Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LOA Gives you Wings

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

  • #31
    Home » Family Law » Service Provider by Family Court Location

    Service Provider by Family Court Location - Ministry of the Attorney General

    Never done a link before so home it works

    Comment


    • #32
      Thats fantastic news thanks. i just learned that the mediation offered by OCL is one session maybe two thats it.

      So this will come in handy and its cheaper than a lawyer I'm sure. We don't really have any issues from a legal perspective.

      its really the OP coming to terms with the laws...

      thanks again.

      Comment


      • #33
        Rule 19 is just not very clear on this. How long is too long for disclosure?

        My lawyer had sent a request six months ago asking for many things. I have resent it (now self repping) three weeks ago as a reminder - full list of things I need ex to disclose.

        Is this an etiquette thing in law? Do lawyers only disclose before a motion or conference?

        We had an order from a judge for her to disclose financials and a medical record...I don;t care as much about medical but I do need her full tax returns not just NOA since she ran a small business.

        How hard and can I press other lawyer for these things now even if we don't have a settlement conference scheduled?

        Comment


        • #34
          I have a question with regards to child support payments.

          Since my ex moved away, started the process with an ex parte and then has refused to disclose proper financials for the past 11 months my lawyer had advise me not to pay child support.

          Now that is has been dragging on indefinitely the back pay if I was required to pay from the time of separation would really add up.

          She was running her own business earning a significant amount but claimed only the minimum amount (paid $0 in taxes) - but refused to provide the full T4 (only the final page etc). So I expect if they impute her income and we are joint the offset would only be a few hundred dollars. On the other hand if income isn't imputed its a fairly hefty amount especially if I have a years amount outstanding.

          She has also run up a pretty significant legal bill on my side with a extremely frivolous case - for example she lost the ex-parte...so I would expect costs there. I know that would be dealt with as costs if we went to court but how is it viewed if we settle.

          I guess I am wondering in the greyness of an out-of-court negotiated settlement would I be expected to pay back to the beginning? or go forward?

          My position would be - this has been a litigious process thrust upon me at great expense, and since she failed to co-operate I was unable to make payments previously. I will make $x payments going forward based on an amount of income considered fair.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Headwaters1 View Post
            I have a question with regards to child support payments.

            Since my ex moved away, started the process with an ex parte and then has refused to disclose proper financials for the past 11 months my lawyer had advise me not to pay child support.
            Not generally a great thing to do. Have you asked your barrister why they have recommended that? I would make an offer to settle the CS issue in accordance with Rule 18 of the FLR. (If you are in Ontario.) This can often soften the blow should you be ordered to pay CS.

            Originally posted by Headwaters1 View Post
            Now that is has been dragging on indefinitely the back pay if I was required to pay from the time of separation would really add up.
            Remember it is BOTH parties responsibility to move the case forward. If the other party doesn't make an effort to establish CS and doesn't make a requestion, file a motion, etc... a judge will question them as to why when they start to beat the war drums for CS.

            You can always bring a motion forward to have CS established yourself.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
              Not generally a great thing to do. Have you asked your barrister why they have recommended that? I would make an offer to settle the CS issue in accordance with Rule 18 of the FLR. (If you are in Ontario.) This can often soften the blow should you be ordered to pay CS.

              Remember it is BOTH parties responsibility to move the case forward. If the other party doesn't make an effort to establish CS and doesn't make a requestion, file a motion, etc... a judge will question them as to why when they start to beat the war drums for CS.

              You can always bring a motion forward to have CS established yourself.
              Actually going back over the financials he argued her imputed her income close to mine which negated all need for spousal and child support. (We had a prenup which covers off spousal anyways).

              He may have been a little high on her suggested income but hey I guess a bit of strategy and to his defense we can't really know since she ran a business and has provided nothing giving her gross ups...or expenses or anything else. So an educated guess on the type of clients she had and number of them got him safely to his number.

              He ran a calculation through divorcemate and the min, mid and high came to zeros.

              I had forgotten all about that and was basing my offset on a slightly more generous imputed income. (I was already jumping to a lower negotiated number they would likely come to). But nobody knows until she decides to share.

              She has good reason to avoid disclosure...it's messy...she earned a lot, she is now on social assistance, she also wrote a lot of her expenses off aggressively using bills I exclusively paid. So it won't look good when it all eventually comes out in the wash.

              That last paragraph was much welcomed...they have certainly stalled the case the past 5 months on purpose in order to get the child enrolled in her town about 40 km away.

              You'll be happy learn I have conceded that to them...not worth the fight. I will have to move next month and now rather than 3km drive to work it's a 2hours of driving a day in bumper to bumper...

              She isn't working and on social assistance...I know a judge would snatch his head and wonder...habitual residence was in fathers town...social assistance can be had anywhere...why are we ordering a move for the working guy again?

              But letting it all roll for now...(I am sure it's so appreciated by the other side...not at all taken as a sign of weakness).

              Comment


              • #37
                I will be heading into an OCL disclosure meeting in a week or so. None of her allegations will be validated...the OCL interviews went pretty much as expected. I am a good guy, kids are just fine, her allegations are wildly exaggerated and more than a little silly really.

                My questions remain. Access will likely be negotiated as joint with parallel parenting. Residency has been settled (I relented and moved closer). But financial remains a problem. She has worked consistently past 7 years and last 3 years ran a very successful and profitable business...has provided no disclosure and is playing lame duck by being on social assistance and claiming she earns $0. I want to impute $30k-$40k.

                So OCL will want us to settle access at that meeting and agree to parallel parenting access 2-2-5-5 probably. So lets say we sign an agreement before Settlement Conference. The OCL won't be dealing with financial matters....

                I've racked up $20k in legal fees based on wildy outrageous and false allegations....

                Sooo...if I agree to access and close that off the custody/access portion of the case but then we get into a dog fight over financial issues this can still go to trial. I'd drag it to trial to force her income imputed...

                If we settle on access does that mean all the costs i racked up related to defending the silly allegations are washed away?

                I guess it depends on the terms of the agreement. Just not a lot of information on this kind of negotiation. I recognize custody and financial are two separate issues but I would like the potential cost award on something as frivolous as their custody battle they started to be a factor in negotiating closure on the financial aspects of the case as well.

                Any guidance would be much appreciated

                Comment


                • #38
                  Update:

                  OCL Disclosure recently.

                  No allegations by mother could be corroborated.
                  Some allegations by mother established as plainly untrue.
                  The mother was asked to stop making wild allegations.
                  Her negative attitude was impacting on the relationship between father-son.

                  They recommended a parallel parenting regime.
                  Access recommended to be 50/50.
                  Both parents to be considered fit, loving, capable.
                  Communication between parents is a problem.
                  But assessor "hopes" it will clear up (paging Kaplainis table for one)
                  It was mentioned mothers negative attitude is contributing to high conflict.

                  All in all very positive.

                  I feel lucky to have been blessed with level headed assessor.

                  Not all issues could be resolved although bulk are agreed to by all sides. One major outstanding issue to be dealt with on access.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Just reviewing my notes for OCL Disclosure:

                    Mother concerns: verbal abuse, death threats, poor parenting
                    Father concerns: mother is flight risk, wildly false allegations

                    So OCL says:

                    Relationship is high conflict
                    Interviewed a dozen professionals, doctors, dentists, counsellors etc
                    Many of mother allegations are untrue
                    None of the allegations can be corroborated
                    The CAS and police found nothing to corroborate the allegations

                    The allegations themselves are more concerning, they must stop.

                    Mother is devaluing the relationship with the father. She places low value I'm his role as father and the relationship between father/son

                    Mothers allegations have contributed to the high conflict

                    Father has excellent parenting skills. No concerns about his abilities.

                    Communication is poor, unilateral decisions are being made which are concerning - mother made decision to enroll child into school without informing father etc.

                    Despite this OCL is "hopeful" the parents can eventually build trust and learn to communicate.

                    Mother has openly talked about her desire to move child permanently to foreign country of which she is a national.

                    Fathers concerns about flight risk are realistic.

                    (However)

                    Consent to travel must not be unreasonably withheld and mother can travel for up to 7 days. (What the...??)

                    ---- end of recommendations...there are pages of recommendations but standard stuff on holidays and such...

                    We have agreement on all except travel. I will not allow travel. She just simply won't be back. It's that simple.

                    I recalled WorkingDad's order had a travel restriction point 591. Child will not travel abroad until age 8.

                    I am prepared to go to trial on this item alone if we must.

                    It is my hope this gets resolved by the other side compromising.

                    When her lawyer gets some time to think about it I am sure she will realize the deck will likely be stacked against them in court...

                    There are some big red flags in this for a judge.

                    First being "hope parents can learn to communicate". Kaplanis v Kaplanis
                    CanLII - 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA)
                    We can't hope the parties will change...must have evidence.

                    Sole must be awarded where there is no clear communication - Bolduc v Bolduc
                    CanLII - 2006 CanLII 28099 (ON SC)

                    Also this cited in WorkingDads case.
                    250 In Rogerson v. Tessaro (2006) 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA), 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 821, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision awarding custody of the parties' children to the father. The facts in Rogerson bear a remarkable similarity to those in this case. There, the mother, while insisting that she supported the children's relationship with their father, had actively thwarted it, and ultimately made a unilateral decision to move. At trial, Lafreniere J. changed custody to the father on the basis of the maximum contact principle. It was true there, as in this case, that the children were more closely bonded with their mother than their father. Lafreniere J. held that this was hardly surprising in light of the mother's diligent efforts to exclude the father from their lives. She held, on the facts that the father would support the children's relationship with the mother while the mother would not support the children's relationship with the father. Accordingly, she found that by awarding custody to the father, the children would enjoy maximum contact with both parents, which was in their best interests. The trial judge found that the mother was unable to consider the best interests of the children as far as their relationship with their father were concerned.
                    Last edited by Headwaters1; 10-12-2014, 06:13 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      so your concerns about her being a flight risk are valid but they don't see a reason why mom cannot travel for 7 days with the child??

                      I am blown away, better to err on the side of caution always.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        In my opinion - my theory is...the assessor herself believes it's a credible threat having met the mother and understanding how vitriol her allegations are and the fact she was simply telling her of plans to move to the foreign country.

                        However the assessor unsure of the legal limits of restricting travel asked for the opinion "upstairs" with the actual Lawyers at the office of children's lawyer and the water downed recommendation came back saying they could not restrict travel.

                        I find lawyers for all their tough talk are often weakened by the ever present risk of lawsuits, complaints etc...so they just shrug and say hey recommend 7 days and see what the father says.

                        It's my job to say no and take it to a judge who is above all that (to a reasonable degree). I know of at least one judge who has ordered such a restriction.

                        But I truly hope for everyone's sake they just come to their senses.

                        In practical terms the child is 4. We can fight this for another three years while I take every avenue available to thwart it or she can just say to hell with it and agree to an appropriate age.

                        But practical, rational, calm reflective thought hasn't been the other teams strong suit to date. In the mean time...I openly welcome the forums opinions.

                        I'd like to mash it around and "test how it handles in the curves".

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The other thing I am considering if this goes to trial is requesting pre-trial a section 105 physiological assessment. The mother is claiming she is depressed and cannot work despite having worked her entire adult life and earning significantly (she is hosing the system). Social housing fully paid, fully paid education, legal aid...it's a gong show.

                          I think it would be fair to get a professional assessment of her mental state before putting that power in her hands. She has been diagnosed as depressed by a general practitioner but I've been told by a lawyer GPs can't diagnose a mental condition.

                          And I view her position as eating her cake, having it and putting cherrys on top to boot.

                          I need the system to support me > Because am severely mentally and emotionally abused > but I am stable enough to make the right decision to return > I am financially destitute so my husband needs to pay support despite a pre-nup > but I am able to take a week away from my studies and government subsidized housing and find $3,000 out of my pocket to fly half way around the globe.

                          I don't have clarity on how to perfectly articulate that flaw of logic there but I see a lot of inconsistencies in there....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            If the mom is a flight risk, why should it take a 7 day travel stretch for her to actually take the child? If she's going to flee to another country with the child and not return, she only needs a passport and a day.

                            She's either a flight risk, in which case she should never be in possession of the child's passport and there should be NO international travel of any duration, or she's not, in which case she needs no restrictions.

                            Presumably her destination country is not part of the Hague Convention and the child would be difficult to have returned?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              She is not holding the passport so it would be risky to leave before and I believe until recently she truely believed she would "win" sole custody.

                              And that's the point they want to offer her travel for a shorten period like that somehow helps. I agree - even a day is enough.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The other side is preparing minutes of settlement. They want to close off all issues except travel and then go before a judge on that one item.

                                I believe the ex is a flight risk. The OCL believes my concerns are credible.

                                In short the ex has behaved very badly. The report was scathing...

                                Here's my dilemma. If I settle on all other items and then go before a judge are all other aspects of the case forgotten about? Can a judge still consider the Ex's behavior?

                                The OCL report was POPPING with references that would make a judge flag a parallel parenting and reverse it to be a sole custody:

                                - both parents fit
                                - very high conflict
                                - poor communication
                                - mother's statements have contributed to high conflict
                                - father has made no allegations - sees value in mothers/son time together
                                - mother is seriously devaluing relationship with father
                                - but I HOPE in time they will learn and things will settle down
                                - continued counseling for mother to learn how to coparent
                                - mothers made many allegations, father has made none
                                - all allegations either untrue or uncorroborated
                                - mother must stop making unnecessary allegations
                                - father very loving, affectionate, caring etc.

                                Here's the thing, the recommendation is for parallel. There are many cases on canlii where a judge has reversed the OCL recommendation with comments like these in favour for sole to the side not aggressively making allegations.

                                If the other side would agree to restrict international travel until age 12 then I would settle today. I am happy with parallel, it will be hell as the ex won't settle down but I can navigate through it.

                                My big concern is that if I settle on everything else and then go before the judge that, maybe, the only way he can restrict travel is by giving me sole...but maybe he can't do that if I walk in already having settled that issue.

                                One option I am thinking of is not agreeing to the minute of settlement but instead giving them a full offer to settle...parallel parenting 50/50, but with restricted travel and also all,the financial stuff which hasn't been discussed yet. That leaves it as a package deal.

                                Any advice?

                                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