Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Undue Hardship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Anyone interested? Found a case where undue hardship based on a previous child support order is in place was successful and the father in this case was awarded to pay less than the CS table


    https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=7

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      government jobs... vacations... own homes... sports for kids.... (probably lines of credits and/or credit cards)

      Undue hardship? Unless you're scraping along on government or charitable hand-outs for your food/rent I'd forget any sort of undue hardship claim.

      A person can obtain credit/financial management advice for free.


      I have a government job.. my spouse does notÂ… I pay for vacations with a second job... my spouse does not.. It was my home before I met him and it's less per month than her rentÂ… sports for kids.. yes I put them first and cut back on meÂ… line of credit.. no I don't have one.. he does but it's form the separationÂ… credit card.. I have one that has a limit of $2000 and nothing on it.. he has one that has $3000 that she owes himÂ…


      This undue hardship is for himÂ… not meÂ… he is the one who pays not meÂ… yes they will consider me to compare household .. but they will also consider her BF who also has a gov jobÂ…


      All that to say that his children are not going withoutÂ… Who were can claim to have a net income of $4,800 PER MONTH in their bank account? I sure don't myself even with my gov jobÂ… well that is what SHE has to spend every monthÂ… with $1000 in CS per month.. so I am pretty sure that her kids would not go without if she was not spending like she is.. She would be the one needing financial consultation because I can tell you that the money does not go on these kidsÂ…

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
        I think that $1000 a month is more than reasonnable while he still pays for his other daughter who only get $375 a month… back when they were together… his ex was outraged at having to pay $375 for his first daughter… now that it's her turn… $500 per kids is not enough… strange
        Wait..... somethings not adding up here. Why is he only paying $375/month for child #1 when guideline for #2 & #3 is $1350? Has he never updated his support payments for child #1? Watch out for that one....

        Try to not get so caught up in your partner’s exes lives (how much they spend,what they do, how much they wronged your husband). That shit literally will eat you alive and cause resentment in your relationship (speaking from experience)

        To answer your original question, I have never came across a case like you are looking for. When my partner was originally going through court with ex #2, his lawyer never once suggested varying CS for child #2 based on obligation to child #1. Pretty sure he would have been murdered in his sleep by ex #2 if he so much as suggested it lol.

        If he is truly strapped for cash it might be worth looking into. But the fact alone that he is paying a lawyer to give him this advice discredits his position in the eyes of a judge I would think

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
          we have a mortgage of $1600 including property taxes..
          You own a house.

          I can tell you right now that your hardship claim is not very likely to succeed. You are arguing standard of living, but that only comes into play after you have hardship.

          You don't have hardship, you just have a lower standard of living than the ex. Perhaps it should matter, but it does not.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
            Anyone interested? Found a case where undue hardship based on a previous child support order is in place was successful and the father in this case was awarded to pay less than the CS table


            https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=7
            This case is also based on the fact that the husband was unemployed for a year, was already thousands of dollars in arrears AND had an imputed income of less than $30,000

            Something tells me your husband makes more than $30k, and is not thousands in arrears. Well, unless mom #1 starts going after him for an update in support + past due updates. Then he might be lol.

            Comment


            • #21
              That case is apples to oranges. Maybe even apples to filet mignon. That man was unemployed and owed thousands in arrears to both baby mamas.

              Your husband makes $96,000 a year. He negotiated his equalization poorly. Thats the end.

              What his ex wife makes, her spouse earns, their house is worth, how many louis vitton purses she has, and the volume of diamonds she wears means nothing. Like I said, there are men on this forum who live on friends couches, in parents basements or in their car and they still do not qualify for hardship.

              The answer to your question is no he cannot successfully argue this. Your response is thank you.

              Everything else you say is white noise. Go search canlii and find all the hardship cases you want. Before you wave them about triumphantly make sure you read the circumstances. A guy earning $28,000 on EI with two kids to support has hardship—barely.

              We aren’t specifically targeting you. You asked a question, we gave answers. Whether you like the answers means nothing.

              Comment


              • #22
                When one goes to court a basic requirement is to complete a financial statement. this includes all household income. Might be a good idea to look at the form carefully.

                Going to court over this matter may backfire and result in increased imputed income. You can find the form under Ontario Court Forms - 13.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I feel like everyone is missing the main issue here....

                  This guy is making $96,000, and is only paying $375/month for his first child

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Selfrepmom View Post
                    I feel like everyone is missing the main issue here....



                    This guy is making $96,000, and is only paying $375/month for his first child


                    I have a feeling it was based on a lower income and was never updated.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                      I have a feeling it was based on a lower income and was never updated.
                      So do I. What I don’t think OP realizes is that if her hubby brings an undue hardship claim to court- based on this outdated amount- he will most likely leave having to pay his first ex around $850 a month, and the $1350 to the other one.

                      Like I said 10 times already. Make sure you support all your kids equally. Baby mamas talk, and it’s only a matter of time before one of them realizes they’re getting stiffed. Then he’s really in for it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'm assuming you guys would be ok with a cs reduction if there were high travel costs for access, so I'm not sure what's different here. This is not a parent simply arguing the tables are too much; then your arguments have merit. The undue hardship clause has a list of what qualifies, including high access costs, other cs orders, etc. This first "undue hardship" step is the easier one for OP to meet. The second step is to compare household incomes and standard of living, and it sounds like this should be met as well. There's a reason cs for 2 kids is not the cs for 1 kid times 2. The case law quoted is a good one and explains it well. Keep checking canlii, there are more.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
                          I'm assuming you guys would be ok with a cs reduction if there were high travel costs for access, so I'm not sure what's different here. This is not a parent simply arguing the tables are too much; then your arguments have merit. The undue hardship clause has a list of what qualifies, including high access costs, other cs orders, etc. This first "undue hardship" step is the easier one for OP to meet. The second step is to compare household incomes and standard of living, and it sounds like this should be met as well. There's a reason cs for 2 kids is not the cs for 1 kid times 2. The case law quoted is a good one and explains it well. Keep checking canlii, there are more.
                          There is a difference between arguing undue hardship because you have to fly across the country every month and rent hotels etc just to see your kid, and claiming undue hardship because you pay support for another child )who you aren’t even paying 50% of guideline support to begin with)

                          While I think that you are right that her husband “technically” qualifies based on the one listed criteria, we all know that family law isn’t just simply checking off a box and skipping on your way. I’ve never heard of someone qualifying based solely on having another kid. I think it has to be coupled with low income and/or lots of debt and/or other qualifying factors. I’ll eat my words if someone finds case law that says otherwise, but I highly doubt it’s out there.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As my partners lawyer said...when my man was paying higher than table for two kids when one was eligible because his ex refused to update and he was making 20 grand a year on ei benefits and had no phone, cable or internet and refused to turn on the ac or heat and ate at his moms...not only will it be a brutal battle because judges hate undue hardship, you open yourself up to so much scrutiny over every single penny you have.

                            You will spend thousands on a battle you can’t win because you are unhappy the ex has a better life.

                            * also note the judge could also order increased cs for kid 1...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You at one point stated the eldest child is 16 and her underpaid CS would end in two years, at which point your partner would increase CS to his younger two children. It is entirely possible the CS payments would continue past 18 (as they should since I am assuming he is encouraging his daughter to pursue a career and HS alone does not cut it anymore). In theory, the youngest children could be looking at your proposed lowered CS for another seven years. Both the second baby mama and the Judge would be award of that and reluctant to create a status quo against the second childrens’ entitlement. I strongly doubt you will be successful in getting CS lowered on $96,000 income - the formula is there precisely because too many payouts were gaming the system and not paying fairly (like he appears to be doing with his first child).

                              back when they were together… his ex was outraged at having to pay $375 for his first daughter… now that it's her turn… $500 per kids is not enough… strange

                              Your partner seems to have a pattern in relationships where he plays his current partner’s financial wants against his childrens’ needs. Just know that that if you break up he will do the same to you, and keep those finances separate (although him paying half the mortgage may now entitle him to a later equalization payment from you to him as the case law around common law marriage is in flux). But he has a good deal with you financially supporting him and going to bat for him underpaying his kids, so your relationship will most likely last.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If you don't see it through the step child or high access costs example, just go with common sense. Cs is set at a good portion of your income, higher income equals higher support. If you have 1 kid with 10 people each, how many kids would get full table cs before the money is gone. At some point, the undue hardship will force some of those kids into a smaller cs amount.

                                * you don't really think this judge could change support for kid #1 do you?

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X