Sections 15.2(1) and (2) of the Divorce Act, the court has jurisdiction to make either an interim or final order requiring a spouse to pay such spousal support as the court considers reasonable. The determination of what is reasonable takes into account various factors such as the length of time the spouses cohabited, the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation, and any order, agreement or arrangements relating to support of either spouse.

In Thompson v. Thompson, the court determined that the parties had a “split custody” arrangement for their children. This implies that the children would be divided between the parents rather than being placed collectively under the care of one parent. The Child Support Guidelines in such circumstances refer us to section 8 of the Guidelines in these circumstances. This section stipulates how child support should be calculated in cases of split custody. The calculation should be based on the difference between the sums that each spouse would be required to contribute if a child support order was sought against each spouse, instead of a collective parental unit.

In the realm of child support, the court generally follows the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which provide a framework for the calculation of child support. This includes considering the income of the parents, the number of children, and the custody arrangement.

The blog post provides a detailed examination of the court case Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500, which involved issues of divorce, child support, and spousal support. It explores various aspects such as the grounds for divorce, retroactive support claims, residential situation of the child, and assessment of parties' incomes.

This case also looks at: Imputing pre-tax corporate income, intentional un/under-employment

ccording to s. 18(1) of the Family Law Act, a matrimonial home is any property in which a person has an interest and which is ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their family residence. Even if the spouses have separated, the property is considered a matrimonial home if it was their ordinary residence at the time of separation. Courts determine this based on the occupancy patterns leading up to the date of separation. Interestingly, it is possible to have more than one matrimonial home, as illustrated in Debora v. Debora, where a summer cottage was also deemed a matrimonial home.

Acquiring an interest in land can be a complex process filled with legal intricacies. Among these complexities are the cautions set out in the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5. These cautions act as protective measures for individuals who claim an interest in land. Let's delve into the specifics of these cautions, and understand the potential liabilities involved.

In this blog post, we will delve into the complexities of matrimonial home rights under the Family Law Act. This law, a cornerstone of family law, dictates the rights and responsibilities of spouses regarding the matrimonial home in certain scenarios. It serves as a legal safeguard and is often invoked when one spouse is absent, incapacitated, or unreasonably withholding consent in matters related to the home.

When a marriage ends, there are numerous legal issues that must be addressed. These include property division, support, and child custody. However, in the early stages of separation, one of the most immediate concerns relates to the matrimonial home. In this post, we will discuss changing the locks and retrieving property left behind, two common issues that arise in the context of a separation.

The division of property following a separation can be complex and emotionally charged. The process and principles governing this division largely depend on whether the couple is married or in a common-law relationship. This article will shed light on how property division works for both scenarios, based on the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.

In recent times, a significant development in the law of unjust enrichment in the family law sector is the concept of Joint Family Venture (JVF). This term, primarily derived from the business domain, indicates a partnership for mutual profit. However, in the context of family law, it refers to a relationship where both parties contribute in various ways for wealth accumulation and management. The concept of JVF can be a complex one, with numerous factors playing into its identification and application. In this blog post, we'll delve deeper into the concept of JVF, its applicability in unjust enrichment claims, the factors for identifying a JVF, and its application to pensions.

The termination of a common law relationship can be a complex process, particularly when it comes to dealing with property disputes that may arise. In Ontario, the Family Law Act presents several ways to address and resolve these disputes, although it's critical to understand that these laws apply differently to common law partners as compared to legally married spouses. In this detailed review, we will delve into the intricacies of the Family Law Act, examining the specific provisions of Section 34, as well as the role restraining orders and injunctions can play in property disputes between common law partners.

A Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) is a legal tool utilized in proceedings involving disputes over an interest in land. Often, its value isn't fully recognized or is understated; however, understanding its role and implications can be pivotal in safeguarding your interests. This blog post aims to delve into the authority that underpins a CPL, the implications it carries, and the risks that come with it. By doing so, we hope to shed light on the importance of a CPL in property disputes.

Exclusive possession, a complex aspect of family law, often comes into play during divorce proceedings. This order can cause significant upheaval as it might require a spouse to vacate their house and find new living arrangements. However, the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”), outlines specific criteria to be considered before such a determination is made.

Navigating the legal landscape of matrimonial homes can be daunting. The process involves various legal terminologies and procedures that may be unfamiliar to many individuals. In Ontario, Canada, the Family Law Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for designating and cancelling a matrimonial home.

The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”), has specific provisions that govern the management and possession of matrimonial assets during the process of legal separation or divorce. One of the key elements in this legislation is Section 24(1), which provides a detailed framework for various scenarios related to matrimonial homes and their contents.

Navigating the legal landscape of property division in domestic contracts can be complex. It's essential to understand how rights with respect to the division of property can be modified or extinguished by a domestic contract, the limitations of these contracts, and how spouses can provide for a marriage date deduction.

The Family Law Act (FLA) plays a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of property rights, specifically in the context of joint tenancies in matrimonial homes. This is especially true when a spouse shares ownership with a third party. This blog post aims to dissect and understand the implications of Section 26(1) and s. 26(2) of the FLA on these arrangements.

In the context of family law, the division of household contents often emerges as a potentially contentious issue. While these items may possess relatively low monetary value, they often carry an immense sentimental value, which can trigger bitter disputes. Unfortunately, in some instances, the legal fees expended over these items can surpass their actual worth.

The Family Law Act is a significant piece of legislation that provides a legal framework for marriage, separation, and divorce. One of the key features of this legislation is the protection it offers to both spouses in relation to the matrimonial home. The implications of these rights can have a profound effect on both parties, particularly in the event of a marital breakdown. Therefore, understanding these rights is not only crucial but also necessary for anyone in a legally recognized relationship.

The term 'matrimonial home' holds a distinct status in Ontario family law. It is essentially a property resided in by spouses as a family at the time of separation. But, it isn’t as simple as it sounds. There are specific criteria that a property must meet to qualify as a matrimonial home. This post will explore the definition of a matrimonial home, what qualifies as such, and give examples of various types of matrimonial homes.