being a male, will possibly get spousal support

trinton said:
Her ex obviously had the better lawyer.

The system may be biased, but with a way better lawyer then your ex who knows the judge well. Given your ex is a little messed up and done some "WTF" things, then you could expect to have really good results.

At the end of the day, Arabian is still getting spousal support and defending every motion to stop it. Meanwhile telling men not to persue spousal support. Not biased or jilted at all.
Click to expand...


Um yes I was a full partner in the limited corporation (I was stuck with the corporate bills after x went bankrupt and took all the company money).

This had nothing to do with whomever had a better lawyer. You don't know what you are talking about. It had, at the time, to do with bankruptcy law in Canada.

I did not tell "men not to persue [pursue] spousal support." I merely pointed out the expense of it all and for the poster to examine closely costs/benefit of hiring lawyer to pursue it.

Of course I defend any motion to stop SS as is my right. I have been successful with and without lawyers and in front of 12 different judges over the past 7 years.

Spouting off on something you know nothing about (my personal situation) is not rational. I do not comment on your personal situation as I do not PRETEND to know anything about it.
 
Im surprised none of the mom haters have jumped on this thread. Here's a guy who is worried about HIS standard of living and suggested he get full custody to get SS and CS. If he was a woman you guys would all be up in arms. His argument is still the same regardless of sex. He wants to get SS when he may not be entitled to it and full custody to be able to make all decisions and get spousal.
 
arabian said:
Um yes I was a full partner in the limited corporation (I was stuck with the corporate bills after x went bankrupt and took all the company money)..
Click to expand...

So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?
 
piggybanktoex said:
It's that whole "shoe's on the other foot" thing.
Click to expand...

Lmao. Wow. Don't kill me. Quite honestly first time I have heard that idiom and fits in really well with the Canadian Family Courts. And I say Canadian because the Sweden Family Court has shoes that are backwards compatible.
 
trinton said:
So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?
Click to expand...



Umm that's exactly what her SS is for... when he squandered money to his friends and family there was no way of getting that money back... but with SS she has been able to recoup the costs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Berner_Faith said:
Umm that's exactly what her SS is for... when he squandered money to his friends and family there was no way of getting that money back... but with SS she has been able to recoup the costs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So this confirms she did pursue SS. Why should the gentlemen here not pursue SS from his wife before she Squanders it on purses and heels?
 
https://www.mysupportcalculator.ca

You could expect anywhere from 300-500 a month if I punched in numbers right. +400 for child support.

Instead of paying you 7 to 900 a month, she wants 500 a month to herself by getting sole custody. typical mom. don't let her squander YOUR money (and your relationship with your kids) like that.
 
Last edited:
FYI I was in the same situation with almost the same income spread. I am female, no work interruption, except for 3 mat leaves, and was the lower salary of the two. SS was not even a consideration, according to several lawyers I talked to. I was clearly told that I had close to zero chance of obtaining SS and 100% chance of depleting my life's savings going after it.
 
trinton said:
So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?
Click to expand...

When someone hides assets (company equipment and money) in someone else's name (family and g/f) its a difficult journey, particularly if those assets are owned by a corporation. When one partner in the corporation goes bankrupt the other person, by default under corporate law, becomes President and automatically is liable for all debts. Had I known this I would have gone bankrupt first and then my ex wouldn't have been able to and would have been liable for the debt. My ex was charged with fraud but not prosecuted as criminal court deemed it family law matter. We all know how swiftly family court works.... When someone is under bankruptcy protection the maintenance enforcement agencies cannot (according to the current bankruptcy act) enforce aggressively. I did not want to reveal this on the forum because of all the losers out there who will likely take advantage of this information. I'm tired of your incessant attacks on me about this. In fact I have withheld this information for years. Hope you take this knowledge and know that you have helped many aholes.

Please know that I have done whatever was in my ability (and my corporate, family law and criminal lawyer) to do to rectify my situation.

As an aside, had I not been a full partner in business (and financed my ex and our company), I would have and continue to be fully entitled to spousal support on an indefinite basis. My ex can and does make excellent money with or without my financial support. We were married for 30 years. I supported our joint effort but did in fact give up a doctorate education and further successful career in order to provide support to my husband and our business. The matter is extensive and complicated and probably well over your head.

Something you and many others forget is that people living in Toronto area (or Ontario for that matter) represent only part of Canada as a whole. Many of you may disagree with the concept of SS but I can assure you that there are MANY Canadians who do have traditional marriages (YOUNG AND OLD). Our current family laws are to represent ALL Canadians, not just 30 and 40 year-olds who live in the Toronto area.

You may disagree with SS but the fact is that it exists and is upheld by our court system. I will not pass judgement on people who are entitled to it and who defend and collect it. I will not pass judgement on those who collect and those who pay CS either. It is ... what it is.
 
And I will continue to say that an ex should not be able to turn the other ex into a piggybank because he/she sat at home after the kids began school or earns less money for whatever reason.

Just because it is what it is doesn't make it right.
 
another ?

another ?

op here
starting to pick my wifes brain of what she wants...she is agreement of joint custody...started talking finance and she has lots in rrsp and savings...for curious sake ,,am i entitled to some of that ..
thanks
 
Whatever was accumulated during the marriage is considered a joint asset and will be assessed and split accordingly.
 
jays2017 said:
op here
starting to pick my wifes brain of what she wants...she is agreement of joint custody...started talking finance and she has lots in rrsp and savings...for curious sake ,,am i entitled to some of that ..
thanks
Click to expand...

You really need to do some basic research.

Here are a couple of my old posts to get you started:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/access-marital-home-16717/index2.html#post158054

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f5/factor-65-other-questions-16202/#post150331
 
standing on the sidelines said:
So lets see if I understand this. If a female gets SS then she is a leech etc. When a man wants it, its okay with the same people who disagree with a female getting it.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I just want the men to go for it in court, because generally they get shot down and it creates more case law against unnecessary SS.

Eventually women will stop getting unnecessary SS, or men will start getting SS making some pissed off women who will effectively rally to stop unnecessary SS. Either way, justice wins!
 
Janus said:
Honestly, I just want the men to go for it in court, because generally they get shot down and it creates more case law against unnecessary SS.

Eventually women will stop getting unnecessary SS, or men will start getting SS making some pissed off women who will effectively rally to stop unnecessary SS. Either way, justice wins!
Click to expand...

I like this. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top