mummer1962
New member
The caes I linked to says that respondent has to pay benefits to adult child. Cited by judge...read further
lies, lies, lies.
- Thread starter mummer1962
- Start date
- Status
Gary M
New member
No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to saying anything even remotely close to that.
Before you go beaking off about others' reading ability, methinks you need to polish your own.
Put down the hookah and get thee to a skool.
Cheers!
Gary
mummer1962
New member
OH yeah you are the man..guess what we are all fighting for our children, I make 57k a year...i can support my child unfortunaley i have to put in my spouses inccome for OSAP,,, ,aka ...bio dad had to put in his inomce too..140 k. i would like nothing better than my child support herself however i need to teach her that you are what you marry...thus teaching her not to marry an asss .....according to the law he has to pay....hope you dont have daugters....because i chose a spouse that makes good money bio dad is trying to renage on his responsibilies,,,i teach my daughters to support themselves not depend on a man..l.
Last edited:
slughead10
New member
someone sounds like they have......issues...lol
mummer1962
New member
obviously you are not a judge
obviously you are not a judge
Second, the benefit is not income of the appellant in the sense that he redirects it to his son simply as a matter of convenience. Instead, the Act treats the benefit as that of the child, not that of the contributor. Paragraph 44(1)(e) of the Act specifically provides that “a disabled contributor’s child benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor…”. As well, an application for the benefit is not made by the parent, but by the parent “on behalf of” the child. This is confirmed by s. 75, which provides that the benefit is payable directly to the child, unless the child is a minor, in which case the benefit is paid to the custodial parent. The appellant has no entitlement to the benefit, he has no control over its payment, it is not taxable in his hands, and it is not included in his income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. Accordingly, it should not be used to reduce the appellant’s obligation to pay support for his child.
obviously you are not a judge
Second, the benefit is not income of the appellant in the sense that he redirects it to his son simply as a matter of convenience. Instead, the Act treats the benefit as that of the child, not that of the contributor. Paragraph 44(1)(e) of the Act specifically provides that “a disabled contributor’s child benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor…”. As well, an application for the benefit is not made by the parent, but by the parent “on behalf of” the child. This is confirmed by s. 75, which provides that the benefit is payable directly to the child, unless the child is a minor, in which case the benefit is paid to the custodial parent. The appellant has no entitlement to the benefit, he has no control over its payment, it is not taxable in his hands, and it is not included in his income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. Accordingly, it should not be used to reduce the appellant’s obligation to pay support for his child.
mummer1962
New member
[78 I require Mr. Shrek to apply to add S to the dependents who are entitled to receive payments under his Veterans Disability Pension Plan. If S is found to be entitled to receive benefits under this plan, such payments shall not reduce Mr. Shrek's obligation to pay child support. (See Sipos v. Sipos, 2007 ONCA 293.)
names changed obviously
(78)
names changed obviously
(78)
blinkandimgone
Moderator
I do believe you are quite confused. Nobody can understand what you're saying because most of your posts are so random and illogical. There is no case law anywhere related to my earlier comment as it was in reference to your plethora of posts in every thread and the ridiculousness of it. Unless of course a judge took the time to point it out to you as well. For a "professioanl ", it seems you need a lot of things dumbed down for you before you get it.
Oh...and I guess Dad supporting the child's education is only obligatory when it's *your* child, hmm?
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/post-secondary-education-accreditation-3551/
Last edited:
standing on the sidelines
New member
LOL looks like you got her there. Doesnt matter a couple of posts down that she said they were going to help anyways (i dont believe that). If they were going to help anyways then why post on a board to find out if they are obligated to do it. She has one set of rules for her ex and one set for herself.
standing on the sidelines
New member
ummmm, this is not moving on. This is trying to keep sticking it to the ex. Let it go and you will be a happier person. This whole revenge thing is getting tiresome.
dadtotheend
New member
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Mummer is a whacko and telling her that doesn't do any good because - well - she's a whacko
Mummer is a whacko and telling her that doesn't do any good because - well - she's a whacko
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Mummer is a whacko and telling her that doesn't do any good because - well - she's a whacko
No, no, no...she's a "professioanl"!
May_May
New member
WTF ? I'm new to the forum and I can't follow you. Your comments have nothing to do with the posts you are replying to.
You have the odacity to make a comment "hope you don't have daughters"...but in the same sentence you make such a ludicrous statement that you need to "teach her that you are what you marry". All of us are here not out of 'plans-goals' in our lives. None of us here planned on marrying an 'ass' but life happens and people change.
I would back up my daughter through anything she was going through if she ever ended up in this horrible situation. You shouldn't be so blessed to even have an impact on a 'daughter'...
- Status