Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Divorce FAQs & Education Resources’ Category

Federal Government Announces Proposed Changes to the Divorce Act

Image result for divorce

Federal Government Announces Proposed Changes to the Divorce Act

On May 22, 2018, the federal government tabled the proposed Bill C-78 (titled “An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act”) which would make significant changes to the Divorce Act and related legislation.

The overall intent of the Bill, which is only at first reading, is to modernize federal Family Law, by promoting faster, more cost-effect solutions to disputes.  In connection with the Divorce Act specifically, the Bill proposes to amend that legislation to enhance the protection of the “best interests of the child”, by adding new rights and obligations, namely:

  • Parenting Orders. Courts would be allowed to make “parenting orders” (instead of the current “custody orders”) allocating the exercise of parenting time and decision-making responsibility in respect of any “child of the marriage”.  Key points:
    • Only the bests interests of the child must be considered by the court, and the relevant factors will be specified in the legislation.
    • Either or both parents could apply for one, as can a non-parent (e.g. a grandparent) with the court’s permission.

 

  • Notice Obligations. A new process would be added, that requires parents who have decision-making responsibility or parenting time to give notice of an intent to change their or their child’s residence, or to relocate. Key points:
    • That notice must be given to any other person who also is entitled to exercise decision-making authority or parenting time, or who has a contact order.
    • A court may order that these notice requirements be dispensed with, but only where appropriate such as where there is a risk of family violence.
    • A person who receives such notice can apply to the court to object to the child being relocated.
    • Once again, the best interests of the child, as that assessment is informed by legislatively-specified factors, will inform the court’s decision.

The proposed Bill would make many other changes, and among the talking-points is the question of whether and how it might impact on individual rights established under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Stay tuned for additional upcoming Blogs on this topic.

For the full text of Bill C-78, see:

BILL C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

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

Coming Soon to a Public Library Near You:  Help for Self-Represented Family Litigants

Related image

Coming Soon to a Public Library Near You:  Help for Self-Represented Family Litigants

The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSLRP) is the new recipient of $100,000 in funds from Law Foundation of Ontario, which has a mandate to improve access to justice for the people of Ontario through a variety of grants, fellowships and awards.    The funds come from the Law Foundation’s “Family Law Access to Justice Fund,” and will be used by the NSLRP to partner with local public libraries.  Together, they will work to set up a pilot program in Public Libraries to serve the needs of self-represented litigants.

The pilot program is slated to begin in July of 2018, and will run for two years.

The first to benefit from this initiative will be the Windsor Public Library and the Essex County Public Library, both of which have committed to partner in this pilot program.

Initial steps will involve: 1) hiring a Project Leader to provide training to librarians on issues related to self-represented litigants and their needs, and 2) developing public educational programming.  The latter will include legal information seminars, question-and-answer sessions with local lawyers, and clinics to educate on the forms to be used in various legal processes.

The NSLRA notes that libraries are well-poised to participate, since they are already tasked with providing the public with access to information, and frequently see patrons who seek legal advice and information in particular.

For more information about this initiative see:

https://representingyourselfcanada.com/family-law-at-the-library-new-project-to-partner-with-public-libraries/

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

If You are Divorced in a Foreign Country, Can a Canadian Court Make Orders Too?

Image result for divorce

If You are Divorced in a Foreign Country, Can a Canadian Court Make Orders Too?

The facts in Cheng v. Liu are a little unusual, but the core question was this:

If a couple’s divorce is validly granted outside of Canada by a foreign court, does this preclude a Canadian court from later making any corollary orders – such as rulings on issues of support or custody – arising from that same divorce?

The husband, an engineer, was a Canadian citizen who lived in Canada.  The wife lived in China and had never been to Canada.  They got married in China in 2006 and had a daughter who lived with the wife in China her entire life.  They separated about a year after getting married, in around late 2007 or early 2008.

The wife then covered all the legal bases:  She applied in China for a divorce, and custody of their child.  She also applied in Canadian, under the federal Divorce Act, to ask for a divorce, as well as spousal support, child support, and custody.  Finally, also in Canada under the Ontario Family Law Act, she asked for equalization of net family property.

Meanwhile, the Chinese court granted the wife her divorce and awarded her sole custody of the child.  The wife’s other Ontario-based claims were still pending.

The husband, faced with all of these competing actions requiring his response, asked the Ontario court to suspend (or “stay”) the proceedings so that the entire matter could be determined in China.  This led to several rulings and some procedural wrangling, and ultimately a hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal for its determination.

Against this complicated background the Ontario Court of Appeal had a simple question to consider:  In light of the Chinese divorce order, could a Canadian court make additional orders relating to child support, spousal support, and equalization of property?

The Court’s conclusion was mixed:  The divorce-related issues were closed for consideration, but the child support issues were still up for an Ontario Family court to rule on.

On the first point – and based on longstanding precedent that considered the provisions of the federal Divorce Act – the law states that once the foreign Chinese court had made a valid divorce order, this removes the authority of the Ontario court to hear and determine corollary matters.  So on the remaining divorce-related issues, the Ontario court had no authority.

However, the situation under the provincial Family Law Act was different:  the Ontario court could still rule on questions relating to child support, since the foreign court in China had not already done so in its divorce order.   The Family Law Act allowed child support claims to be made even after a divorce, and the foreign divorce order had no impact on that.  Indeed, the whole purpose for the Ontario legislation was to ensure that parents provide financial support for their dependent children.  Allowing the Ontario court to continuing to make orders under the Family Law Act even though the Divorce Act provisions had been trumped was actually a harmonious outcome to ensure child support would be covered.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Cheng v. Liu

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

 

Thinking of Doing Some Cyber-Sleuthing? Think Again

Image result for sleuth

Thinking of Doing Some Cyber-Sleuthing? Think Again

I wrote a recent Blog about the admissibility of surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversations in Family law proceedings.  I have also written several times on how courts approach the admission of Facebook evidence.

Particularly in nasty divorce and custody disputes, it is likely that courts will have to grapple with these kinds of issues regularly, given how easy its become for spouses to try to secretly gather evidence against each other, using a Smartphone, keystroke logger, spyware, etc.

But for the average embattled spouse locked in bitter litigation, how effective is this as an evidence-gathering mechanism for use in Family court?

The answer:  Not very.

Under Canadian law, secretly-gathered computer data, emails, internet history, video, audio and similar evidence is generally not admissible in routine Family law hearings, except in unusual circumstances and only after a court has held a separate mini-hearing, called a voir dire, on the specific issue.  Overall, the odds are not very good that such evidence will be admitted.

Case in point:  In a called T. (T.) v. J.(T.) the court considered a situation where the husband had hacked into his wife’s private email, using the password she had allowed him to have when the marriage was in happier times.   The emails disclosed what was, in the court’s words, “an arguably disturbing exchange between [the wife] and her lawyer, which could be interpreted as evidencing some potential risk or threat to his safety.”  Still, the court found the husband’s email hacking was not only unjustified, it was a clear violation of the wife’s privacy rights.  The court also concluded that the email evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.

Similarly, in a decision in U. (A.J.) v. U. (G.S.) the court considered whether to admit evidence that the husband had collected through the use of spyware he had illegally installed on his former wife’s laptop.  The evidence showed the wife’s activities on internet chat rooms, and established that she had engaged in extra-marital sex.  The court examined the issue in the context of the couple’s dispute over custody and access issues, ultimately concluding that the affair and the online activity was out-of-character for the wife, and was not reflective of her ability to parent the children of the marriage.  The court added that it would be “a rare case” that illegally-obtained evidence should be admitted, and only after the trial judge holds a hearing to determine its admissibility.  The burden was always on the party seeking to enter such evidence to establish “a compelling reason to do so.”

For the full text of the decisions, see:

(A.J.) v. U. (G.S.)

(T.) v. J. (T.)

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

Is It Your New Year’s Resolution to Get a Divorce?

Is It Your New Year’s Resolution to Get a Divorce?

In a piece recently reported by the CBC News, and well as a post from Huffington Post Canada it seems that January is the prime time of year for couples to initiate divorce, based on the number of court-filed applications. According to another article in the U.S. divorce filings begin to spike in January, and peak in February and March.   January is when divorce lawyers report seeing a spike in consultations from disgruntled husbands and wives, who at least want to do some information-gathering, by exploring the various financial and child-related repercussions that a formal separation or divorce would entail. After that, according to the article, many who are willing to commit to a split will return in February or March to get the ball rolling. Similar trends have been reported in other articles.

So what’s behind the trend? Apparently, those in troubled partnerships will try to keep the status quo throughout the holidays – especially if children are involved – only to formally separate or embark on marital counselling once the festivities are over. The reason for this timing is largely (shall we say) “sentimental”: People don’t want to initiate divorce proceedings immediately before, or during, the holidays. They may not want to put a pall over what is ideally supposed to be a family-oriented, idyllic season of the year.   Or, they may want to delay so that the family can have one final holiday together, before they split.

For others – especially those individuals who have already started to secretly contemplate divorce, or for those embattled couples who have begun to discuss the prospect between themselves – the “fresh start” quality of New Year, and the tradition of making resolutions, may prompt unhappy partners to re-evaluate their future and finally make the break they have been contemplating.

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

SaveSave

Saving the Golden Goose: Part I – How Family Run Businesses can Survive and Thrive after Divorce

Saving the Golden Goose: Part I – How Family Run Businesses can Survive and Thrive after Divorce

One of the common fears of clients who own family run businesses is how a divorce will affect the business they have spent their life building. While business owners have control over the work they put into their business and the legacy they are building for their family, they may have little influence over a relationship breakdown. The worry in regards to the effects of this breakdown on a business can cause additional stress above and beyond the heartache associated with restructuring a family.

In many family law matters involving children, the spouses are able to agree to cooperate in order to address the best interests of the children. In many ways, a family business can be used as a similar incentive: spouses can agree to cooperate in order to address the best interests of the family business. While fueling conflict is an almost unavoidable side effect of the court system, a collaborative approach is a very effective method in reducing the impact of separation and divorce on family run businesses. This process seeks to ensure that the business remains viable for both spouses, as well as future generations.

What is Collaborative Practice?

Collaborative Practice Family Law offers an effective alternative to the inherently adversarial court process. Both parties must enter into the process voluntarily, and agree to resolve their issues respectfully. While the court process is oriented based on the legal rights and obligations of both parties, the collaborative process allows both parties to generate options that best suit their family. This allows the family much more self determination in creating an outcome based on their specific needs. Specially training collaborative lawyers work with both parties to guide them through the process, and are available to offer legal advice and support to their clients when appropriate.

Both parties’ lawyers also commit themselves to coming to a mutually agreeable resolution. The parties must agree in advance that should the collaborative process fail, neither party may use their collaborative lawyer to advance their position in court. This creates an environment conducive to negotiation and settlement, outside of court.

The underlying philosophy of the collaborative divorce process is that the parties mutually agree to completely avoid the court process, with the result being a faster, cheaper and more amicable divorce or separation.

A Flexible Alternative to Court

As mentioned above, the collaborative process allows spouses to shape the outcome of their separation and divorce. In contrast, judges in the court system have limited statutory options available them when presented with these disputes. Their analysis is built upon a determination of the legal rights and obligations of the parties under the Family Law Act. Furthermore, family law judges may struggle to understand the time and effort that goes into building and running a business, and the concept that income is not necessarily guaranteed or consistent. Issues such as liquidity of assets, the risks associated with owning a business, and ensuring that funding remains stable are complex, and family judges are not necessarily trained to analyze these concepts. Due to these restrictions, often a court process will result in the sale of business at a significant discount, which ultimately results in a significant loss of family wealth.

Collaborative family law is an option that operates outside of the court system. It allows the spouses much more privacy than a court process does, which a huge additional benefit to those owning family businesses. Issues such as tax planning or corporate share transfers can be done with reduced publicity. Both spouses are able to sit down with one another, and their lawyers, to discuss a solution that is beneficial to both the business and the family unit. Spouses can determine whether or not it is a realistic option to continue to operate the business jointly, or if one should step down. In the latter situation, flexible payment structures can be created to ensure that the business is not destroyed in the wake of one spouse leaving. This fosters the health of the family business, and promotes growth and stability for future income and the building of capital which ultimately supports the family.

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 II

Part III

SaveSave

SaveSave

Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers


At Russell Alexander Family Lawyers, we are committed to practicing exclusively in the area of family law. As a result, our team is experienced in dealing with all aspects of family law matters, including:

  • Separation and divorce Child custody and access
  • Child support Spousal support
  • The Family Responsibility Office (FRO)
  • Division of family property
  • Family mediation and alternative forms of dispute resolution
  • Domestic contracts, including separation agreements, paternity agreements and marriage contracts

Because our work is focused solely on family law, we understand the difficulties individuals face when going through a separation or divorce. We understand that family law can be very complex, and that its complexity can be amplified when coupled with emotionally straining circumstances.

Our office will help you by providing you with guidance during what can be a very difficult time in your life. This means providing you with the information to help you to identify and understand the issues, as well as the options and opportunities available to you to help in this transition. It means working with you to design a plan to help you make progress and achieve your goals. We will keep you informed about matters as they arise and discuss with you any significant decisions that you are required to make. We will provide you with our best legal advice, but ultimately you will make the final decisions and provide us with instructions.

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

New Joint Action Plan Announced for Improving Access to Family Law Services in Ontario

New Joint Action Plan Announced for Improving Access to Family Law Services in Ontario

The Law Society of Ontario has just announced its approval-in-principle of a joint action plan that is the culmination of a Family Legal Services Review commissioned last year in conjunction with the Ministry of the Attorney General.  The resulting Report makes 21 recommendations that are aimed at improving access to Family Law legal services, most notably by expanding the role of paralegals. Under the joint action plan being considered, the Law Society commits to the following:

  • To develop a license for licensed paralegals and others with appropriate training, to allow them to offer some Family Law legal services. The licence will support training on the topics of: legal process; completing Family Law forms, investigating certain financial information, Motions to Change, and uncontested divorces.  The Law Society indicates that training will be an intensive and rigorous process, of up to 14 months’ duration, along with testing.
  • To “engage in a robust evaluation of the success of the Family Law legal services license for service providers other than lawyers, and to make any adjustments that are in the public interest.”
  • To consider allowing lawyer candidates (e. articling students) to be given “experiential training” in the licensing process, including how they may support the delivery of Family Law legal services under appropriate supervision.
  • To review the Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyers and paralegals, to see whether the current rules on the unauthorized practice of law are as clear as possible on the difference between legal information that is legal advice, versus legal information that might be provided by Court staff to unrepresented litigants. The intent is to effect a common-sense change to give Court staff more latitude to help self-represented litigants navigate the Family Law process.
  • To continue to support the expanded use of unbundled services and legal coaching, including offering Continuing Legal Education opportunities, as well as tools that address concerns over legal liability.

The Law Society indicates that it will also continue to assess what additional Family Law legal services (including advocacy in and out of the courtroom) should be made available by providers other than lawyers.   This again requires consideration of the public interest.

It should be noted as background to this newly-announced initiative, that the Law Society has also ramped up its lobbying efforts, in cooperation with the Bar, to encourage the Federal and Provincial governments to accelerate the implementation of Unified Family Courts to all jurisdiction in Ontario.  (Currently, there are only 17 Unified Family Courts are only available to litigants in the province, mostly in the greater Toronto region).

What are your thoughts on this new action plan?

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

 

If Only One Person Says “It’s Over”, Is It Really?

If Only One Person Says “It’s Over”, Is It Really?

Who gets to decide when a marriage or other relationship is over? Do both parties have to agree, in the eyes of the law?

That was one of the questions that the court had to ask in a case called Cammaroto Cammaroto.

The facts were a little unusual: The wife wanted out of the dead-end marriage but could not get the husband to leave, likely because he was very comfortable having her pay all the bills. He had never really worked throughout their 10-year marriage, and had not shown any real inclination to get a job. As the court described it:

[The wife] testified that she was trapped in the relationship for many years because she could not get [the husband] to leave and she could not afford to carry two residences making her (in her words) “a prisoner” in the matrimonial home.

The true end-date of the marriage was therefore challenging to pinpoint, and the spouses differed greatly on what that date actually was.

Naturally in a more typical marriage-breakdown scenario, the former partners usually decide to stop living together at some point, making it much easier to isolate the date the relationship has officially ended.   But where – as here – the couple continues to live under the same roof even after one or both of them consider the relationship to be over, the lines can get a little blurry.   It becomes harder to identify the true legal “separation date”.

To frame its determination on this issue, the court stated the law:

Marital relationships cover a broad spectrum and it is difficult to pinpoint when spouses become “separated” while under the same roof. There is no checklist or test that precisely articulates the determination of a valuation date in a case such as this, though courts have articulated factors to consider. It is a fact-driven inquiry in any particular case.

The absence of sexual relations is a factor but it is not conclusive. The degree to which spouses share or segregate income and expenses is important, particularly changes in those arrangements. Communication, social life, interactions with one another in public and behind closed doors all need to be considered. Mutual goals and expectations are relevant. The goal under the Family Law Act‘s property provision is to fix a date on which the economic partnership should as a matter of fairness be terminated. The global question is when it was that the parties knew, or reasonably ought to have known, their spousal relationship was over and would not resume.

On the question of whether one person can unilaterally decide that the marriage is over, the court was unequivocal:

Continuation of a marital relationship requires two people. Either spouse can unilaterally end that relationship without the consent of the other. There are many cases where one spouse knows there will be no reconciliation, but the other may not know. At the same time, the court must be careful to look for some objective evidence upon which to find a date of separation, rather than simply accepting the after-the-fact statements of the party who has decided the relationship is over.

Applying this test to the specific facts in Cammarato, the court found that the relationship had ended a full five years before the couple stopped living together. The court described the marital scene:

By 2005, they ceased to have a sexual or otherwise intimate relationship. Communication between them was largely by notes to one another. They had no social life to speak of. [The husband] had no friends and as a couple they had no mutual friends. Moreover, he objected to and interfered with [the wife’s] association with her own friends and even with her two sons. They had a joint bank account but only [the wife] was putting money into this account after 2006. [The wife’s] description of their relationship is corroborated in some respects by [her doctor’s] notes and the records of the police interventions.

In these circumstances, the court found the marriage was over long before the spouses moved out and went their separate ways. It set the separation date accordingly, for valuing the spouses’ respective assets for equalization.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Cammaroto v Cammaroto, 2015 ONSC 3968 (CanLII)

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

SaveSave