Spousal Support

[Latenightagony]

So I have received a letter from her lawyer stating she wants me to pay $2K/mo. in support. A bit of background, married 26 years, children are all >18 working full time. She worked the majority of our marriage, stayed home a bit when they were born, but for the last 12 years has been working F/T and making more money over those years. I make close to double what she makes. One question I have, is I get paid rsp income from the company into my union group funded plan, it shows up on a T4A, but I never see this money. It is being used on my income to determine SS calculations. I don't agree with this but haven't talked to my lawyer at all about this, but definitely will be. Also due to the rule 65 she gets it indefinitely! If I gave her $2K/mo. she would make more money than me (net) which isn't right obviously.

 

[pinkHouses]

Sounds like you could be double dinged...once for contributing and again for withdrawing in retirement.
Spousal support guidelines are guidelines, they are not rules.

I don't know how a judge would rule.
Ask your lawyer what experience they have with this....my guess is that lawyers guess "oh, we are lawyers, we know the law and how to negotiate" They often don't and simply want to you accept the cards they deal you.

Good luck.

 

[Tayken]

I don't know how a judge would rule.

With the backlog and this matter having nothing to do with children and the other party being employed. It is a /ignore situation possibly. Make them file in court I say. It will take years to get to trial as priority is on custody and access disputes.

 

[Kinso]

True, but an interim motion for spousal support won't take years to be heard, and one does risk costs if not successful. If the claim is all but certain (ask your lawyer about this), then offering some spousal support (even reduced SS) is better than $0.00.

 

[Tayken]

True, but an interim motion for spousal support won't take years to be heard, and one does risk costs if not successful. If the claim is all but certain (ask your lawyer about this), then offering some spousal support (even reduced SS) is better than $0.00.

[158] I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).

Justice Quinn.

I have seen lawyers use this argument when the "costs" of a SS to have costs dramatically reduced. It is hard to settle on costs but, your point of 0.00$ is a valid one.

I update my statement per Kisno's wise observations. Offer something minimal. An offer is better than no offer. Kisno is correct.

But, I would instruct counsel to operate on the principal that determining SS is hard and in a situation where both parties are gainfully employed near impossible to determine without the involvement of the court. It really requires a judge often to put on the blindfold, throw some darts, shake a magic 8-ball and consult with Ouija to determine.

I would go after any pensions and demand equalization of all pensions to deter further SS discussions. Often teachers figure out that their life-time of earning is way more than a consultant who may be earning a lot year-to-year with no pension. :O

 

[Kinso]

I love Justice Quinn. If he wasn't retired I'd take files in St. Catherine's just to appear before him.

 

[Tayken]

I love Justice Quinn. If he wasn't retired I'd take files in St. Catherine's just to appear before him.

My list of top Justices:

1. Justice Quinn
2. Justice Pazaratz
3. Justice Czutrin
4. Justice Mossip

I hope you take files in Hamilton just to appear before Justice Pazaratz. Out of that list the most time I have spent has been observing Justice Pazaratz. You think his case law is great... He is even better live and in person.

 

[ifonlyihadknown]

... her lawyer...

Don't believe anything from her lawyer.

Get your own lawyer to advise you on how much SS you may or may not be on the hook for. An experienced lawyer should be able to give you a ballpark figure on how things are likely to shake out if your case went to court.

 

[Desperate_Dad]

You've got to be kidding on Pazaratz. He was the first Judge I had in Hamilton in 2009 and this guy is completely clueless. It takes real talent to be wrong on everything and this guy gets nothing right.

The worst was when my ex's lawyer flips some fraudulent Divorcemate calculation saying I owe 950/mo in spousal support. I told him it was zero and then he charged me 5,000 in costs.

What ended up happening? I threatened trial and her lawyer Jennifer Vandenberg caved and no spousal support was payable and costs were reversed.

He's definitely one of the biggest idiots out there. Hard to say if he's the worst because there are so many stupid judges out there.

Don

My list of top Justices:

1. Justice Quinn
2. Justice Pazaratz
3. Justice Czutrin
4. Justice Mossip

I hope you take files in Hamilton just to appear before Justice Pazaratz. Out of that list the most time I have spent has been observing Justice Pazaratz. You think his case law is great... He is even better live and in person.

 

[StillPaying]

Don, you came to an agreement after a Judge found interim entitlement. It means nothing about the validity of the claim and everything about you. Your original post was full of errors; I hope no one is paying for your support calculation method.

 

[Desperate_Dad]

Don, you came to an agreement after a Judge found interim entitlement. It means nothing about the validity of the claim and everything about you. Your original post was full of errors; I hope no one is paying for your support calculation method.

I assume your comment was meant for me.
And by my original post, do you mean the first post I ever made here?
If so, there were absolutely no errors. I was 100% correct on everything and spousal support became zero after my ex and her lawyer caved.
So please share with us your great knowledge about my full of errors post.
I know you're completely 100% wrong and my way is the correct way.
No one should listen to anything you have to say.

 

[StillPaying]

I get excited when people are jealous over the disabled...

I assume your comment was meant for me.

Why would you assume that?

And by my original post, do you mean the first post I ever made here?

Both your first post ever and the one in this thread. Way too emotional!

If so, there were absolutely no errors. I was 100% correct on everything and spousal support became zero after my ex and her lawyer caved.
So please share with us your great knowledge about my full of errors post.
I know you're completely 100% wrong and my way is the correct way.

Your ex agreeing to no more additional spousal does not mean they were not entitled or that the judge erred.

You went into a motion for support not expecting to pay when you work and ex is not; on disability.

You claim ex's income was understated by over 5k and you didn't notice.

You're self imputing the disability tax credit, which they may be eligible for however would have to work and pay income tax to receive the tax discount. Being on CPPD, they are unlikely to benefit from DTC.

You're self imputing an additional income on ex because they're allowed to make a certain amount while on disability. Doesn't work that way!

You're adding the CPPD child benefit to their income for support when the court is clear that it shouldn't be.

You don't think you should be paying support based on your actual income and want more discounts for benefit costs you have for only yourself.

Travel costs are child support related.

Specifically, each of your points and calculations were wrong with extreme emotion.

No one should listen to anything you have to say.

Good news. What if I told you you could have all of my free advice for a small modest fee? Would you be interested?