Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘and enforcement of court orders’

Was Unplanned Pregnancy Tantamount to “Theft of DNA”?

Image result for unplanned pregnancy

Was Unplanned Pregnancy Tantamount to “Theft of DNA”?

An interesting recent case considered a novel legal argument by a 23-year-old man who unexpectedly found himself the father of a child he didn’t plan to have, after a brief relationship with a 38-year-old woman he met a music festival.

The father, an apprentice iron worker, was in an intimate relationship with the mother for several months.  After learning from the mother that she was pregnant, he decided that he did not want to be involved and they ended their relationship before the child was born.  The mother had sole custody, and the father essentially had chosen to have no contact with the child whatsoever.

Nonetheless, the mother brought an action against the father for child support.  He resisted, claiming that under the “strict terms of their sexual engagement,” he made had it clear to the mother that he did not want to become a parent.  Although they did not use condoms or other physical birth control, they engaged in the “withdrawal method” to prevent conception.  He also claims the mother told him she was “medically infertile.”

Essentially the father asked the court to recognize a new civil claim in tort, one that featured a “hostile sexual act” of the theft of the DNA contained in his ejaculate.  The court described the father’s stated position this way:

The father argues that he is not legally obligated to pay child support because the mother engaged in a “premeditated theft of the father’s DNA” during “a hostile sexual act of DNA theft” leading to the birth of the child. According to the father, he was a victim of the theft of his DNA by the mother “to satisfy the [mother’s] motive to bear a child prior to the [mother’s] biological reproductive expiration.”

The mother brought motion for summary judgment, asking for an immediate court order requiring the father to pay child support, and dismissing the father’s claim outright, on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court granted the mother’s motion, and ordered the father to pay.  There was simply no legal basis for the father’s attempt to create a new defence against the mother’s child support claim. Not only did the court not recognize the tort of a “hostile sexual act of DNA theft”, but even if it existed it did not relieve him of his legislated obligation under the Ontario Family Law Act to pay child support.  There was no dispute as to the child’s paternity.

The man and woman had engaged in consensual sex, and had not used birth control (except for the unreliable “withdrawal method”, which the court found was actually evidence that the father did not rely on the mother’s own birth control methods, or on her self-proclaimed infertility).  In short, with their decision to have unsafe sex came with inherent risk of unwanted pregnancy, and with it came child support obligations in law.

In assessing the amount of support the father had to pay, the court noted that the father’s income suddenly dropped significantly when the mother started her court application for child support.  He was currently unemployed, was not looking for work, and had provided the court with no persuasive medical or other evidence on why he was not working despite being capable. Under Ontario law, he had an obligation to earn at whatever level he capable of doing so. Based on the undisputed evidence, the father would be able to earn $35, 000 per year, and his support obligation and arrears were calculated accordingly.

For the full text of the decision, see:

M.-A.M. v. J.C.M.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

Wednesday’s Video Clip: Obligations to Pay Child Support Even with Undue Hardship


Wednesday’s Video Clip: Obligations to Pay Child Support Even with Undue Hardship

In this video a member at the firm reviews a court decision from earlier this year, the court confirmed that a father was still obligated to pay support for his two children from a first marriage even though: 1) he no longer had a relationship with them; 2) he had a new family (and two other small children) to support; and 3) the child support obligation would cause him undue hardship, in light of his difficult financial circumstances.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Can You Sue a Cheater for Damages?

Image result for cheating

Can You Sue a Cheater for Damages?

These days, not a week goes by without some sort of sexual scandal in the news. Recently, it has focused on allegations of sexual harassment by prominent figures and celebrities but this merely adds to usual crop adultery-scandal coverage that routinely graces the cover of magazines seen while waiting in the check-out line.

I was reminded of an older Family Law decision the other day, which considered the question of whether one person can sue another for cheating on them, or for falsely promising to marry them or have an exclusive relationship with them.

The decision in Lee v. Riley raised exactly this scenario.  The matter came before the court the initially to consider whether the lawsuit actually raised any valid legal claims.  (Under Canadian law, this process serves as a preliminary “screening mechanism” for weeding out those claims adjudged to be entirely without merit, so as not to waste the court’s time (and the taxpayers’ money) on frivolous or otherwise untenable lawsuits.   The prevailing test at the time was whether it is “plain and obvious” that the cause of action cannot succeed.)

In Lee v. Riley the woman had sued the man for what has a rather novel claim.  As the court put it:

The plaintiff [woman] alleges that the defendant [man] failed to advise her that he was involved with another women whom he later married while he was carrying on an intimate relationships with her within a context of an apparent ongoing developing relationship. When she discovered the truth, the [woman] claims that she became ill and has suffered damages. The [woman] asserts a number of causes of action arising out of these facts, including assault, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.

Although it appeared to have sympathy for the woman, the court dismissed her claim outright, having found no supportable, legal cause of action in her pleadings.  The court wrote:

The [man’s] conduct, as alleged, is morally reprehensible and disgraceful. Nevertheless, the law has never punished either criminally or in civil proceedings, the untruths, half-truths and other inducement which accompany seduction, absent a fraudulent relationship or the presence of a known serious transmittable disease. The [woman] knew who the [man] was and knew the [illegible text] sexual acts being undertaken. The law cannot protect every person against the kind of behaviour the [man[allegedly manifested. Relationships involve risk-taking. People should be honest but it is well known that frequently they are not.

What are your thoughts?  Are there circumstances where the law should recognized a claim in damage by the cheated-on partner?

For the full text of the decision, see:

Lee v. Riley, 2002 CarswellOnt 5558

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

 

 

Kiss & Tell: The Divorce Lawyer’s Duty of Confidentiality

Kiss & Tell: The Divorce Lawyer’s Duty of Confidentiality

Newsweek reported recently that President Trump’s former divorce lawyer Jay Goldberg is has penned a tell-all book that will include details for his two former divorces.

President Trump was formerly married to Ivana Trump and to Marla Maples. Both matters are now settled.

Golberg’s potential book may fly in the face of long held and important traditions and rules of confidentially. Clients tell their lawyers their deepest secrets with the protection that that information and confidence will not be misused or abused. 
This is known as solicitor-client privilege and forms the cornerstone of the solicitor client relationship and enables the lawyer to get the full picture, develop legal strategies that will be in their client’s best interests and fosters the dispensing of legal advice.

Divorce lawyers in Ontario are governed by strict Rules of Professional Conduct that ensure clients’ confidences are kept secret.

So what do you think? Should lawyers be allowed to write tell-all books about their former clients’ divorces and legal affairs?

 

Simple Divorce & It’s Over Easy

Simple Divorce & It’s Over Easy

Is there such a thing as a “simple divorce”?

In Ontario there has been a great discussion of opening up the family law system and permitting paralegals to practice and provide limited family law services. Although their role and permitted duties have not been clearly defined it is apparent that change is coming.

In the U.S. divorce lawyer Laura Wasser has recently released an app for people looking for an easier way to divorce – “it’s over easy”.

Lifehacker reports that the price ranges $750, while the top-of-the-line Premium plan costs $2500 + processing and state fees to use “it’s over easy”.

Although this sounds easy now, there is still a good chance that you may require the services of an experienced family lawyer especially if your spouse files a response and seeks relief from the court such as division of family property and or support.

In addition, there are many other legal implications of divorce that can be easily overlooked such as life insurance, benefits, wills and estate planning, providing disclosure of family assets and securing releases with respect to claims that might be made in the future.

However, given the complexity and expense of the current family law system anything, including innovative apps, that help streamline and simply the system for the public will be a welcomed step in the right direction.

Can You Go to Jail for Not Paying Child Support?

Image result for arrested wolf of wall street

Can You Go to Jail for Not Paying Child Support?

Most separated and divorced parents are at least vaguely aware that there are certain enforcement mechanisms available in cases where a parent fails or is unwilling to pay the child support that he or she has been ordered to pay by a court.

Specifically the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), which is a provincial government agency, enforces child and spousal support from delinquent support-payers, and to this end has various enforcement tools at its disposal.  These include garnishment of the support-payer’s wages, and suspension of his or her driver’s license.

But people may not be aware that a parent in default may also face jail time, under the provisions of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act (“FRSAEA”).  Although this outcome is not common, it does arise in some cases.

The recent decision in Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Garrick was one of them. The father owed child support arrears for over $55,000, which amount had been racked up over several years.  He explained the non-payment with the fact that much of those years had been spent behind bars, after his highly-publicized conviction for fraud perpetrated against several well-known people, including “two football icons” and a doctor at the Hospital for Sick Children.   And while he had now served his time and was released, he claimed that with his criminal record and notoriety, he was now practically unemployable in the community.

The court did not buy it.  It observed that the father had not provided financial disclosure of his income, nor did he bring forth evidence as to the jobs he had applied for, or the rejections he received.  The court also added that his evidence fell short in other ways, too:

A payor in a default proceeding has the onus [under the FRSAEA] of proving that he or she has accepted responsibility to pay child support and has placed the child’s interests over his or her own. Mr. Garrick has provided no evidence of having done anything of the sort.

Indeed – and despite the father’s claims to the contrary – the court found that he was healthy and employable, but had wholly abdicated his support responsibilities to his child while continuing to live an affluent lifestyle.  He had spent a full seven years actively avoiding his financial obligations to his own child.

Turning to the available recourse in these situations, the court noted that the role of incarceration was to compel the father’s compliance with his support obligations, not to punish him.   However, the court added:

I have considered all of those submissions. But the court must conclude that this is a textbook case of a payor arranging his affairs in order to avoid paying the support that he has been found to be capable of paying. [The father] has carried the metaphorical keys of his prison in his pocket. If he is incarcerated, he has, for reasons of his own, chosen to lock himself in.

The court ordered the father to be incarcerated for 90 days, or until the child support arrears were paid in full. Additional jail time was ordered in the event that on a going-forward basis the father continued to put himself in default.

 

For the full text of the decision, see:

Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Garrick 

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Saving the Golden Goose: Part III – Privacy, Protection, and Planning

Image result for planning

Saving the Golden Goose: Part III – Privacy, Protection, and Planning

This blog builds upon our previous blogs Saving the Golden Goose: Part I and Part II to discuss the importance of privacy, protection, and planning in managing the effects of separation and divorce on family businesses. One illustration of this arose in a case whereby both spouses owned shares in the family company. As an additional wrinkle, a third business partner was involved and actively expressed concerns about the effect of the separation and divorce on the business.

One spouse actively managed the finances of the business, and the other was less involved. This created an unbalanced feeling for the second spouse, who felt that they were open to being taken advantage of financially. The spouse in active management of the business was incredibly concerned about market changes and the viability of the business going forward into the future. This vulnerability split into discussions around how the business should be properly valued.

The spouses had several adult children who had been supported by the family business in various ways throughout their teenage years and adulthood, either through part time jobs or full time employment. These children had very vocal views on how the couple’s separation should proceed. The children also felt that the family cottage should remain in the possession of the spouse who was in active management of the family business, as it was a retirement plan.

In this matter, a full team approach was utilized to create a creative solution which met the spouse’s needs amidst the “background noise” of the children and the business partner. The family professional was able to mitigate any backlash from the children expressing their feelings about the family business and the cottage, and the financial professionals were able to ensure that the non-managing spouse felt competent enough to actively participate in the financial negotiations.

In order to ensure that the family business was preserved, several options were suggested by the team to the spouses:

Shares from non-managing spouse be transferred to managing spouse; other family property transferred to non-managing spouse

  • Shares from non-managing spouse be transferred as a gift to the children
  • Non-managing spouse retains cottage; managing spouse leases family cottage back and covers operating and capital costs with option of re-purchasing in the future
  • Non-managing spouse retains the shares for a period of five years during which the managing spouse acts as the voting proxy, after which time the managing spouse has the option of buying back the shares at the current value

Associated issues such as the capital gains liability of each scenario, as well as the valuation dates for transferred property were also taken into account. Notably, these options would not be available in the traditional court context. Perhaps most importantly, the spouses would not have had the “luxury” of being supported by an interdisciplinary team and provided time to process and decide which option made the most sense to themselves, their family, and their business.

The above case examples illustrate the ability of collaborative family law to shape a resolution with the best interests of the family business at the core. The collaborative process emphasizes privacy, protection, and planning. By keeping the matter outside of the courtroom, families can maximize their privacy with respect to the highly personal matter of restructuring their family and business.  The collaborative process offers a respectful alternative to the court system for those wishing to ensure that their legacy remains intact for generations to come through estate and succession planning for the business. The business does not need to be destroyed by family restructuring. Minimizing the financial and emotional impact of a separation and divorce on both the family and their business is a tall order, but it can be done with the support of an interdisciplinary team who is specially trained to identify creative solutions with the goal of resolution. This process allows spouses to take back control of your family’s future from impartial third party adjudicators.  Divorce and separation may represent both an ending and a beginning. Collaborative practice helps spouses anticipate and include their need to move forward, and makes the future of their business a key priority.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Part I

Part II

 

To Get or Vary Child Support, Do Your Kids Still have to be “Children”?

Image result for stepbrothers

To Get or Vary Child Support, Do Your Kids Still have to be “Children”?

An Ontario Court of Appeal decision recently brought to the forefront an interesting little legal point, about the court’s authority to make or change child support orders even after children are too old or too independent.

Under Canadian family law, section 15.1 of the federal Divorce Act allows a court to make an order requiring a parent to pay child support for any “children of the marriage”.   (And this term is defined by the Act to include: 1) a child under the age of majority (who has not otherwise withdrawn from his or her parent’s charge), and 2) a child who is over the age of majority but still dependent.)

Based on a prior ruling decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, a court only has the authority to make a child support order if, at the time of the initial application by the parent, the children fall under this “children of the marriage” definition.  In other words, if the support-recipient parent waits until the children are over the age of majority or no longer dependent, then he or she is out of luck since the court lacks jurisdiction to retrospectively make a child support order at that point.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision called Colucci v. Colucci, the court considered a related question: Can a parent apply to the court to vary a child support order, even after the children stop being “children of the marriage”?

The facts of the case involved a father of two children who had been ordered to pay child support but eventually fell into arrears of more than $175,000.  By that time, both children ceased to be “children of the marriage.”  Faced by the prospect of a significant decline in his income as an unskilled labourer, the father brought a motion to change the child support order retroactively, and have his arrears rescinded on the ground that there had been a change in circumstances.

The Appeal Court reviewed the governing law when an order could be varied, as found s. 17 of the Divorce Act.  It was differently worded than the initial-support provision in section 15.1; the stated test for whether a court had the authority to vary an order was different from the test to make an order in the first place.  The Appeal Court concluded that based on that wording, a court did indeed have jurisdiction to vary an existing order even after the children are no longer dependents. (And from an Ontario family law perspective, it should be noted that this aligns with the court’s jurisdiction under the provincial Family Law Act to vary child support orders retroactively in such circumstances).

Although the Colucci decision does not foretell that every parent’s application to vary child support will succeed (since that must be determined on a case-by-case basis), the law is now abundantly clear that a court had the authority to change orders even after the children no longer fall within the “children of the marriage” definition.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Colucci v. Colucci

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Saving the Golden Goose: Part II – Including Specialized Professions as An Alternative Option to the Traditional Court System

Saving the Golden Goose: Part II – Including Specialized Professions as An Alternative Option to the Traditional Court System

As mentioned in our previous blog Saving the Golden Goose: Part I, a court process allows for only a rights based determination of the issues at hand. However, there are many intricacies involved in the enmeshment of family business and the process of separation and divorce. As an alternative to a purely rights based approach, other options can be considered in the collaborative approach, including:

  • Family trusts or holding companies as a method of sharing income from the family business
  • Tax planning, avoiding the possibility of triggering a Canada Revenue Agency audit
  • Considering the formation of a new family trust
  • Employment of children in the family business
  • Estate, succession, and capacity planning
  • Ensuring insurance is in place to cushion the effects of any risks
  • Gifting shares or portions of the family business to children or other family members
  • Maintaining the privacy of the family business
  • Managing the continuation of income streams
  • Splitting income amongst family members
  • Delaying equalization or sharing business payments (Ie: if and when the family business sells)
  • Preserving the family legacy for generations
  • Recognizing and predicting the ebb and flow of the market and business patterns

Unlike the court system, the collaborative process is unique in that it offers the additional benefit of involving neutral professionals who specialize in associated areas, listed above. These neutrals are able to address relevant areas of the family law matter, often with more experience in their particular field than lawyers. Neutrals are also able to complete work at their hourly rate, rather than at the lawyer’s fee. They are also able to take on some of the information gathering that would alternatively be completed by the spouses, which can be stressful. This makes including neutrals an efficient way to deal with issues in a cost effective manner.

Financial Professionals

Collaborative Financial Specialists may be accountants, financial planners, and business valuators who have expertise in helping separating families address issues relating to the family business. They play a vital role in the collaborative process by ensuring that clients provide full and frank financial disclosure. Financial disclosure includes aspects such as income, liabilities, and assets of both the spouses and the business. A business valuator may value the business and, as in the case of many self employed individuals, complete an income analysis to determine yearly income for support purposes. In the collaborative process, family business owners can work alongside the financial professional and/or business valuator to assist them in understanding the intricacies of the business based on its unique field.

Financial Specialists thoroughly vet the documents and prepare detailed reports which help to streamline settlement discussions. Financial Specialists further add value to the collaborative process by educating clients about their finances and helping to manage their expectations from a neutral perspective. This impartial stance helps to keep client expectations realistic, making negotiated settlement more likely.

Another key benefit of financial professionals is their ability to “even the playing field”. In some family matters, one spouse may have been much more involved in the finances of the family business. The other spouse may feel they are ill equipped to negotiate the finances associated with the business, and may worry about being taken advantage of by their spouse. A financial neutral can spend time separately with both parties to ensure that all the cards are on the table, and that each spouse understands the basis upon which they are negotiating.

Family Professionals

While it may not immediately seem to be a common sense approach to include a family professional within the context of a family business matter, family professionals can often deal with may of the underlying issues associated with restructuring a family and a family business. Emotions can run additionally high when dealing with the very real and salient issues associated with the individuals which make up a family business team.

Much of the concept of “Interest Based Negotiation” centers on interests that are not purely financial. A family professional can assist in identifying and bringing these interests to the table. Anger, loss and grief are a natural part of divorce or separation, especially when a family’s livelihood is on the line. A family neutral gives families access to support and guidance for managing these emotions which can intensify the conflict and derail settlement attempts in traditional divorce.

Collaborative Family Professionals are counselors, social workers, psychologists or mediators who have specialized skills in handling the emotional aspects of the issues pertaining to separation and divorce. They further discuss parenting, and help ensure that feelings, needs, and concerns are understood and respected where children concerned. This is especially pertinent when there are children working within a family business, who have their own independent concerns about how the divorce will affect their future within the business context.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Part I

Part III

SaveSave

SaveSave

Wednesday’s Video Clip: Does The Age of The Child Affect Child Support in Ontario?


Wednesday’s Video Clip: Does The Age of The Child Affect Child Support in Ontario?

Simply put, the age of a child does affect the amount of child support ordered. In this video we discuss how and when the age of the child could affect child support. Income considerations, age of the child and needs of the child should be considered.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com