Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:04 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,318
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default SS - who needs a reason?

Recently there was a thread where we were discussing the conditions that would need to be satisfied to make a spousal support claim.

Sometimes, however, it is enough to just be a loser.

http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhw

Quote:
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. Saunders has not been unjustly enriched by the actions of Ms. Willis, nor has Ms. Willis suffered a corresponding deprivation. I find, however, that Ms. Willis is entitled to a spousal support award as a result of the breakdown of the parties’ relationship, as set out below.
Let's start with a list of why she doesn't deserve spousal support:

Quote:
[55] <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" /><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">• Ms. Willis clearly has the capacity to contribute to her own support; that she has struggled so to do so to date is somewhat puzzling.</svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">• Mr. Saunders is 36 years of age; Ms. Willis is 39. Both are in good physical and mental health. </svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">
• The measures Ms. Willis is taking, or the time in which it would be necessary to take them, to provide for her own support, are unclear to me; although Ms. Willis provided a list of job applications which appear to be commiserate with her experience (in the social services or policing/compliance type fields), 15 job applications in three and a half years is not an overwhelming number. I received no evidence, moreover, of any effort on Ms. Willis’ part to retrain, perhaps for a different type of career which would afford her more opportunity.

• Mr. Saunders has a legal obligation to support Ethan. According to his most recent Financial Statement, Mr. Saunders currently pays $618.42 per month in support of Ethan. He also has obligations to his second child and new wife, though the latter is also in the military making approximately $42,000 per year.

• Ms. Willis has not made specific contributions to the realization of Mr. Saunders career potential. He would have gone on his postings and training courses, and he would have attained the rank of Sergeant, with or without Ms. Willis.

• There was no effect on Ms. Willis’s earning capacity which resulted from the responsibilities she assumed during cohabitation; nevertheless the choices she made, in her mind because of the relationship, limited her earning capacity.

• Finally, there was no housekeeping, child care or other domestic service performed by Ms. Willis that prevented her from having remunerative employment such that the time spent at them could be treated as contributions to the earnings to the family’s support. Again, Ms. Willis made choices regarding her own employment over the course of the relationship, most notably when she left the regular services and later when she resigned from her job at CPIC because she did not like the hours.
but...


Quote:
[55] <svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">• Ms. Willis’ current assets are limited. Mr. Saunders are only slightly less so, though his future prospects are better than those of Ms. Willis in that he does have a military pension which continues to grow.</svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">• Mr. Saunders has the means to support Ms. Willis in that he has an income of $72,790 juxtaposed to her income of only approximately $18,000.
Summary: Ms. Willis doesn't deserve spousal support for any reason whatsoever, other than the fact that she sucks at life. She got SS anyway. </svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"></svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">Oh, actual judge's reasoning:</svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"></svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">
Quote:
[57] Ms. Willis experienced financial and economic disadvantages in her relationship with Mr. Saunders, some of which were of her own making. Her standard of living was significantly reduced as a result of the relationship ending. At the time of separation, she was dependent on Mr. Saunders, and since that time she has been in obvious need. I find that Ms. Willis is entitled to spousal support on the basis of need.
</svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"></svg></svg></svg></svg>
<svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">which is what I said, just nicer</svg></svg></svg></svg><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1920 1408"><svg class=lb-i xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="0px" width="0px" viewBox="0 0 1792 1408">





</svg></svg></svg></svg>

Last edited by Janus; 10-19-2017 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,973
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

There are enough areas across Canada where two incomes are necessary to survive which makes the "stay at home" parent unlikely. As well, less of a % of the sugar daddy/mommy exists. I really don't think SS is necessary unless the people have been married for more than 30 years and one spouse SERIOUSLY impacted their earning potential as a result.

These people who make half their spouses income and want ss because they need to keep that lifestyle are ridiculous (male or female) because in the end the other person is not enjoying the same lifestyle since they are paying the other without the additional income.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:32 PM
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:
(2) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant a lump sum award of spousal support of $16,276 for the period of November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2018.
This really just looks like a way for the Applicant (Tara Willis) to pay her lawyer (Jessica Abou-Eid) as no costs were awarded. The only person who "won" in this matter was Jessica Abou-Eid who probably billed way more than the 16,276 that the Applicant was awarded as a lump sum.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2017, 06:00 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,235
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

I'm too infuriated by your summary to even click that link.

What kind of hidebound, sexist judge did that?!

Oh, poor lil woman, quit her job because she didn't like the hours, and has done a halfhearted at best attempt at finding a new one, so of course she should get SS. What about the military guy?! Bet he hates his hours too.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2017, 07:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 198
piggybanktoex is on a distinguished road
Default

There is a difference between having one's earning potential cut short and purposely sitting at home after the kids begin school.

Doing a non-paying thing is when the spouse starts really just living off the working spouse. It does not take all day to do laundry and clean.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2017, 10:09 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 50
beentheredonethis is on a distinguished road
Default

This was exactly my situation. As a female. Supporting my ex.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2017, 10:45 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 13
OttawaDad11 is on a distinguished road
Default

is that enough grounds for appeal? Seems like the judge really did make an error by not applying the facts even though he acknowledged that the facts do not qualify for SS.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2017, 10:06 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

you still think the system (or rather the judges) are not biased against men, Arabian?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2017, 10:36 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,924
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
you still think the system (or rather the judges) are not biased against men, Arabian?
Yes I still think the system is not biased against men. One lousy decision/case certainly does not change my mind.

The "man" in this case has option of appealing - I certainly would consider it....- but then it is much easier to give up and cry foul than to follow through. Don't blame women or "the system".
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2017, 10:40 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,924
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

"Ms. Willis experienced financial and economic disadvantages in her relationship with Mr. Saunders, some of which were of her own making. Her standard of living was significantly reduced as a result of the relationship ending. At the time of separation, she was dependent on Mr. Saunders, and since that time she has been in obvious need. I find that Ms. Willis is entitled to spousal support on the basis of need."

This is the case in a nut shell IMO. Need-based - totally different than compensatory. Some people's level of "need" is different than others. "Need" doesn't mean living on the gutter. SS is not indefinite.
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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a reason not to allow late filing? Dadx5 Divorce & Family Law 4 12-02-2016 09:55 AM
Reason for delaying legal bill assessment trinton Divorce & Family Law 4 10-23-2016 12:59 PM
Reason for a child to have counsel cate Divorce & Family Law 1 05-11-2010 01:24 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 PM.