Is this not crazy

[Links17]

Parties Seperate
-Wife gets into car accident now she can't work (post seperation)
-The guy gets no spousal support decision
-she appeals

She wins, just because they were seperated - they were still "married" and so he is on the hook forever -not bad, eh!

CanLII - 2012 QCCA 133 (CanLII)

[Rioe]

[11] The parties were still spouses when both car accidents occurred even if cohabitation had ceased. The bond of marriage were not broken by the end of cohabitation or even by the judgment of separation (art. 507 C.C.Q.), including the obligation to support each other (art. 392 C.C.Q.). The mere fact that no alimony was paid after June 2007 until the filing of the divorce proceedings did not extinguish the appellant's right to support under the Divorce Act. [12] The issue here is simply: at the time of the divorce judgment was the respondent entitled to spousal support considering her situation? (s. 15.2 Divorce Act).

I agree, that IS crazy! Despite being separated for years, and having a separation agreement and a court order previously ending spousal support, just because they hadn't done the paperwork to get divorced, he's still on the hook to support her because her post-separation accident prevents her from working. Yikes. Now there's incentive not to dawdle on the divorce after the separation agreement is done.

[Canadaguy]

"[17] In any event, in the circumstances at hand, it would be unfair to expect her to go on welfare, supposing she was eligible, when Respondent earns, on average, $100,000 per year."

Why would it be unfair that she goes on welfare? That is what welfare is for, people who can't work. This report reads like a judge who was paid off by the government so they don't have to pay her welfare because she has an ex-husband who makes "an excessive salary". His salary should have nothing to do with the outcome or even be mentioned.

[arabian]

I believe the appeal merely opens up the door again for SS. When the case is reviewed by the court once again the SS entitlement will be determined. It remains to be seen what the amount will be and will likely consider CPP and assured income for disabled in the formula. SS will likely take those number into consideration.

[Links17]

"[17] In any event, in the circumstances at hand, it would be unfair to expect her to go on welfare, supposing she was eligible, when Respondent earns, on average, $100,000 per year."

Why would it be unfair that she goes on welfare? That is what welfare is for, people who can't work. This report reads like a judge who was paid off by the government so they don't have to pay her welfare because she has an ex-husband who makes "an excessive salary". His salary should have nothing to do with the outcome or even be mentioned.

This is intended, the government realized that with a 50% divorce rate they couldn't afford to pay welfare to all those people and saddled the ex-husbands. There is an insidous conspiracy to always find a reason to ensure the welfare of ex-dependant spouses no matter the impact on anything else EXCEPT the welfare of children (which is why they are often lumped together)

[arabian]

If there is a great conspiracy against husbands then perhaps husbands should make sure that their wives are working throughout the marriage?

Why should taxpayers have to pay for someone else's failing marriage?

Oh right, I almost forgot, you live in the "socialist" part of the country - Quebec. And the debt in Quebec is how high?

[health]

that's totally unfair. marriage should be banned.

[ddol1]

sorry can't be specific - it is there in the Family Law Act..... it details our socialist society and responsibilities of not only spouse's but grandparents, and even of age children. I had conversation that was enlightening one evening where several various ethnic persons from various parts of our world - and how they respect and honour their family as the most important thing of all - family trumps all.

I think our society has missed something in terms of what really is important - but then again the issue of "can I just say idiots" here who will do anything to avoid any and all responsibility. My neighbour once told me that the eldest child, should they not take in the parents at their later stages in life would bring such dishonour to the entire family. Expenses? It is just as expected that all family members chip in financially to ensure the parents live their last years in dignity, close to their family and the intense bonds that develop from the youngest to the oldest.

I think we have lost a bit of what family "REALLY MEANS" and when it came time I was there for mom right to the last day - I was the youngest and was proud to be able to pay something back for all those hard years mom endured for me ;-)) OK I was sort of the hell raiser when I hit those years - this may be slightly different I agree but it does raise the same principles....