Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 01:03 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Furthermore, because section 7 is based on gross, i'm still responsible for over 60% of those expenses.
I've never understood why S7 expenses would be based on gross instead of NDI.

The greater the disparity of income, the more ridiculous the results.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,004
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

But if you're equaling up the households then you should be at 50% for s7. Thats also a negotiable point to consider. If you were willing to follow the offset method then you should have the 50/50 split negotiable as well.

And remember too that with table support, s7 expenses are fully considered at "extra-ordinary". Example, your ex cant claim you pay 60% of pizza day or a $50 school trip.

You should make a list of what you want and what you're willing to settle for when approaching mediation. That way you can reach an agreement you both can live with. If the other party isn't being reasonable and the mediator seems biased then you may need to move right to court. The mediator isn't out to get you or put an unfair agreement together. They're there to reach an amicable agreement without court.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 01:12 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm just an Engineer, Not a Lawyer. So, the case pointed out in the previous thread:
Quote:
Tang v. Ma, 2010 ONSC 2867 (CanLII)
Date: 2010-05-17
Docket: 42573-09
Citation: Tang v. Ma, 2010 ONSC 2867 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/29rsd
Do I just take to this to the Judge? How do I leverage this to make people understand half offset is a fair solution?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 02:39 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,246
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGTBFJ View Post
Rioe,
You have contributed quite a bit to the referenced thread. If Spousal support were not at play I may be inclined to agree with the full offset. At my numbers, which seem like an extreme difference of income, when the pie is all sliced, my spouse is at 55% NDI and I am at 45%. Furthermore, because section 7 is based on gross, i'm still responsible for over 60% of those expenses. My frustration grows. I find myself exactly in the situation described where you just agree because you have made some negligible ground.

So to your final point, yes, the question is posed to the other party, do you want more money or less money?
Yeah, well, I also believe spousal support is pretty stupid in most cases. Why are you agreeing to it?

If SS is inevitable, try negotiating that you'll agree to full offset if the SS is included in your ex's income instead of yours.

Take that case law you found and show it to the mediator.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 03:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,692
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
So parent A has a responsibility of $935 and is resourced to $479 where parent B has a responsibility of $479 and is resourced to $935.
This is your mistake.

Parent A has a responsibility of $935 - and so contributes $935 in their own household, and $935 to Parent B's household.

Parent B has a responsibility of $479 - and so contributes $479 to their own household, and $479 to Parent A's household.

Therefore, the child receives the support of both parents in both households. The dollar amount is calculated as what a parent of X income is expected to allocate to the support of their children.

The fact that Parent A has a higher income, and therefore would contribute a higher amount to the child, is why there is a shift of wealth from Parent A's household to Parent B's household - because the parents support their child at different levels.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 05:39 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi OrleansLawyer,
Your analysis makes the math work, but I find it a bit of a jump to say that each parent is responsible for 2 x table values. As it is, table values for 2 children are almost 20% gross. I haven't dug into the metrics that were used in the generation of those tables, since that is probably a battle beyond what I'm ready to fight. The rates seem very high and not at all representative of what we portioned as a family unit, but again, not ready for that fight.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,474
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

I understand your point, but I've never seen this argument on canlii. I'd approach it by arguing for a variance to the std offset, and provide estimated budgets for each household that illustrate your point, but WITHOUT making it into a math equation that challenges the guidelines.

E.g.
Her housing, clothing, food, transport etc costs (specific to child) sum to x/mo.
Her income = 50k, which yields $400/mo cs, plus your $550 cs offset, giving $950 to cover costs of x.

Then your child-specific costs = y. Your income = 100k which yields $950 cs, of which you keep $400. Leaving you $400 to cover costs of y. Than add some particular-to-you reasons why your overall living costs are larger than in usual if you can eg also looking after aged parent, unexpected large house repair costs.

Then request an adjustment of $250 to ensure both households can cover their costs.

Last edited by dinkyface; 11-03-2016 at 05:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 08:00 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

See dinky, that's what I really don't understand. When I read the csg I don't see the half offset as a challenge to the guidelines. In fact the how to guide almost encourages proposing alternate solutions. Being new to this it just seems foreign that something so perverted is held up as the go to solution.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2016, 11:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,474
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

Yup. Makes no sense to me either.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2016, 11:17 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGTBFJ View Post
I'm just an Engineer, Not a Lawyer. So, the case pointed out in the previous thread:

Do I just take to this to the Judge? How do I leverage this to make people understand half offset is a fair solution?
You are before a mediator. My recommendation would be to take it to the mediator and ask the mediator to explain why this posted case law is not applicable to the matter at hand. If you truly have a crappy mediator then they will cave on the case law or they will provide a crappy response.

Ultimately, you are before a mediator. The only way anything can be resolved is if you consent to the agreement. If you don't agree then the matter will have to either go to arbitration or to court to be ordered.

Note: Going to court may ultimately mean that any money you would pay in CS will just get payed out in legal costs.

Your CS is 456 a month on "shared' (offset) calculation. You want it to be "half" that or 228.

If the child is 8 years old you have say 15 years of CS to pay. (Just guessing.) that is 180 months of CS.

180 months @ 456 = 82,080
180 months @ 228 = 41,040

Court costs about 50,000 - 65,000 roughly. (Again, this is an average I have come up with for complex and disputed matters.)

So, you would be paying a lawyer 50,000 to save you NOTHING.

I would recommend you agree to the typical offset and avoid wasting money on legals.

I would also recommend you read this:

When Math People and Feelings People Negotiate - High Conflict Institute

You are clearly a "math" person. I would read the "lessons learned" section of the article if I were you.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
divorcemate, lawyermath


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.