Watt vs Watt

[kate331]

I still find reading case law confusing. My question is in this particular case the Judge seemed to take into account that each party had re partnered and took that into consideration. I thought the new partners salary doesn't get taken into consideration. Or is it only taking into consideration on your Financial Statement i.e. your new partner pays 1/2 rent/mortgage therefore you have more disposable income?

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc1279.html

Disclaimer, asking out of shear curiosity not anything to do with my case.

[mom22girls]

Here’s how I read it: He claimed that mom had a lower standard of living than him, so his wife’s income, as well as his daycare costs etc were included in that calculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kate331]

I was thinking of Rockscan case where her partners ex wanted to know about her finances.

[dad2bandm]

It seems the new partner's incomes had to be taken into account, solely because of the nature of the "special and extraordinary" expenses that were being claimed, and that they were trying to figure out split costs for, or if those costs even should be split.


This seems key:

The Respondent’s contribution to the s. 7 expenses for his and the Applicant’s children should not be set so high that it actually requires his wife to contribute to it, or to contribute more than her fair share to their common expenses.

I think this is fair.



If ex-wife is looking for "special and extraordinary expenses" that require her households' two incomes in their case, but wants her split to be lower based on her much much lower income, then the judge's reasoning seems correct.

[rockscan]

There’s so much to unpack on this post...

In the Watt case, the mother was arguing that both houses had a higher combined income; that her new husbands income made up the shortfall; and, her ex husbands household income was higher than her household. Therefore, her ex should be obligated to pay for all of the extra expenses.

The judge argued that they should not consider the separate combined household incomes but the combined incomes of the parents of the children (or the incomes of the ex’s).

Judge also pointed out that school, dental, life insurance and driving school were actual s7 expenses and the others were not. Also that the mother put the kids in activities without consultation and that the competitive sports were unnecessary. Its sad that they were unable to address the school expenses at that time because it seemed like the judge was erring on the side of sports are unnecessary while the kids are in school. Or basically—school takes precedence.

This decision is in line with what my partners lawyer and the judge the other day said—household income of new partners does not come into play for expenses because it is the combined income of the parents that is considered. We didnt discuss our combined income because we live within our means (judge commended my partner on that too) whereas the ex continues to overspend (which she did while married) and now expects my partner to contribute regardless of his (our) financial means.

[I should note that if she pulled this, I would be really fucking mad because these kids were late teens when we met and Im not responsible for their education.]

Or more easily—if you couldn’t afford it when married, you don’t get to claim it now that one or both of you has repartnered.

With respect to my partner’s case, the ex wanted to know my income and contribution because she felt she was entitled. She still thinks she gets to control my partner and is adamant that the equalization she paid him is still her money and she has a right to know what is happening with it. She didn’t put in her argument that our household income was higher so we should pay and if she did, that argument would not have worked either because Im not a party nor am I responsible for their kids’ expenses.

What would be interesting (and I think this was addressed in the Lewi decision) is what kind of an impact an inheritance will have on my partners case.

First, the kids will receive an inheritance which may be enough to cover their school expenses. Ex is claiming kids cannot contribute more than 1/8 the expense so he should cover more. She is also planning to claim an additional post secondary degree for both kids. The Lewi decision outlined how the inheritance played into the kids contribution which is agreeable to my partner but the ex will disagree.

Second, ex claimed her income is now half and we think it is because she is wrapping up her parents estate. She will get an income from that as the executor and may not go back to work full time. This would mean she is purposely underemployed and would make the expense 50/50 rather than the current 30/70 split (my partner has always made half what she did). She can work and may pull this to stop having to contribute. How is it fair that she claimed he was underemployed but realistically she will be actually underemployed.

When they meet again to settle these issues (waiting on whats kids’ plans are) there are some interesting things to contemplate.

[kate331]

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this too me in "English". Reading these Canli cases is addicting, who needs Nexflix anymore

[kate331]

It's only more fun than Netflix when a fit father wins sole custody, joint custody, any form of shared parenting, and/or offset or no child support. Most other times, it's worst than watching titanic.

I hear ya on the Titanic, I often think I'm on a sinking ship having a perfectly fit father as an ex, who chooses to see his kids "when he has the time" and he's a pay "when he can type", no child support would be ideal for him, but that would definitely cut into the single life he enjoys so much. I'm waiting for the day they make shared parenting mandatory, it will be too late for me, but I believe it will help future single Mom's from the struggles they face, it does feel like a sinking ship at times and like treading water to survive. In the meantime, I hope through the court system, my ex will live too at least his financial obligations, I'm done with the fight for shared custody its not worth the legal fees, lesson learnt the hard way.

Thats my vent for tonight, off to read Canlii to see how many Deadbeats drag out court to avoid paying arrears.