Section 6 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines empowers the court to order that medical or dental insurance coverage be maintained or acquired for the child. This provision is crucial to ensure that the child's health needs are met, regardless of their parents' marital status. However, the condition is that the coverage should either be available through a spouse's employment or be obtainable at a reasonable rate.

Child support issues are intricate and multifaceted, particularly when third-party custody comes into play. The standing of third parties to claim child support, the obligation of biological parents to pay, and the allocation of section 7 expenses are key factors that can greatly impact the outcome of these cases.

Child support guidelines are a key factor in ensuring the welfare and sustenance of children when their biological parents' marriage or relationship ends. These guidelines also extend to non-biological parents, specifically step-parents, who have been significantly involved in a child's life.

Undue hardship claims in child support cases can be quite complex. The court's approach to these cases often involves a detailed examination of the circumstances. This post will discuss the concept of undue hardship, the factors considered by the court, and the process of establishing an undue hardship claim.

Child support is an essential duty owed by parents to their children, ensuring that their financial needs are met after a divorce or separation. Typically, child support is paid periodically, often in monthly installments. However, there are instances where a lump-sum payment, or a combination of lump-sum and periodic payments, may be allowed. These situations, though, carry the risk of being perceived as a redistribution of wealth rather than a support mechanism.

Section 12 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines stipulates that the court may require a child support order to be secured by the payor.

Child support is a critical aspect of any divorce proceeding involving children. The Federal Child Support Guidelines provide a framework for determining child support amounts. These guidelines establish a presumptive amount that must be paid for the support of the child, based on the income of the paying parent and the number of children involved. However, the presumptive amounts outlined in these guidelines are not always the end of the story. There are instances where courts may deviate from these amounts under certain circumstances. This post will explore these circumstances in detail, focusing on special provisions benefiting the child, the consent of spouses to the deviation, and reasonable arrangements for the child's support

The termination of child support is a complex and often misunderstood area of family law. Especially when the child in question is enrolled in full-time post-secondary education, the process can become particularly intricate. Despite the significant impact it has on both the paying parent and the child, there is a lack of explicit statutory guidance on this matter, leading to potential complications and confusion. This blog aims to shed some light on the criteria for terminating child support under the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act, and discuss common termination events, providing a comprehensive guide for parents navigating this challenging process.

Navigating the landscape of child support in Canada can be a complex task, especially during the emotionally charged period of separation or divorce. It is, however, a crucial aspect that demands attention to ensure children's financial needs are met appropriately, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding their parents' separation. The child support guidelines, which are outlined in both the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act, offer a predictable and consistent way of calculating child support.

The child support guidelines play a critical role in ensuring the wellbeing and financial stability of children who find themselves caught in the unfortunate situation of parental separation. These guidelines are firmly embedded within two major legal structures: the Federal Divorce Act and the Provincial Family Law Act.

Child support is an essential part of ensuring the financial well-being of a child when parents separate or divorce. Navigating the complexities of these arrangements can be challenging, and understanding the nuances is crucial for both the paying parent (payor) and the recipient. In instances where support was not provided as obligated, whether due to oversight, miscommunication, or deliberate neglect, retroactive child support comes into play. Retroactive child support refers to payments that should have been made in the past. The aim is to compensate for the period the child was denied financial support.

Children who are disabled and require lifelong support pose unique considerations when it comes to determining child support. In situations where these children receive government benefits like the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), understanding how this can affect their child support calculations becomes crucial

The primary objective is to equally distribute the net family property, there are instances when the court may order an unequal division. This might seem contradictory, but the Family Law Act has established a series of factors that can justify such a decision.

When it comes to dividing property between spouses after a separation or divorce, the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, provides a legal framework for equalization. This system does not entitle either spouse to specific assets, but instead gives the spouse with a lower net family property a monetary equalization payment. This post will explore the various methods available for making this payment, their potential tax implications and the flexibility allowed under the Act.

The equalization payment is not paid until the final resolution of the property claims. This means that both parties have to wait until the conclusion of the legal process to receive or make the payment. The idea is to ensure that all aspects of the property claim are thoroughly examined and appropriately addressed before the payment is made.

Property values play an instrumental role in settling matters during divorce proceedings. This crucial aspect of property assessment is often overlooked but has the potential to significantly impact the outcome of a marital separation. In the context of family law, understanding how, when, and why property is valued is not just advantageous, but pivotal. This article aims to delve into the intricate details of property valuation in family law, focusing particularly on the guidelines laid out by Section 4(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.

In the world of family law, property valuation is a critical and often contentious issue. It is particularly complex when it comes to assets such as real property or business interests, whose value is not as straightforward as, for example, a bank account's. This post will explore three key aspects of property valuation: the onus to value assets, the difference between resale and replacement value, and the valuation of pensions.

The term 'Net Family Property' is specified in the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 4(1). It encapsulates the value of all the property a spouse owns on the valuation date, after accounting for the spouse’s debts and other liabilities.

Contingent liabilities are potential financial obligations that may occur due to certain events or conditions. In the context of the Family Law Act, spouses are allowed to deduct these liabilities from their property's value on both the valuation date and the marriage date. This deduction can significantly impact the net family property calculation, which forms the basis for property division upon the dissolution of a marriage.

NFP refers to the value of all the assets that a spouse has accumulated from the date of the marriage to the valuation date, after subtracting the debts and liabilities. It is not merely a total of assets but includes several considerations such as the valuation of specific assets or liabilities and deductions or exclusions of certain items. The resulting figure, though arrived at individually, is used to determine an equalization payment, which is paid by the spouse with the higher NFP to the one with the lower NFP.