Is the onus on petitioner?

[CanaryMom]

As I am petitioning for spousal support, is the onus on me to show what debt and assets were left to who?

My ex and I have been separated for 7 years and there were debts from way back when that I simply cannot remember, yet I know they exist. Can I ask him to provide proof of debts inorder to satisty his settlement offer? Likewise, when I counter offer, do I also have to provide back up proof to support the numbers which affect my counter offer?

Essentially, as I am the petitioner, is the onus on me?

[Rioe]

As I am petitioning for spousal support, is the onus on me to show what debt and assets were left to who?

My ex and I have been separated for 7 years and there were debts from way back when that I simply cannot remember, yet I know they exist. Can I ask him to provide proof of debts inorder to satisty his settlement offer? Likewise, when I counter offer, do I also have to provide back up proof to support the numbers which affect my counter offer?

Essentially, as I am the petitioner, is the onus on me?

We haven't forgotten who you are.

The onus is on you to prove your entitlement to receive Spousal Support.

Debts and assets are divided up in the equalization part of separation. It has little to nothing to do with your entitlement to receive spousal support. And as I recall, you ended up with the assets and your ex ended up with the debts.

But you both have to provide full financial disclosure, and that should reveal everything you are asking to know. If you believe his sworn financial statement is false, you can question it, but this is where you would have to have proof to contradict his.

You've been separated seven years? I don't believe that little detail has come out before. That just makes your case for spousal support even more unlikely now, if you've been living without it for that long.

[Pursuinghappiness]

You've been separated seven years? I don't believe that little detail has come out before. That just makes your case for spousal support even more unlikely now, if you've been living without it for that long.

lol...good lord...just gets more and more ridiculous.

My eyes just rolled so far back in my head, I fell off my chair.

[Tayken]

lol...good lord...just gets more and more ridiculous.

My eyes just rolled so far back in my head, I fell off my chair.

Entitlement to something can be claimed at any time in Family Law. This is why "ouija boards" and "dart boards" are deployed by Justice Quinn (re: Bruni v. Bruni) when determining SS. The SS guidelines are just that... Guide lines.

Generally the rule around going back for SS is a two year rule after living separate and apart. It would take a magical circumstance for the court to consider SS after 7 years and even consider it. Furthermore, it would be a highly reported case if the OP got what they are thinking they should get after 7 years of no SS.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[hadenough]

HaHa, that made me laugh - "ouija boards" "dart boards" - just pictured a JUDGE wrestling with a ouija board! Definitely strrrrange - to be seeking SS after 7 YEARS???????

[Pursuinghappiness]

lol Tayken...

I think the issue is that she's claimed she already received most of the assets (except that boat). It also sounds like he took on the majority or all of the debt.

She has a real beef with not knowing now what that debt amount was. I'll bet she didn't want to know anything about the marital debt when they were married and the poor guy was working 70+ hours a week to pay it.

Next thing, you'll find out that he gave her assets in lieu of SS and she's coming back retroactively to get the guy for SS cause she's out of money and is ticked that he's happy in his new relationship.

No matter how much he pays, this woman will never feel like he got enough punishment. She'll never get over her bitterness...it consumes her along with her never-ending greed. Tragic for the children.

[NBDad]

/popcorn

Anyone?

[blinkandimgone]

/popcorn

Anyone?

I'm in.

[arabian]

Hey Bird-BrainMom

What are the terms of your divorce? Is there a clause that spousal support is to be reviewed within 5 years or something to that effect or are you now banging the lawyer and the two of you are just trying to find a way to screw your ex all over again?

Get real.

[May_May]

Free Loader Jobs in Canada | Workopolis

[mglee]

/popcorn

Anyone?



Hey Bird-BrainMom

Too funny

Poor woman; you need to find some way to work past your anger and resentment. You'll never progress and this has got to be so hard on your kids.

[CanaryMom]

I have a job and I also raise three kids. There is FAR more to my story than any of you know. You can all bully me til the cows come home, I could care less. Hopefully there will still be some openminded people on this forum who realize that, just like most people on here, there is more to the story. I hope you teach your kids not to bully others as you are me.

[Tayken]

HaHa, that made me laugh - "ouija boards" "dart boards" - just pictured a JUDGE wrestling with a ouija board! Definitely strrrrange - to be seeking SS after 7 YEARS???????

CanLII - 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)

One of my favorite decisions of all time on CanLII.

9. Spousal support

[158] I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).

Justice Quinn is awesome.

[2] At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.

[3] I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.

[4] It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene.

[6] This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart. (With regards to the wife trying to run the husband over with a van.)

[7] The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).

[8] When one considers that the parties then had been separated for a mere four months and that Larry was exercising access, this is a remarkable request. What does it tell us about Catherine?

[9] Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, “repetition for emphasis.” I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.

[14] Assuming a sale for $199,000 and disposition costs at 6%, the net equity would be $24,000 of which Larry would have been entitled to $12,000. I accept the evidence of Catherine that it was in consideration of this fact that the separation agreement, although silent on the point, provided for spousal support of only one dollar for up to three years.

[18] I am aware that, under the Family Law Rules, Application, Answer – Claim by Respondent and Reply do not begin with capital letters. However, I prefer otherwise.

[19] In fact, they were represented by lawyers through 12 court attendances over two years (according to the endorsement section of the continuing record), during the babysitting phase of the proceedings and before the heavy lifting began. This case should have been identified by the lawyers in the beginning as one that was impossible to settle and pushed quickly to trial, without the endless toing and froing present in typical cases. The legal fees for the 12 attendances would have been better spent on the trial.

[20] A further testament to the hopelessness of the custody/access situation is that the parties and their common-law spouses are unable to jointly attend Brandon’s ball-hockey games without erupting into mutual conflict. This is very stressful for Brandon.

[21] A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.

[22] When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.


[23] In recent years, the evidence in family trials typically includes reams of text messages between the parties, helpfully laying bare their true characters. Assessing credibility is not nearly as difficult as it was before the use of e-mails and text messages became prolific. Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace.

[24] These do not strike me as the statements of someone who is concerned about precipitating a Hells Angels house call.

[25] I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

[26] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.

[27] And all of these prohibitions by Catherine are taking place with a trial date already inscribed on her kitchen calendar.

[28] I am uncertain whether this would be considered a hand-held communication device, now illegal while operating a motor vehicle, under recent amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.

[29] It takes a special level of audacity to utter threats under the roof of the Court House.

[30] I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.


[33] I do not know why courts find it necessary to alter the meaning of words. One would think that if the legislators had intended “shocking” they would have used “shocking.”

[34] And, despite this knowledge, Catherine has actively sought to
create conflict between Taylor and Larry.

[36] One might question the purpose of obligating warring spouses to discuss s. 7 expenses before they are incurred. The answer is that the separation agreement makes it a requirement to do so. I will not engage in the speculative exercise of determining what Larry’s response would have been, or reasonably should have been, had he been consulted in advance (under the separation agreement, to be an eligible special or extraordinary expense, it was unnecessary for Larry to agree with the expense – consultation, not consent, was required).

[38] Although some authorities appear to distinguish need and self-sufficiency, I view them as synonymous. If one has need, one is not self-sufficient; if one is self-sufficient, one is not in need.

[45] And “shocking,” as I pointed out in an earlier footnote.

[47] I point out that I am not concerned with “parental alienation” as a psychological or a psychiatric term. My reference to parental alienation is merely factual and reflects the ordinary dictionary meaning of the words: “parental” – “of, pertaining to, or in the nature of a parent”; “alienation” – “the act of estranging or state of estrangement in feeling or affection”: see The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Those are my favorite foot notes from Bruni V. Bruni. Everyone should give this one a full read.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Pursuinghappiness]

I have a job and I also raise three kids. There is FAR more to my story than any of you know. You can all bully me til the cows come home, I could care less. Hopefully there will still be some openminded people on this forum who realize that, just like most people on here, there is more to the story. I hope you teach your kids not to bully others as you are me.

You raise your children HALF the time...your husband has them the other half and he also works full-time.

The reason you won't state "the rest of the story" is because its irrelevant emotional details.

You keep bringing up RELEVANT things that are helping to prove how ridiculous you are...like the fact that you have been separated for 7 years...and that you took all the assets (except that boat) and he took all the debts.

People on here ARE open-minded but not so open-minded that their brains have fallen out....you are an absolute greedy, bitter, tragic, wretch of a woman and why you continue to post on here for legal advice is beyond me.

You've been told by your free legal aid lawyer and everyone else to stop it. You won't...so why bother asking for advice?

We're not bullying you...we disagree with how greedy and vengeful you are...get over it. I truly wish your ex-husband and his gf the best...he sounds like he really does deserve a better life.

[blinkandimgone]

Seven years. Wow. You'd think she'd be over him, moved on and gotten her shit together. That's a pretty loooooong time to be so obsessed with someone else and trying to ruin his life just so she can get a free ride. Poor guy, no wonder he ran far & fast!