Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cost Penalties proportional to ability to pay / income

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

  • #1
    Originally posted by Bogdan View Post
    Hi all,

    Curious if there's any precedence for Cost Penalties (or even Cost Submission results) being proportional to a parties income / ability to pay. I haven't been able to find anything.

    I ask as I'm running into a scenario where Costs (including penalties) are being awarded, but they are inconsequential compared to the payers actual income.

    As the penalties are so low, the penalized party continues to be in breach of said awards as the cost penalties are costing them peanuts.

    Thanks

    I have never seen anything similar to this. I have seen cases where hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs have been awarded or cases where only minimal costs were awarded. I believe the judge bases their decision on success, costs spent, behaviour of parties and overall outcome. It isn’t based at all on income.

    Comment


    • #2
      This is an attitude of some wealthy people that goes beyond family court. You hear stories of them considering things like getting a parking ticket to be merely the cost of parking there, like just a fee. Or companies absorbing fines as simply the cost of doing business the way they do.

      There are plenty of situations like that where a fine/penalty should be proportionate to income instead of hitting poor people hard and wealthy people not a bit.

      I'm not sure family court is one of them though. Paying costs is more of a consequence of being unreasonable, instead of a punitive measure or deterrence. Much like crime, some people aren't deterred by the notion of punishment because they can't imagine that things will go in their favour. Or a wealthy person being unreasonable so that they hurt their ex in court considers paying costs to be the price of getting to harass their ex that way.

      Comment


      • #3
        Bogdan, the problem is you are dealing with someone who lied and manipulated from the point of conception. She sees you as a bothersome thing she has to deal with and will continue to treat you that way ESPECIALLY when she knows it bothers you. Slapping costs against her is useless as she believes she is right regardless of what the court says. The best thing you can do is simply ignore her games and keep pushing forward. Insist on your time and keeping it in place and don’t tolerate her fuckshit. Taking her to court all the time is counterproductive and eventually your child will see mom’s bs and grow tired of it as well.

        Janus has had some great advice over the years on how to deal with a high conflict ex.

        Comment


        • #4
          Originally posted by Bogdan View Post
          Yep.. you nailed it Rockscan. Took me a long time to get to this realization. Kids are already seeing the BS, especially once 50/50 hit.

          Btw, what exactly do you mean by "don't tolerate her fuckshit?" .. it's seems like there's not much I can do legally or otherwise if the agreement isn't being followed.

          I'm fully aware of not wasting time on chasing non-compliance of trivial items .. but core items tend to be parenting time related (threats and actual denial) as well as $$ related.

          In terms of parenting time being denied .. I've kind of accepted that it will happen from time to time, and schedule events accordingly. Kids are also getting older so I feel like the lost (forgotten lol) parenting time will get easier to manage.

          I mean ignore her bs. You will get adept at managing her and by ignoring her, it takes a lot of wind out of her sails.

          If I had a dollar for all the times my husband’s ex ignored items in their agreement we would have been able to cover his second round of legal fight. His ex pulled so many stunts and he went hoarse battling with her. He finally stopped and simply said he was sticking to the agreement. No discussion and agreement in writing on expenses? No payment. No parenting time, make up time requested. You have 50/50 though so you could always make up your time by keeping the kids an extra day.

          There is no point taking her to court over and over again. Judges don’t care about petty shit. They care about big money and custody changes. There are too many cases before the courts because of unreasonable people and your ex has demonstrated her unwillingness to follow orders.

          Just take a deep breath, remind yourself it can only last so long and your kids are with you half the time. Parents like that demonstrate their unwillingness to be kind to their kids too and your kids will appreciate you more for letting the shit go.

          Comment


          • #5
            "Have money... will litigate." - Someone

            All of the above observations are correct. Most lawyers will tell you that in family law that the person with the most capital to spend will usually end up on top.

            On top of Janus' comments, I would also suspect that heterosexual males spend about 30-40% more in overall legal expenses to obtain the same objectives their heterosexual female partners do in a custody and access dispute.

            Women often talk about the "pink tax" in retail. Well, in Family law there is a "blue tax" unfortunately.

            Comment


            • #6
              Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
              There really needs to be a mandatory session for separating/divorcing couples that have kids. The mandatory MIP Program is just a coles notes on how the process works (CC, SC, make offers to settle, try to settle rather than litigate, etc..)

              What I am talking about is that there should be a mandatory session with a retired judge or other professional who says "Look, you are divorcing eachother. Your kids are not divorcing their parents. The kids are equally yours, and you are equally their parents. They are allowed to be with both of you equally, unless one of you moves far away and makes that unviable. Otherwise, it is stupid to squander your money fighting about time with kids. Parent A, would you like it if Parent B tried to take more than 50% time? Parent B, same question to you? You both answered 'No'? So cut the crap of Parent A isn't as good as Parent B on changing diapers, etc. Or Parent B doesn't bring kid to hockey on time. Parenting can be learned as you go along and the grievances you are mentioning mean absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things. Agree to an outcome now, or go ahead and spend $200k to arrive at same outcome 3 years from now. Your choice."
              The problem with this- is that the people who are intent on litigating; the truly high conflict parents- wouldn't listen to it. They would just mosey their way on to court after pretending to listen.

              What I've noticed is that reasonable people will eventually settle down after a couple of months of litigation- but people who have a point to prove to the other party will still seek to drive home their point.

              My ex said to me multiple times throughout the process that he "was going to bankrupt me for fun". And if I wasn't the higher income earner who could frankly afford to play chicken longer- he would've gotten his way. Likely.

              Comment


              • #7
                Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                The problem with this- is that the people who are intent on litigating; the truly high conflict parents- wouldn't listen to it. They would just mosey their way on to court after pretending to listen.

                What I've noticed is that reasonable people will eventually settle down after a couple of months of litigation- but people who have a point to prove to the other party will still seek to drive home their point.

                My ex said to me multiple times throughout the process that he "was going to bankrupt me for fun". And if I wasn't the higher income earner who could frankly afford to play chicken longer- he would've gotten his way. Likely.

                My husbands ex had to pay him a second equalization payment a few years after their divorce was finalized, funny when she took him back to court she wouldnt accept the amount he owed her, wanted it to be the amount she had to pay him previously. Her lawyer actually said she would not settle unless it was that much. Our response (lawyer and my hubs) was “how does she feel about paying that in legal fees to see what the judge thinks because this amount is what she gets”. She settled for the lower amount.

                Cost penalties won’t stop them. Someone who believes they are inherently right (as most high conflict people are) will see it as the cost of fighting for what is “right”. You need a psychologist or therapist ordered to meet with the parents and then they make a determination and penalties (not always being costs) are imposed. But with the mental health issues we have now, it will never happen. Immediate shared 50/50 custody at the beginning is a good first step.

                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