Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. If you are an employer or employee and need legal advice with respect to shareholder or officer liability, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers). We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you. You can contact me directly if you need a lawyer.

In this blog, I’ll be discussing shareholder liability with respect to a Federal corporation (i.e. one governed by the Canadian Business Corporations Act).  Generally, a shareholder can be liable under the Act or under the common (i.e. judge-made law).

Separate Legal Persons
We begin with the idea that corporations are separate legal entities from their owners and managers (i.e. directors, officers, employees).  They are legal persons created by statutes (e.g. the Canadian Business Corporations Act).  And since they are separate legal persons, this means that they are capable of entering into agreements on their own.  This means that they are capable of being sued in court.

Limited Liability
For shareholders, because corporations are separate legal entities, their liability is limited. In other words, the personal assets of the shareholders are not exposed; if the corporation gets sued and is ordered to pay damages, it’s the corporation’s assets that are typically at risk of being used to pay those damages.  Indeed, section 45(1) of the Act says that, except in certain circumstances, the shareholders are not liable for the corporation’s liabilities, acts or defaults.

What are the exceptions?
There are certain exceptions to the rule that shareholders are not liable.  These exceptions can be found in the Act and in common law (i.e. judge-made law).   Lets start off with the Act, shall we?

• First, under section 38(4), a creditor of the corporation can apply to court for an order COMPELLING A SHAREHOLDER TO PAY the corporation an amount representing a shareholder liability.  You see, sometimes, the corporation will loan out money to a shareholder.  This is a liability. Sometimes, those liabilities aren’t repaid and the big losers are those that the corporation owes money to.  These are the creditors.  To try getting their money back, they can bring an application to order the shareholder to repay their loan.  Now it’s only in certain circumstances that they can do so (and you can speak to a lawyer about these circumstances).
• Second, under section 118(4), a director who is liable to pay money for inappropriately buying back shares or issuing dividends can apply to the court for an order compelling a shareholder to pay any money or property that was paid or distributed to the shareholder.  So what’s inappropriate?  Well, if the corporation bought back shares or issued dividends and doing so made the corporation unable to pay its liabilities, then that’s a no-no.  There are other examples of what’s in appropriate and it’s best to speak with a lawyer about these circumstances.
• Third, even if the corporation is dissolved, a shareholder may be liable to the extent of any property they received from the corporation which is subject to a civil, criminal, or administrative claim against the corporation: section 126(4).
• Fourth, any PERSON who enters into a written contract in the name of or on behalf of a corporation before it comes into existence is PERSONALLY bound by the contract.  This means that a person who signs a contract on behalf of the corporation and then later becomes a shareholder of that corporation WILL be liable under the contract.  There is an exception, however: if the corporation adopts that written contract within a reasonable time after its existence, then that person will not be bound by the contract: section 14.

written by admin \\ tags: alter ego, business corporations, canada business corporations act, common law, limited liability, representation of unlimited liability, shareholder liability, toronto business lawyer

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to getting, varying, or terminating child support in Ontario, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton, and other Ontario family law lawyers registered on Dynamic Lawyers who can offer information, advice, and assistance with respect to helping you get, vary, or terminate child support.

This is the first of a series of blog posts I’ll be writing about family law in Ontario.  In this blog, I’ll be discussing something vary basic: child support obligations in Ontario.

A common question people sometimes ask: if I never get married but have a child with someone, do I still owe them child support?  Well, the Ontario Family Law Act doesn’t care if you, as the child’s father or mother, is married.  Nor does the Act care if you’re common law.  All that matters is that the payor is the child’s parent.

Basic Obligation of Parent to Pay Child Support
O.k., so when does a parent have to pay child support in Ontario?  Basically, there are two situations under s. 31(1) of the Act which require a parent to pay child support.  Here’s what that section says:

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.

So by reading this section, it becomes clear: every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is (1) a minor or (2) enrolled in a full time program of education.  There is an exception to these two tests and that is set out in section 31(2), which states that the obligation under s. 31(1) does not extend to a child who is 16 years old (or older) and who has withdrawn from parental control.  What exactly is meant by “parental control” will be discussed in the next blog.

First Branch: Minor
Under the first branch, the first question to ask is: who is considered a “minor” in Ontario?  The Age of Majority and Accountability Act states that: “Every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years” [s. 1].  Remember: this liability is limited by the parent’s capability of paying child support [s. 31(1)].  This liability is further restricted if child, assuming he or she is over 16 years old, has withdrawn from parental control [s. 31(2)].

Second Branch: Attending School Full Time
Even if a parent’s child is over the age of 16 (indeed, there doesn’t appear to be any upward limit here), a parent may still be liable to pay child support if the child is “an unmarried child who…is enrolled in a full time program of education”.  This is the second branch.  Once again: this liability is limited by the parent’s capability of paying child support [s. 31(1)].  This liability is further restricted if child, assuming he or she is over 16 years old, has withdrawn from parental control [s. 31(2)].

Caselaw
So how have Ontario courts interpreted these sections of the Act dealing with the obligation of a parent to support a child?

In Giess v. Upper (1996), 28 R.F.L. (4th) 46, Mendes da Costa J. of the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division wrote the following about the support obligation created by s. 31(1) of the Act in the context of that case:

16 The support obligation created by section 31(1) is two-fold. First, it applies to an “unmarried child who is a minor”. While the child, Elizabeth, is unmarried, she was born on October 22nd, 1977, and is now 19 years of age. As she is no longer a “minor”, she does not qualify for support under this limb of the subsection. Secondly, the support obligation extends to a child who is “enrolled in a full time program of education”. With regard to this extension of the support obligation, the word “child” is used as a term of relationship, and does not imply any limitation as to age.

In that case, the 19 year old child was found to be enrolled in a full time program of education. Mendes da Costa J. explained that the word “enrolled” meant that the child’s participation had to be meaningful: “it must be of such a nature and equality as to be consistent with the program’s purposes and objectives”. The father was found to have an obligation to provide child support under the second branch of s. 31(1) of the Act – subject to whether the child had “withdrawn from parental control”.

In McCann v McCann, the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division rejected the argument that if a child stopped being enrolled in a full-time program of education and ceased to be eligible for any child support, then their eligibility forever ceased and could not be resurrected by a subsequent enrollment in school in a full-time program of education. As per Aston J.:

24 Christopher McCann is now an “unmarried child” who is enrolled in a full-time program of education. I cannot conceive of any reason in logic or equity why it should matter that he has not been continuously enrolled in a full-time program of education since attaining the age of 18. The word “continuously” does not appear in the wording of subsection 31(1) of the Family Law Act.

25 There is a discretion in the court to deny support to an adult child who has left a full-time program of education and then resumed such a program but a gap in an ongoing program of education does not, in my view, automatically disqualify an applicant child from seeking support.

In McNulty v. McNulty, [2006] W.D.F.L. 434, Howden J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice observed:

10 The obligation to pay support for a child has not been applied by the court on a standard of perfection (or near-perfection) in attendance or in achievement by marks. The requirement of section 31(1), for the child who has reached 18 years of age and is no longer a minor, is that that “child” be enrolled in a full-time program. That has been applied to mean participation in the educational program in which he/she is enrolled in a meaningful way.  Giess v. Upper, (1996) 28 R.F.L. (4th) 460 (Ont. Gen Div).  In Copeland v. Copeland, (Ont. Gen. Div. (unreported Dec. 9/92, noted in Ontario Family Law Practice 2006, by C. Perkins, D. Steinberg and E. Lonkingly (sp?), p. 696), it was determined that a court should not impose a standard of devotion, priority and effort on a child as a condition of continuing a claim for support. In another case, that of a daughter over 18 years of age who completed high school but did not attend school for a year, the court held that the parent’s support obligation had not ended. Huneault J. held:

11 The purpose of the obligation to provide support extending into a child’s adult years is to reinforce parental responsibility for the education of their children beyond the age of majority. Reading this section as a whole, the legislative intent of parental support is to provide and continue to provide support for a child who is pursuing an educational program and remains dependant on the parent while he/she has not completed their education…

…

13 …The requirement of enrolment in a full-time course of education does not contemplate mere enrolment of the student to operate as a continuing trigger for support payments without some participation by the “child” in the program. Barring special circumstances (such as Tiara’s pregnancy, giving birth and maternal duties in her newborn’s first year), the “child” of 18 years or more owes a duty of due diligence to participate meaningfully in the educational program (interpreted in a contextual understanding, and purposive way) under section 31 of the Act.  Figueiredo v. Figueiredo (1991), 33 R.F.L. (3d) 72 (Ont. Gen. Div.), following Giess v. Upper.

Finally, in Simpson v. Hart, 1998 CarswellOnt 5163, Dunbar J. of the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division noted that: “The law is clear that a child who is independent may re-qualify for support from a parent by recommencing school and thus becoming dependent once more on the parents”.

written by admin \\ tags: child support in ontario, child support obligations, common law, educational purposes, family law act, family law in ontario, family law lawyers, full time, information advice, legal advice, obligation, ontario family law, ontario family law act, ottawa, professional assistance, section 31, unmarried child

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to getting a child custody order in Ontario, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton, and other Ontario family law lawyers registered on Dynamic Lawyers who can offer information, advice, and assistance with respect to helping you get child custody.

It’s a tough situation: you want to split up from your common law or married spouse and take your child with you.  But you don’t have the permission of your spouse.  Now they’re saying that they’ll call the police and report an abduction if you suddenly leave with your child.  Is that true?  What are your options?

Starting Position: Parents have equal rights
Well, you need to start off by looking at the Children’s Law Reform Act.  Section 20(1) says:

Except as otherwise provided in this Part, the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to custody of the child.

So if a spouse is planning to just get up and leave with their child, they will be infringing on the other spouse’s equal entitlement to custody.  Here, “custody” means having legal care and control of the child.   The spouse that take their child could face family law and criminal sanctions (e.g. charged with abduction).  There are defences which they could raise, however, which are outlined in the Criminal Code provisions repeated below.

Court Order or Separation Agreement
So how do you get around the “equal rights” starting position?  Well, s. 20(7) of that Act says:

Any entitlement to custody or access or incidents of custody under this section is subject to alteration by an order of the court or by separation agreement.

So, if there is a valid separation agreement or court order dealing with custody and access, then a spouse would be entitled to take their child as per the terms of that agreement or order.

Separation Agreement
The terms of a valid separation agreement can deal with custody and access issues of children.  For example, a term could say that the husband will have custody of the children and the wife will have access to include overnight, weekend, and extended holiday visits.  Alternatively, a term could say that the husband and wife will have joint custody of the children (e.g. the children will reside with the husband but will be in the custody of the wife as follows….).  The terms of your separation agreement to satisfy both parties’ interests in light of the best interests of the children.

Court Order
If you don’t have or can’t get a separation agreement with your spouse that addresses custody and access issues, you will need to apply to the court (using Form 8).  The person making the application is called the “Applicant” and your spouse will be the “Respondent”.  As per the Superior Court of Justice – Family Court – Fees Regulation, there is no filing fee on an application seeking custody, access, or support made under the Children’s Law Reform Act.  There also doesn’t appear to be any fees payable if the proceeding is in the Ontario Court of Justice.  For more information about family law procedures in the Ontario Court of Justice, check out this Guide by the Ministry of the Attorney General.  For more information about family law procedures in the Superior Court of Justice, check out this Guide by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Criminal Sanctions
Without a separation agreement or court order to the contrary, a spouse can be charged with abduction by simply taking their children and leaving the other spouse.  Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the offence of abduction (very serious stuff) and the possible defences.  Remember: if you are contemplating getting a separation agreement or applying to the court for custody and access, you can make a post on Dynamic Lawyers (100% free and anonymous) where family law lawyers can advise and represent you:

Abduction

283. (1) Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, whether or not there is a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person, is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) No proceedings may be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose.

284. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 281 to 283 if he establishes that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was done with the consent of the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful possession, care or charge of that young person.

285. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 280 to 283 if the court is satisfied that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm or if the person charged with the offence was escaping from danger of imminent harm.

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused.

written by admin \\ tags: alteration, common law, criminal sanctions, educational purposes, family law lawyers, information advice, ontario family law, professional assistance, separation agreement

One of the most common and most damaging misconceptions I hear as a family lawyer is the idea that people in common law relationships have the same legal rights as married spouses do. No, no, no! If you’re in a common law relationship and think you have the same rights as if you were married, you’re wrong. And that mistake could cost you very dearly if your relationship ends.

At the end of a relationship, whether marriage or common law, the five main issues are custody of children, visitation rights for the non-custodial parent, child support, spousal support and division of property. There are many other issues that may come up as well – possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, immigration status, wills and powers of attorney to name a few – but those are the big five.

In the first three categories there is not much difference between being married and living common law. The law tries to treat all children equally so the rights of children born in common law relationships are generally the same as those born into marriages. However, when it comes to spousal support and dividing property accumulated during a relationship there are very important differences between marriage and common law relationships.

Spousal support

If you are married you can claim spousal support under either the Divorce Act or under the Family Law Act. If you cohabit you don’t have spousal support rights under the Divorce Act. And the difference between the rights of married spouses and the rights of common law spouses under the Family Law Act is apparent right in the definition of spouse. A married spouse is a spouse – and hence has spousal support rights – from the instant they are married. A person is not even considered a spouse in a common law relationship unless they have been cohabiting continuously for three years or they are in a relationship of some permanence and are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. In other words, at the end of a common law relationship you can’t even seek spousal support unless you cohabited for more than three years or you and your partner have a child together.

Property rights

The difference in spousal support rights is minor compared to the difference in property rights between married and common law spouses. This is where I see people seriously hurt by the common assumption that the law treats married couples and common law couples equally.

In Ontario the Family Law Act gives married spouses very specific property rights; it does not give any property rights to common law spouses. A common law spouse can assert a property claim under a doctrine called constructive trust but these claims are difficult and costly to prove and are far less generous than the rights given to married spouses by the Family Law Act. In other words, if you let your partner put all or most of the property in his or her name in a common law relationship you may find he or she gets to keep it all, even if your income and work helped buy it.

The lesson in this is that if you live in a common law relationship you must make sure that you accumulate property in your own name. Don’t let all property go into the name of your spouse on the assumption that if your relationship ends, the property will be divided between you. That is not how the law works for common law relationships. Another solution is to enter into a cohabitation agreement setting out how property will be divided if the relationship ends. But please don’t assume you have the same property rights as your married friends.

Ingrid van Weert is a compassionate and dedicated family lawyer with extensive experience in both divorce law and in all forms of dispute resolution available in the divorce process – negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation. She can be reached at ingrid@ontariodivorcelaw.ca or at 416-214-1501.

written by Ingrid van Weert \\ tags: agreement, arbitration, common law, continuings, custody, damages, family, insurance, lawyer, lawyers, litigants, litigation, marriage, mediator, negotiating, Negotiations, parents, property rights, relationships, spousal support