or te support o# a cild #or cildren under te age o# maority is$a) the amount set out n the a""$cab$e tab$e+ accor%ng to the number o ch$%ren un%er the
age o maJort to <hom the or%er re$ates an% the ncome o the "arent or s"ouseaganst <hom the or%er s sought> an$
b) the amount+ an+ %etermne% un%er secton ,@?,*.$/ild t/e a"e f ma9rit2 r #er
nless oterwise provided under tese guidelines$ were a cild to wom an order #or te
support o# a cild relates is te age o# maority or over$ te amount o# an order #orte support o# a cild is$a) te amount determined by applying tese guidelines as i# te cild were under te age o#
maority or
b) i# te court considers tat approac to be inappropriate$ te amount tat itconsiders appropriate$ aving regard to te condition$ means$ needs and otercircumstances o# te cild and te 4nancial ability o# eac parent or spouse tocontribute to te support o# te cild
5 @ Spouse in place o# a parent (applies w/ere mre t/an & persn ma2 /a#e 5li"atinpa28 primar2 5li"atin f 5i parent.
Fere te spouse against wom an order #or te support o# a cild is sougt stands in teplace o# a parent #or a cild or te parent is not a natural or adoptive parent o# te
cild$ te amount o# te order is$ in respect o# tat parent or spouse$ suc amount aste court considers
ri"ht v Paver 2002 ON CA S 5 does not diminis a bio #aters obligation #or CS= S 5#ocuses on person wo stands in place o# parent @ ;e obligation to pay CS is not related tote rigt access > must be determined according to +,C !omestic D can be set aside inrelation to CS obligations i# not in +,C=
acts ' ,an an! wo"an have a relationship wo"an beco"es pregnant an! relationship brea#s !own were notarrie! an! cohabite! for a short perio! of ti"e% Lhey "a#e an agree"ent that father is not going to have any accesschil! "other will not as# for support an! father pays lu"p su" to "other for 7% o"an "arries another "an an!
as chil!% Lhey separate! an! is or!ere! to pay (' for both chil!ren% !oes not have a lot of "oney% Lhen ,rs pplies for or!er (' fro" bio father of first chil!%
Cornelio v Cornelio 2008 ONSC N re$es on Mane Doe > *he msta#en be$e must be
ba$ance% < B.! > Hsta#en be$e as to beng a bo$ogca$ ather o a ch$% %oes not negate an%ng that the "art has %emonstrate% a sett$e% ntenton to be a "arent@acts' $ather brings "otion to ter"inate (' obligations for 16 year ol! twins =an! repay"ent for support pai!> afterscovering he is not bio father of twins for who" he thought was father for 16 years% ,other@s e<planation for<tra"arital affair was that it was cause! by "e!ication being ta#en at the ti"e
v C; 200E (=LA s 31) Determnaton o sett$e% ntent turns on <hether the
re$atonsh" that est Q tme that the am <as unctonng as a unt to se"araton <as one n<hch ather treate% ch$% as hs o<n
136 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
4i"ht to CS is the ri"ht o& a #hil$ an$ is in$epen$ent o& a parentRs own #on$u#t +<hether t be %e$a n "ursung su""ort+ an attem"t to out o su""ort (Mane Doe)or thea$ure to %sc$ose an etramarta$ aar that ma have $e% to the conce"ton o the ch$%@ather s a soca$ "arent+ %emonstrate% sett$e% ntenton
7 K Special or e0traordinary e0penses ("reat $eal o& evi$en#e an$ liti"ation &orealthier &a+ilies)
,&. ,n an order #or te support o# a cild$ te court may$ on te re"uest o# eiter parent orspouse or o# an applicant under section -- o# te Act$ provide #or an amount to coverall or any portion o# te #ollowing e0penses$ wic e0penses may be estimated$ ta*ing into account te necessity o# te e0pense in relation to te 6/ildHs 5estinterests and tereasna5leness f t/e e7pense in relatin t t/e means ft/e parents r sp4ses andt/se f t/e 6/ild and t t/e spendin" pattern f t/e parents r sp4ses in respe6t f t/e 6/ild d4rin" 6/a5itatin:
a) cild care e0penses incurred as a result o# te custodial parent3s employment$ illness$disability or education or training #or employment
b) tat portion o# te medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to te cild) ealt@related e0penses tat e0ceed insurance reimbursement by at least X1?? annually$
including ortodontic treatment$ pro#essional counselling provided by a psycologist$
social wor*er$ psyciatrist or any oter person$ pysioterapy$ occupational terapy$speec terapy$ prescription drugs$ earing aids$ glasses and contact lensesd) e0traordinary e0penses #or primary or secondary scool education or #or any oter
educational programs tat meet te cild3s particular needse) e0penses #or post@secondary education and) e0traordinary e0penses #or e0tracurricular activities=
De0nitin8 “e7trardinar2 e7penses”or te purposes o# clauses (1) (d) and (#)$e0traordinary e0penses6 meansa) e0penses tat e0ceed tose tat te parent or spouse re"uesting an amount #or te
e0traordinary e0penses 6an reasna5l2 6#er8 ta*ing into account tat parent3s or
spouse3s income and te amount tat te parent or spouse would receive under teapplicable table or$ were te court as determined tat te table amount isinappropriate$ te amount tat te court as oterwise determined is appropriate$ or
b) <here c$ause (a) s not a""$cab$e$ e0penses tat te court considers are e0traordinaryta*ing into account$
) te amount o# te e0pense in relation to te income o# te parent or spouse re"uesting teamount$ including te amount tat te parent or spouse would receive under teapplicable table or$ were te court as determined tat te table amount isinappropriate$ te amount tat te court as oterwise determined is appropriate$
) te nature and number o# te educational programs and e0tracurricular activities$i) any special needs and talents o# te cild$v) te overall cost o# te programs and activities$ and
v) any oter similar #actors tat te court considers relevant
*.S/arin" f e7pensee "4idin" prin6iple in determining te amount o# an e0pense re#erred to in subsection (1)
is tat te e0pense is sared by te parents or spouses in proportion to teirrespective incomes a#ter deducting #rom te e0pense$ te contribution$ i# any$ #romte cild=
?.S45sidies8 ta7 ded46tins8 et6< e0cept CC+ in (<)ubect to subsection (<)$ in determining te amount o# an e0pense re#erred to in subsection
137 | P a g e
7/24/2019 Family Law Fall 2014 - Mossman (Long Summary)
a) te parent or spouse as responsibility #or an unusually ig level o# debts reasonablyincurred to support te parents or spouses and teir cildrenduring coabitation orto earn a living
b) te parent or spouse as unusually ig e0penses in relation to e0ercising access to acild
) te parent or spouse as a legal duty under a udgment$ order or written separationagreement to support any person
d) te spouse as a legal duty to support a cild$ oter tan a cild o# te marriage$ wo is$) under te age o# maority$ or
) te age o# maority or over but is unable$ by reason o# illness$ disability or oter cause$ toobtain te necessaries o# li#ee) te parent as a legal duty to support a cild$ oter tan te cild wo is te subect o# tis
application$ wo is under te age o# maority or wo is enrolled in a #ull time course o# education
) te parent or spouse as a legal duty to support any person wo is unable to obtain tenecessaries o# li#e due to an illness or disability
?.Standards f li#in" m4st 5e 6nsidered?. !espite a determination o# undue ardsip under subsection (1)$ an application under tat
subsection must be denied by te court i# it is o# te opinion tat te ouseold o# teparent or spouse wo claims undue ardsip would$ a#ter determining te amount o#cild support under any o# sections - to 5$ or %$ ave a iger standard o# living
tan te ouseold o# te oter parent or spouse=
.Standards f li#in" test. ,n comparing standards o# living #or te purpose o# subsection (-)$ te court may use te
comparison o# ouseold standards o# living test set out in Scedule ,,=easna5le time@. Fere te court awards a dierent amount o# cild support under subsection (1)$ it may
speci#y$ in te order #or cild support$ a reasonable time #or te satis#action o# anyobligation arising #rom circumstances tat cause undue ardsip and te amountpayable at te end o# tat time= := 8eg= -%1/%7$ s= 1? (5)=
easns ,. Fere te court ma*es an order #or te support o# a cild in a dierent amount under tis
section$ it must record its reasons #or doing so
#h+i$ v S+ith 1555 ONSCN Crt dismisses application b/c e 4nds && ratio o# F is lower tan tat o#& applicant (& supports 1 cild$ as O8 veicle not incl in income F as to support 2cildren)
' applies for or!er to awar! (' a"t !iff fro" a"t !eter"ine! un!er s 4 on basis that woul! suffer un!uear!ship 3 circu"stances+ (1) unusually high e<penses for e<ercising access to chil!ren na! travels fro" I to
(ana!a each year=circu"stance of potential !ue har!ship s 10=2>=>? (2> clai"s legal !uty to support lison causes ?3> clai"e! higher cost of living in I vs (ana!a sub"its !ata re)uiring e<pert evi!ence !i! not i!entify an!uantify how cost of living personally affects hi"
&' imp4ted in6me; permits e0ercise o# udicial discretion to impute income to a CS payor$creates uge tensions
%(1)(a)were parent Jis intentionally under employed or unemployed
r,"ala: .ntentona$$ reers to vo$untar <here "arent chooses to earn $ess than ca"ab$e o earnng+
ec$u%es stuatons <here s"ouses are $a% o+ termnate%+ gven re%uce% hrs o <or#
Mi$$leton v Ma#;herson crt strugg$e% to %etermne <hat "aorFs ncome.t s not e?utab$e to
m"ute ncome to W e?ua$ to that o - <ere W s u"gra%ng e%ucatona$ ?ua$catons@ .ncomeC !Sob$gaton shou$% change as ncome changes (here W <as ta#ng u" nternsh" <hch <ou$%tem"orar$ re%uce ncome earnngs)
4iel v ollan$ (2003) &aor chose to cease <or#ng as an n%e"en%ent e$ectrca$ or+ an% ta#e a
sa$are% "oston nstea% !A a""ea$ court conrme% *MFs %etermnaton to m"ute the "rev hgher