What I don't like about the whole divorced children thing is that parents are forced to contribute... no one forces married parents to contribute. I agree post secondary costs are higher and they continue to climb yearly, but what happens in situations of married or not, where parents just cannot afford post secondary? Parents are not made to remortgage their houses, are not forced to get second or third jobs just to put their children through school... but all of the sudden when there is a high income earner they are forced to put their children through school, where is the responsibility of the child? I personally have been working since 14, I started working part time at a vet clinic, in the summer I worked full time, I worked there for a few years and then moved on to my current employer... I saved all I could, my dream was to be a vet, but there was no way I could afford the schooling for that, so I fell back on my second career choice. I am much more appreciative of what I have because I worked for every last thing. Sure there were times if I needed money, Dad would help me out, but once OSAP came in or I received my paycheck, he always got that back.
It is such a shame the double standard between intact and divorced families and more often than not, it is the low income earner complaining the higher income earner is not "pulling their weight"...
I agree that any overpayment should come out of his section 7 expenses, such as was stated in the case law I posted, but I don't agree with her argument that he deserves no payment back because he didn't request a decrease when by her own admission she received a retro payment when he failed to increase his payment, it is such a double standard on her part.
OP would be better off to take him to court to get the section 7 expenses paid and use the bargaining chip that instead of him paying a lump sum for what his section 7 expenses are, they will be reduced by what his overpayment would be. If I remember correctly the overpayment was about $5000 (1/3 of her salary), if his section 7 expenses are $10,000, they should be reduced to $5000. Why change money twice? Doing it this was would save the OP a lot of money, instead of attempting an appeal. If she has been successful in the past court appearances, why wouldn't she be successful in this one?
Yes at 22, I never thought I would be in the situation I am, however besides dealing with the little craziness from time to time, life is good. I would not change it for the world, I love those kids beyond a doubt and being in a partnership, sometimes we have to pay for the others obligations. Besides, I would not allow those kids to go without just because sometimes their parents are more wrapped up in their ill feelings for each other, than what is best for those children.
It is such a shame the double standard between intact and divorced families and more often than not, it is the low income earner complaining the higher income earner is not "pulling their weight"...
I agree that any overpayment should come out of his section 7 expenses, such as was stated in the case law I posted, but I don't agree with her argument that he deserves no payment back because he didn't request a decrease when by her own admission she received a retro payment when he failed to increase his payment, it is such a double standard on her part.
OP would be better off to take him to court to get the section 7 expenses paid and use the bargaining chip that instead of him paying a lump sum for what his section 7 expenses are, they will be reduced by what his overpayment would be. If I remember correctly the overpayment was about $5000 (1/3 of her salary), if his section 7 expenses are $10,000, they should be reduced to $5000. Why change money twice? Doing it this was would save the OP a lot of money, instead of attempting an appeal. If she has been successful in the past court appearances, why wouldn't she be successful in this one?
Yes at 22, I never thought I would be in the situation I am, however besides dealing with the little craziness from time to time, life is good. I would not change it for the world, I love those kids beyond a doubt and being in a partnership, sometimes we have to pay for the others obligations. Besides, I would not allow those kids to go without just because sometimes their parents are more wrapped up in their ill feelings for each other, than what is best for those children.
Comment