Search by Category
- F - Bankruptcy 1
- F - Certificates of Pending Litigation 1
- F - Child Support 31
- F - Common Law 3
- F - Corporate Income 2
- F - Divorce 7
- F - Domestic Contract 7
- F - Domestic Violence 3
- F - Emergency Relief 1
- F - Equalization 4
- F - Equitable Remedy 1
- F - Exclusive Possession 2
- F - Family Responsibility Office 2
- F - Final Order 1
- F - Imputing Income 11
- F - Jurisdiction 1
- F - Limitation Periods 1
- F - Matrimonial Home 17
- F - Net Family Property 31
- F - Occupational Rent 4
- F - Pension 2
- F - Preservation 1
- F - Property 47
- F - Restraining 1
- F - Resulting Trust 3
- F - Retroactive Support 5
- F - Section 7 Expenses 7
- F - Spousal Support 27
- F - Standard Procedure 1
- F - Trust 1
- F-Certificate of Pending Litigation 1
- F-Decision-Making 6
- F-Exclusions 2
- F-Mobility 11
- F-OCL 1
- F-Parenting 37
- F-Parenting Time 11
- F-Preservation Orders 2
- F-Relocation 12
- F-Travel 2
- F-unjust enrichment 7
- Frequently Cited Cases 14
- Post-Separation Increases 1
Senos v. Karcz 2014 ONCA 459
The court's decision to adopt this detailed approach reflects a commitment to ensuring a fair and equitable resolution that takes into account the unique circumstances presented in this case. It underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding of the individual's condition, means, needs, and other circumstances in determining support payments, particularly in cases involving recipients of disability support. This is a clear departure from a one-size-fits-all approach, paving the way for a more personalized resolution that better aligns with the realities of the parties involved.