Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Decision on Support and Disclosure

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

  • Supreme Court Decision on Support and Disclosure

    https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...2021scc24.html

    This case is interesting from several angles. I am most curious about how the courts will deal with disclosure going forward. Clearly this individual was able to get away with this because he refused to provide “full and frank” disclosure. So many people on this forum have expressed frustration about the lack of disclosure in their matters and the continued delays. There should be consequences for people who refuse to provide it promptly and in full!

    Wonder if he was also ordered to pay costs!

  • #2
    Good! That case made me mad when I read it years ago.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tilt View Post
      Good! That case made me mad when I read it years ago.

      Right?

      Im glad the ex took it that far (looks like she had help) and that the appeal was overturned.

      There are so many awesome parents who pay their support and are completely up front and honest with disclosure and then these jerks come along and play this game giving everyone a bad name!

      Although I will say that the courts need to start punishing for lack of disclosure.

      Comment


      • #4
        1) "Family courts are not biased against fathers"

        2) A women's group thinks that it would be helpful to women to go to the supreme court to ensure more child support is paid.

        One would think that such an application would not necessarily be helpful to women...

        LEAF was also the group that was against the presumption of shared custody. They may be a lot of things, but pro-child they are not.

        (Note: Father in this case on first glance appears to be an epic asshole. I'm not defending him at all. I just know that if LEAF intervenes in something, there is a good chance that children and fathers will be the net losers)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Janus View Post
          1) "Family courts are not biased against fathers"

          2) A women's group thinks that it would be helpful to women to go to the supreme court to ensure more child support is paid.

          One would think that such an application would not necessarily be helpful to women...

          LEAF was also the group that was against the presumption of shared custody. They may be a lot of things, but pro-child they are not.

          (Note: Father in this case on first glance appears to be an epic asshole. I'm not defending him at all. I just know that if LEAF intervenes in something, there is a good chance that children and fathers will be the net losers)

          I thought about that when I read it but on the other hand, no parent who is receiving limited support could appeal and order like this. If the judicial “forces” can’t see the problem in the first level of court then I am glad there are those willing to fight to the highest level to enforce the law.

          This case involved almost $200,000 in back support and a payor the judges felt had an adequate income and assets to pay the high amount. It should be a lesson to those who feel they are above disclosure and paying support.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          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