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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2017, 09:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 104
somethingelse is on a distinguished road
Default Ontario Court of Appeal: CS arrears offset against unpaid costs order

Decision is called CC v JJ (2017). Mom had declared bankruptcy after costs order then made no payments which were ordered by the bankruptcy court. There were CS arrears to be paid by dad. OCA confirmed that the two can be offset, reducing the arrears.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2017, 09:42 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

here is the CanLii link for the case:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...ocompletePos=3
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2017, 06:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 104
somethingelse is on a distinguished road
Default Some Costs Payments Enforceable by FRO: Ontario Court of Appeal Decision

In this Ontario Court of Appeal decision, and other OCA decisions cited therein, that court states that a trial judge can designate costs awards as support payments and that they therefore can be enforced by the FRO. In this particular case, the parent who is to pay the costs had a well established history of defying orders, including costs orders.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...4onca175.html?

The OCA states in their decision that trial judges have a lot of discretion when it comes to stating that costs orders are to be treated as support and are therefore enforceable by the FRO.

This means that the costs are enforced by the state bureaucracy and that the costs award would survive a declaration of bankruptcy.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2017, 10:05 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

In my situation in Alberta, I was awarded costs and they were Ordered to be non-taxable and enforced by MEP. My ex had declared bankruptcy.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-2017, 09:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 104
somethingelse is on a distinguished road
Default

The reason I originally posted the above case is because it points to the importance of asking for a reserved decision on costs at every step of a case- at every conference.

If the other party has a lawyer they need to be explaining to their client how and why costs can be ordered and how costs can now be enforced.

Even if the other side is posturing as destitute (can't be bothered to get a job), if they act unreasonably and the court sees through the claims of destitution and costs are ordered, the costs can in the end be recovered through an offset against child support arrears. This seems like it could be wielded as a lever toward reasonableness.

In conjunction with costs orders being enforceable by FRO, this could be helpful.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spousal/Child Support Question Jenny Divorce & Family Law 6 10-01-2013 01:01 AM
How far do Grandparent rights go? sasha1 Divorce & Family Law 13 02-13-2011 01:46 PM
Final order - court costs awarded to us Stepmom2-:) Divorce & Family Law 2 01-31-2011 12:01 AM
Changes to Court Order KLM27 Divorce & Family Law 4 01-03-2010 06:55 AM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 10:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.