This case discusses some of the factors that judges will weigh when considering whether to allow digital recordings to be submitted as evidence.
This case provides an example of how the proposed changes to the Children’s Law Reform Act, which ultimately resulted in the All Families Are Equal Act, are to be considered and applied.
This case serves as a great example of how not to avoid child support. Justice Sheilagh M. O’Connell of the Ontario Court of Justice deals with a father trying to get out of paying child support in a very strange way. The father’s defence: he is a victim of sexual DNA theft.
This case serves as an exception to the rule that double-dipping in pensions should be avoided. In this case, the Court is faced with the issue of whether a pension that was already used for an equalization payment should be used to fulfill spousal support payments for a dependent spouse.
In this case, Parent J. of the Ontario Court of Justice addressed the role of a report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) in light of conflicting requests from the parents. This begs the question; how much weight and relevance should be given to an assessment report when making a temporary order?
Dagg v. Cameron Estate, 2017 ONCA 366 This recent decision alters the way Canadian legal minds view the treatment of insurance in cases of spousal or child support. It also offers further definition of the payor/payee relationship in cases of spousal and child support as one of a creditor and debtor.
This recent decision serves as a cautionary tale to those who disobey disclosure orders. In his decision, Price J. ordered that the Respondent father pay $24,900 for his failure to disclose his financial information within a reasonable period of time.
McClintock v. Karam, 2017 ONCA 277: This recent decision from the Court of Appeal causes some confusion with respect to the characterization of stay orders for the purposes of appeal, and the requirements for an exception to the general rule that an order granting a stay is final, but an order refusing a stay is interlocutory.
In this case, the Applicant Husband brought a motion for an order pursuant to section 2(8) of the Family Law Act (FLA), extending time to bring an application for an equalization payment pursuant to section 7(3) of the FLA. The Respondent Wife opposed the motion on the basis that the Husband was not able to satisfy the grounds in section 2(8) and that he failed to file a claim for equitable relief within two years as required under the Limitations Act.
In this appeal from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that structured settlement annuity payments are to be treated as income rather than property.