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
Family Law Principles that we can learn from Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500 (pleadings)
In cases of child or spousal support predating the start of proceedings, a party must specifically include a claim for retroactive relief in their pleading. This conclusion is based on considerations of certainty, fairness to the payor, and administration of justice. Allowing retroactive claims without specific pleading disrupts the balance between certainty and flexibility, undermines procedural fairness, and creates administrative challenges. The standard form Family Law Application should be amended to include separate headings for retroactive child and spousal support claims. If a litigant fails to plead for retroactive support, they should seek consent to amend their pleading early in the proceeding or request leave to amend before trial.