Spousal Support

[really?]

Here's the story in a nutshell...

Parties wnew each other as teenageres but never dated. 10 years later they had a one night stand where a child was conceived. Ms. texted Mr. 2 weeks afer having sex saying that they needed to talk. 1 week after that Ms. showed up at his door saying she was pregnant....



Ms. lawyer now asks for a motion for spousal support even though the parties never dated, never lived together and were intimate for 30ish minutes. Ms lawyer states the Mr is causing her to be in a state of financial distress. Judge agrees for the motion to be brought to court.

Any advice, has anyone ever herd of such a thing?

I'm happy to anser any questions...not sure how much info I should provide and that's why I chose Mr and Ms...hope that it is not confusing to read.

[really?]

I don't think I explained Ms. layer's reasoning for wanting support very well. She stating that because Mr will not let her move and that she cant find employment in her home area that he is putting her in a state of financial distress. (even though we all know that she can find work in her home town/region. The exact same position is available at her local community center)

[Berner_Faith]

Best bet...go on the job bank, wowjobs, monster what ever you have to and search the GTA area...print off any available jobs she qualifies for. That way you can prove that there are available jobs....

You can also respond to the other party and state that you are not stopping HER from moving...just the child... and if SHE wants to move, you are more than happy to be the primary resident for the child

[blinkandimgone]

She would have to show entitlement and she meets NONE of the criteria for SS.

[Janus]

Judge agrees for the motion to be brought to court.

Based on what you have said, there is no entitlement to SS. I'm not sure what it means that the judge has "agreed" for the motion to be brought to court. Don't all properly filed motions go to court, regardless of merit?

[really?]

@Berner_Faith: those are great ideas, that is how she was stopped from moving in the first place

@blinkandimgone: yes, she does not meet any criteria for SS. But her lawyer said that theere was an argument for ss based on the fact that she is being stopped from moving outside the GTA and she claims she cannot find employment in the GTA. The judge agreed for a motion to be herd based on that reason.

@janus: maybe I used the wrong term. Basically the judge has allowed for the issue to be brought to court based on Ms argument of not being allowed to obtain employment. The judge said her self it was a weak argument but that she did have an argument.... Ms tried to bring another motion to move but that was denied. I could be getting lost in the terminology...sorry.

[Janus]

No no, I'm clueless, I was just asking

[randomjohndoe]

Just because there are positions that she is qualified for, does not mean she can actually get any of them. Say, admin assistant. Yes, there are many positions available, but there are 50 to 100 times more people interested in those.

So exactly what will the printouts from Monster prove?

[Mess]

randomjohndoe, firstly, one should NEVER go to court without supporting evidence to back up your assertions.

So for example if you want to argue that she can't just up and leave town with the kids, you need to show a reason, and you need to show facts to back up the reason. The jobs found that she is qualified for directly refute her statement that there are not jobs available.

She is claiming there are no jobs available, not that she applied for 30 jobs in Toronto last month and was turned down each time. So he doesn't have to prove she should be hired, he has to prove that her statement is not supported by fact.

Whatever you believe about job seeking is irrelevant in court; you are not a professional employment counsellor. What is relevant is what he can show, as compared to what she can show.

[blinkandimgone]

@Berner_Faith: those are great ideas, that is how she was stopped from moving in the first place

@blinkandimgone: yes, she does not meet any criteria for SS. But her lawyer said that theere was an argument for ss based on the fact that she is being stopped from moving outside the GTA and she claims she cannot find employment in the GTA. The judge agreed for a motion to be herd based on that reason.

@janus: maybe I used the wrong term. Basically the judge has allowed for the issue to be brought to court based on Ms argument of not being allowed to obtain employment. The judge said her self it was a weak argument but that she did have an argument.... Ms tried to bring another motion to move but that was denied. I could be getting lost in the terminology...sorry.

Keep in mind that her lawyer is going to tell her what she wants to hear and you shouldn't be taking HER lawyer's info as advice - never ever take advice from your ex's lawyer.

I agree with the previous poster who said you are not keeping HER from moving in any way. She is free to move to Timbuktu if she wants to for whatever reasons. Your child on the other hand, is another story.

[really?]

Yes, thank you for all the info. And please remember, she is not an ex. Never dated, never lived together. was with her for one night only.

[OrleansLawyer]

Ms. lawyer now asks for a motion for spousal support even though the parties never dated, never lived together and were intimate for 30ish minutes.

Then she was never a spouse. She does not meet the criteria for spousal support in Ontario.

[sahibjee]

she is asking herself to be scolded by the judge as far as i can see, the job she is looking at is very close to minimum pay, you can argue that she can get a minimum pay job anywhere in GTA.

[OrleansLawyer]

Section 29 of the Family Law Act:

“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,
(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. (“conjoint”) R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 29; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (4-6); 2009, c. 11, s. 30.

Source - Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3

If you are not a spouse then there can be no spousal support. Her income, hardship, et cetera - all of it is moot unless she can show she is a spouse. This is not a discretionary power of the courts; it is ultra vires.

[firhill]

Section 29 of the Family Law Act:

“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,

(b) in a relationship of some permanence

One might argue that the 30 minutes of lovemaking qualifies as the performance.

Oh...wait