Equalization deductions come into play when a marriage ends, either through divorce or separation. As per Section 4(1) of the Family Law Act, a spouse can deduct debts and other liabilities, along with the value of property they owned on the date of marriage from their net family property for the purposes of equalization. However, the onus of proving a deduction lies on the spouse claiming the deduction. Hence, it is crucial for a spouse to maintain detailed records of their financial position on the date of marriage to substantiate their claim.

A key component of this is understanding the concept of 'excluded property'. Excluded property refers to certain types of property that are not included in the net family property calculation, which is the method used to divide property between spouses during a divorce or separation.

Part I of the Family Law Act forms the basis for claims made by married spouses. The Act acknowledges marriage as a partnership and asserts that wealth accumulated during the marriage should be equally divided upon its breakdown. This provision is designed to ensure an orderly settlement and provide certainty following the dissolution of a marital relationship.

One such exception is the status of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) pensions. According to a Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling in the case of Lowe v. Lowe, WSIB pensions are not considered "property" under the FLA. This is significant because, in general, pensions are included in the net family property calculation during a divorce or separation. However, the different treatment of WSIB pensions means that they are not factored into this calculation.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO), a provincial agency in Ontario, plays a crucial role in enforcing child and spousal support orders. Their primary objective is to ensure that support recipients receive the payments they are entitled to, thus assisting in the financial stability of families after separation or divorce.

Despite the necessity of these payments, there may be instances where support payors default on their obligations. To address this, the FRO employs a range of enforcement methods to ensure support payors fulfil their responsibilities. In this article, we will delve into the variety of enforcement options utilized by the Director of the FRO.

The calculation of net family property is determined by the spouse’s valuation date value (the value of all the spouse’s property on the valuation date minus all debts and liabilities on the valuation date) and the spouse’s date of marriage value (the value of all the spouse’s property at the date of marriage minus all debts and liabilities at the date of marriage). The date of marriage value is then subtracted from the valuation date value to arrive at a spouse’s net family property.

Upon the breakdown of a marriage, an important aspect to consider is the division of property. In many jurisdictions, the goal is to equalize the value of the property acquired during the marriage. However, what is often overlooked are the exceptions to what is included in calculating net family property, also known as exclusions. These exclusions play a significant role in determining the final net family property figure and can greatly influence the division of assets.

When navigating a marriage breakdown, one of the critical aspects to consider is the division of property. In Ontario, the Family Law Act (FLA) provides a comprehensive framework for this process, ensuring a fair division of assets. A significant part of this process pertains to the division of pensions, which can often be the largest asset a couple owns, aside from their home.

Divorce or separation can be a complex and challenging process, particularly when it comes to the division of property. Understanding how different types of property are treated under the law can be crucial for a fair and equitable division of assets. In this post, we will delve into two types of assets that can be particularly complex: stock options and trust interests in property.

Constructive and resulting trusts are legal concepts that courts use to rectify situations where property ownership might lead to an unjust enrichment of one party. This typically happens when both parties have contributed to the accumulation of wealth, but the property is solely in one spouse's name.

When marriage breakdown occurs, one significant and often overlooked aspect is the costs of disposition of assets. In family law, these costs can greatly influence the property division and financial settlements between the separating parties.

When it comes to the division of property during a divorce or separation, the process is typically guided by the principle of equalization. However, there are exceptions to the rule. One such exception is the concept of "unconscionability." This legal term refers to situations where the result of equalization would be so unjust or excessively one-sided that it would "shock the conscience of the court." In this blog post, we'll delve into the concept of unconscionability under Ontario's Family Law Act (FLA).

Property preservation can take different forms. It can be limited to preserving the value of the property, allowing the owner to continue usual activities so long as the value remains intact. This could include buying and selling shares, running a company, or even selling or encumbering the property pending final determination or settlement.

When navigating the complexities of a marital breakdown, understanding the legal landscape is a crucial step. One area that often causes confusion is the concept of the matrimonial home and related property rights under Ontario's Family Law Act (FLA).

An expense for primary or secondary school education is considered "extraordinary" if it surpasses what the party requesting the contribution can reasonably afford, based on their income and the table amount of support received. However, even if the party can afford it, the court may still deem the expense as extraordinary. This depends on multiple factors such as the nature and number of the educational program and extracurricular activities, special needs and talents of the child, and the overall cost of the program and activities.

Section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides the court with the discretion to deviate from the appropriate table amount in cases where the payor spouse's income is more than $150,000. This deviation arises when the court determines that the table amount of child support may be inappropriate given the circumstances. The starting point for support then becomes the table amount assuming an income of $150,000. The court can then order a quantum for the remainder of the child support that they deem appropriate based on the child's condition, needs, means, and other circumstances, as well as the financial ability of each spouse to contribute towards the support.

When analyzing a self-employed individual's income, it's essential to compare their gross revenues and expenses. This can reveal discrepancies and potentially understated income. For instance, if an individual's expenses seem too high compared to their reported income, it may indicate they are earning more than stated. An example of this could be a self-employed plumber reporting $50,000 gross revenue a year but deducting $35,000 for supplies. It would be logical to question whether the plumber is earning more than reported since they could potentially earn a higher wage working for a company.

The Child Support Guidelines in Canada are a set of regulations that determine the amount of child support based on the number of children and the payor's income. They aim to establish a fair standard of support, reduce conflict between parents, and ensure consistency. These guidelines are applicable to parents under different circumstances and consider various factors to ascertain the amount of child support. This blog post will discuss several key aspects of these guidelines: Federal and Provincial Guidelines, The Claimant and the Child, The Payor's Income, and other essential points.

We delve into the nuanced intersection of family law and bankruptcy in Ontario, specifically focusing on the equalization of net family property during a divorce and its implications in the event of bankruptcy. We'll examine how bankruptcy impacts equalization payments and the role of a trustee in such proceedings.