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.

Ok, so here it is: who is a “parent” for the purposes of paying child support in Ontario under the Family Law Act?  Does it only mean the biological parent?  How about a parent who formally adopts a child?  What about the boyfriend/girlfriend of a child’s biological or adoptive parent?…

Essentially, in Ontario, a “parent” for the purposes of child support obligations under the Family Law Act includes a  child’s biological father or mother and any other person “who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody”.  Lets take a look at a number of previous Ontario court cases that dealt with this latter issue, shall we?  Remember: the Ontario Family Law Act applies in cases where the parents are not or were not married; if they are or were married, then the Federal Divorce Act would apply, not the Ontario Family Law Act.  So please keep that in mind as you read on!

In Baldwin v. Timmermans, (sub nom. C.M.B.B. v. T.J.T.), 18 O.T.C. 174, the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division was faced with an interim child support request (the fact that it was an interim matter means that child support was being asked to be provided prior to the actual trial).  The facts are fairly straightforward.  A man was asked by a woman to provide support to her child.  The man and the child’s mother never married but had lived together.  The man argued that he was not responsible for supporting the child, saying that he never acted as a parent and that he actually had a rough relationship with the child.  The Court disagreed and ordered the man to pay child support on an interim basis.  Perkins J. reasoned that the child’s mother had pointed to “objective evidence establishing that a subjective intention existed” on the part of the man to treat her child as a child of his family.  The mother had pointed, through her affidavits, to objective evidence of direct financial support to or for the benefit of her child as well as to the mother for the benefit of the family unit generally.  In addition, the man had signed a written document called “My Personal Commitments” which committed the man to (among other things) love and support the child.  Perkins J. held that the mother had made out a prima facie (on its face) case for child support by pointing to credible evidence which would entitle her to succeed at trial.

In Lebeck v. Laurin, [2005] W.D.F.L. 680, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice commented that various factors set out in Chartier v. Chartier (1999) 43 R.F.L (4th) 1 (S.C.C.) were useful, though not determinative, in deciding whether a person had a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family.  Those factors include, but are not limited to:

• whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a biological child;
  
• whether the person provides financially for the child (depending upon ability to pay);
  
• whether the person disciplines the child as a parent;
  
• whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world, either explicitly or implicitly, that he or she is responsible as apparent to the child;  and
  
• the nature or existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biological parent.

In that case, Wood J. found that a man was liable to child support to the children of his wife and another man on the basis that (among other things): he paid for many of the children’s expenses, transported them to games and activities, was an assistant coach of teams upon which the children played, and wrote letters indicating that he was interested in the children’s welfare.  It was interesting to note that, although there was evidence that man was scrupulous in protecting the role the children’s biological father played, the man had still exhibited a settled intention to treat the children as children of his family within the meaning of the Act.

Finally, in Land v. Aitchison, 2005 CarswellOnt 372, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that a man was liable to pay interim child support to children who were born out of a previous marriage from a woman with whom the man had  cohabited.  Pedlar J. pointed to “independent evidence” that demonstrated a prima facie case on the issue of child support such as:

• The man referred to the girls as “my daughters” or “my girls”;
• The man participated in the girls’ extra curricular activities, including coaching a baseball team;
• The man took the girls to their medical and dental appointments as well as school trips, etc.;
• The man paid for expenses, attended a graduation and provided a ring;
• Report cards showed that the man had completed and signed the “parent and guardian” section.
• The children referred to the man as “dad” in pictures in their journals and school drawings;
• The children referred to the man’s sister, brother-in-law, and mother as aunt, uncle, and “Nan”.
• The man attended the interviews at the school with the children;
• The man attended family gatherings regularly with the children and their mother and appeared to be playing a parental role;
• The man often took the initiative in disciplining the children.

On the basis of that evidence, the court rules that the children’s mother had established a prima facie case for interim child support.

For more information about whether a person could be the father of a child under the Family Law Act or the Divorce Act, be sure to consult with a lawyer (by making a post on Dynamic Lawyers).

written by admin \\ tags: biological parent, boyfriend girlfriend, child support in ontario, child support obligations, family law act, family law lawyers, federal divorce act, ontario court cases, ontario court of justice, ontario family law, ontario family law act, professional assistance

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 a mistake in a Will,  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 prepare and draft a Will.

A Will is only valid if the Testator knew and approved its content.  If words have been mistakenly inserted into a Will without such knowledge or approval, then a court may strike out those specific passages or phrases.  In Barylak v. Figol, 9 E.T.R. (2d) 305, for example, a residuary clause had been inserted by mistake.  That clause gave the residue of the deceased’s estate to a fund to create a scholarship for needy students of Ukrainian origin. The Testator never gave his solicitor instructions to include that offending residuary clause. There was no evidence that the Will was ever sent to the Testator prior to its execution for review by him. Even if it had been, there was no evidence as to whether the Testator’s command of written English was such that he would have fully understood it. Also, there was no evidence that a true copy of the executed Will was left with the testator or that a copy was sent to him. Overall, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) held that the Testator knew nothing about the residuary clause and that it did not reflect his expression. Accordingly, the Court deleted the clause from his Will based on the doctrine of mistake.

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, court of justice, educational purposes, legal advice, mississauga, needy students, ontario court of justice, ontario lawyers, ottawa, passages, professional assistance, residuary clause, solicitor, testator, true copy, ukrainian origin, Wills and Estates

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 your offer or agreement of purchase and sale (or wanting to back out of one) 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 with your offer or agreement of purchase and sale.

In this blog, I’ll be discussing what happens if you change your mind after singing an offer or purchase agreement?

Once an offer or counteroffer has been made, it cannot be withdrawn unless there is a time limit on the offer or counteroffer which passes without being accepted.

An Agreement of Purchase and Sale may also be terminated if it becomes impossible to perform through no fault of either party (lawyers say such a contract is “frustrated”).  An example is property destroyed in a flood or a fire before the buyer has taken possession.

If there is no relevant termination clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, a party cannot claim frustration if the supervening event resulted from a voluntary act of the buyer or seller.  Furthermore, frustration is not available if the parties contemplated the possibility of the supervening event arising during the term of the agreement and provided for in the agreement. In Dinicola v. Huang & Danczkay Properties, 2 R.P.R. (3d) 267, a condominium developer failed to develop 3 buildings and returned all deposits and down payments. The condominium unit purchasers, however, sued for breach of contract. In its defence, the developer argued that the municipal council’s refusal to approve the site plan for the development of the buildings frustrated its agreements with the purchasers. The Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) rejected that defence and found the developer liable to pay damages assessed at $4.9-million.  The court reasoned that frustration was not available as a defence because the developer and the purchasers had contemplated the possibility of the municipal council’s refusal at the time the purchase and sale agreements were entered into. That possibility was also provided for in the agreements.  Frustration was also not available because the developer relied on its own refusal to negotiate terms of the approval with the municipality to excuse itself from liability under the agreements.

Purchasers of new condominium units in Ontario have a cooling-off period of 10 days to back out of their purchase agreements.

Once the offer or counteroffer has been formally accepted, the buyer and seller are bound legally by its terms. If you walk away from a deal you may not only lose your deposit, but may also be liable for any damages suffered by the other party, such as the lost opportunity to sell to someone else, expenses arising from a delayed move, or the seller’s loss of deposit on another home intended for purchase. The legal remedy, called “specific performance” (making you complete the purchase), is an unlikely event, but a court could still hold you responsible for the entire purchase price, plus expenses and court costs.

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, breach of contract, condominium unit, counteroffer, court of justice, dinicola, down payments, educational purposes, legal advice, mississauga, ontario court of justice, ontario lawyers, party lawyers, professional assistance, termination clause, time limit, voluntary act