What is the quickest way of getting a Financial Statement from my ex?
- Thread starter penniless
- Start date
- Status
blinkandimgone
Moderator
He had two additional kids in 18 months...with the same woman? Because THAT seems highly unlikely, unless he had twins.
Family Law Act Child Support Guidelines
Annual obligation to provide income information
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->24.1 <!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->(1) Every person whose income or other financial information is used to determine the amount of an order for the support of a child shall, no later than 30 days after the anniversary of the date on which the order was made in every year in which the child is a child within the meaning of this Regulation, provide every party to the order withthe following, unless the parties have agreed otherwise:
1. For the most recent taxation year, a copy of the person’s,
i. personal income tax return, including any materials that were filed with the return, and
ii. notice of assessment and, if any, notice of reassessment.
2. As applicable, any current information in writing about,
i. the status and amount of any expenses included in the order pursuant to subsection 7 (1), and
ii. any loan, scholarship or bursaries the child has received or will receive in the coming year that affect or will affect the expenses referred to in subparagraph i. O. Reg. 25/10, s. 6.
Notices of assessment
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->(2) If the person has not received his or her notice of assessment or notice of reassessment for the most recent taxation year by the date referred to in subsection (1), the person shall provide every party to the order with a copy of the notice as soon as possible after the person receives the notice. O. Reg. 25/10, s. 6.
Annual obligation to provide income information
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->24.1 <!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->(1) Every person whose income or other financial information is used to determine the amount of an order for the support of a child shall, no later than 30 days after the anniversary of the date on which the order was made in every year in which the child is a child within the meaning of this Regulation, provide every party to the order withthe following, unless the parties have agreed otherwise:
1. For the most recent taxation year, a copy of the person’s,
i. personal income tax return, including any materials that were filed with the return, and
ii. notice of assessment and, if any, notice of reassessment.
2. As applicable, any current information in writing about,
i. the status and amount of any expenses included in the order pursuant to subsection 7 (1), and
ii. any loan, scholarship or bursaries the child has received or will receive in the coming year that affect or will affect the expenses referred to in subparagraph i. O. Reg. 25/10, s. 6.
Notices of assessment
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .droit de la famille (Loi sur le) - Règl. de l'Ont. 391/97. -->(2) If the person has not received his or her notice of assessment or notice of reassessment for the most recent taxation year by the date referred to in subsection (1), the person shall provide every party to the order with a copy of the notice as soon as possible after the person receives the notice. O. Reg. 25/10, s. 6.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
I believe what I said was it's highly unlikely UNLESS they had twins.
And no, it isn't rare that a woman would give birth early, however it would be very rare that a woman woulc give birth early, conceive again immediately and then give birth early - again.
I think you know what I was suggesting by commenting on your original post. If your going to accuse someone of lying then do so, and you were trying to do so, or you wouldn't have made an effort to make something so obvious and trivial to the post standout. So in turn, I figured I'd imply something with my post.
You were purposely trying to create conflict where none needed to be. Given that you are a moderator you should know better
OrleansLawyer
Active member
If there is an ongoing court proceeding, then you can request his financial statement be updated, pursuant to your right to full financial disclosure.
If there is no court proceeding then you do not have a need for a financial statement; his notices of assessment will indicate his income. If you believe he is hiding revenue sources then you would need to commence a new action (motion to change) prior to having a right to his financial statement.
In any event, you can simply ask for him to provide you with one. Sometimes people are helpful.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
LOLs. And you appear to be reading into things that weren't said in order to create conflict. Your post seemed curious, so I asked the question to clarify. I really don't care if you lie or not.
I have no idea what you may have been attempting to imply with your post, nor do I care, really. You could have simply answered the question as it was asked, without the shittiness.
Either way, the fact that he has more kids is irrelevant anyways, so not even sure why you felt the need to bring it up.
Good luck!
OrleansLawyer
Active member
If you are already involved in contempt proceedings against him to obtain disclosure then you are not likely to see it sooner. Either he is in contempt and will be forced to provide the paperwork or else he isn't and won't have to.
If you have a final Order, and matters are settled, then I am uncertain why you would need an updated financial statement.
Seriously Blink , whats so curious about stating someone had 2 kids in 18 months
What I find CURIOUS is that you answered your own question, and yet you still proceed to ask the question anyways.
What I find CURIOUS is you proceeding to tell me that any other answer is unlikely.
How many logical answer were there? One right? Why ask a question that you believe only has one answer? Thats CURIOUS!
Whats more CURIOUS is you asking about something that wasn't even relevant
What I find CURIOUS is that you answered your own question, and yet you still proceed to ask the question anyways.
What I find CURIOUS is you proceeding to tell me that any other answer is unlikely.
How many logical answer were there? One right? Why ask a question that you believe only has one answer? Thats CURIOUS!
Whats more CURIOUS is you asking about something that wasn't even relevant
Probably right.
Because he is on social assistance and he went on vacation for 6 weeks across country. He shouldn't have the money to do so unless he was working under the table. The form 13 is part of the forms I plan on questioning him on, if necessary.
May I also add he came to court in a new CK suit.
1)He failed to provide his income tax on time, and then i find out he has left stuff off. I can prove he didn't declare his social assistance payments, or at least part, and that he didnt add interest payments on his returns.
2)He doesn't show up for a contempt motion, says he is vacationing to the judge through a duty council(possibly working under the table and cant come back)
3)He refuses to provide any documents that were requested.
4)He refuses to answer my request to admits.
What else am I suppose to think but that i got him caught in something underhanded
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Nope, it's an opportunity for you to show what you're really all about. Your attitude shines through in your many posts about the same subject.
You have no idea how or if he even paid for his vacation at all, nor is it any of his business. Now you're concerned about his choice of clothing? He could have BORROWED the suit for all you know.
Seriously, why don't you concern yourself with things that are actually relevant to your case and stop being so up in his business.
Do you justify everything you spend, gift you get, clothing purchase or item borrowed from a friend? You need to realize: HE ISN'T MARRIED TO YOU ANYMORE, he doesn't have to justify these things to you.
If it wasn't my business I'd be the one that was getting the contempt motion placed against me not the other way around
Because he isnt paying child support
I have the right to know his finances, revenues and expenses.
I have a right to know his medical status because he has been declared unable to work.
I have a right to question him on both
Failure to disclose financial information has been included in the list of factors cited by Justice Bastarache in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of D.B.S. v. S.R.G.,
106 Courts should not hesitate to take into account a payor parent’s blameworthy conduct in considering the propriety of a retroactive award. Further, I believe courts should take an expansive view of what constitutes blameworthy conduct in this context. I would characterize as blameworthy conduct anything that privileges the payor parent’s own interests over his/her children’s right to an appropriate amount of support.
He went on vacation, possible using his own money, when he could have been paying child support, when he could have been going back to school, when he could be retraining himself for another career
107 No level of blameworthy behaviour by payor parents should be encouraged. Even where a payor parent does nothing active to avoid his/her obligations, (s)he might still be acting in a blameworthy manner if (s)he consciously chooses to ignore them. Put simply, a payor parent who knowingly avoids or diminishes his/her support obligation to his/her children should not be allowed to profit from such conduct: see A. (J.) v. A. (P.)reflex, (1997), 37 R.F.L. (4th) 197 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), at pp. 208-9; Chrintz.
Because he isnt paying child support
I have the right to know his finances, revenues and expenses.
I have a right to know his medical status because he has been declared unable to work.
I have a right to question him on both
Failure to disclose financial information has been included in the list of factors cited by Justice Bastarache in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of D.B.S. v. S.R.G.,
106 Courts should not hesitate to take into account a payor parent’s blameworthy conduct in considering the propriety of a retroactive award. Further, I believe courts should take an expansive view of what constitutes blameworthy conduct in this context. I would characterize as blameworthy conduct anything that privileges the payor parent’s own interests over his/her children’s right to an appropriate amount of support.
He went on vacation, possible using his own money, when he could have been paying child support, when he could have been going back to school, when he could be retraining himself for another career
107 No level of blameworthy behaviour by payor parents should be encouraged. Even where a payor parent does nothing active to avoid his/her obligations, (s)he might still be acting in a blameworthy manner if (s)he consciously chooses to ignore them. Put simply, a payor parent who knowingly avoids or diminishes his/her support obligation to his/her children should not be allowed to profit from such conduct: see A. (J.) v. A. (P.)reflex, (1997), 37 R.F.L. (4th) 197 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), at pp. 208-9; Chrintz.
- Status