"FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SPOUSAL SUPPORT LAW." Joel Miller's Family Law Centre. 8 May 2007
<http://www.familylawcentre.com/ssupport.html>.
This article provides general information on divorce law and spousal support law. It quotes from the Divorce act to teach the readers the significance o the divorce law of Canada. It break down the spousal support into further categories, such as interim support (in which an order for support that only lasts until the court makes a final order). The article states the way a spousal support payment is carried out. The article also provides some interesting facts regarding spousal support, such as that the support payments are taxable in Ontario and may be only paid to the Family Support Plan (who also enforces the payment if there is a default), and that the support obligations will not be affected by any bankruptcy. The source is fairly reliable since it comes from a reputable family law specialist.
"Leskun v. Leskun." Supreme Court of Canada. 9 May 2007
<http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc25/2006scc25.html>.
This article is a very recent case summary on spousal support law. In this case, he court had originally ordered the husband to pay the wife a significant amount of spousal support after separation, but in 2003, an application by the husband to discontinue support payments on the basis that he was now unemployed and in financial difficulty was filed, and denied. The SCC dismissed the appeal on the basis of Mrs. Leskun’s absence of self-sufficiency and finical difficulties she, as a 60-year old woman, faces. The source of article is the SSC, which should be very reliable and un-bias since it offers mainly facts.
"Moge v. Moge. A New Version of Spousal Support" Government of Canada. 24 Oct. 2002. 10 May 2007
<http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Pilot/LoPBdP/BP/
bp339-e.htm#CONCURRING>.
This article is a landmark case study regarding spousal support. In the case, after several appeals, Mrs. Moge was granted compensatory support from Mr. Moge on the arguments that she suffered economical disadvantage because of the divorce, plus the fact that she has children to support. Because of this case, the Supreme Court decides rather than creating a set of concrete rules to guide the lower courts, they discussed the economic and social realities for divorcing couples in Canada today (1992), and recognized the harsh prospects faced by spouses, especially women, since the Court's last major statement on spousal support in the 1987. The article should be very reliable since the website is owned by the government of Canada. The author suggests little bias since it only summarizes the facts of the case rather than offering the author’s opinions.
Selick, Karen. "Spousal Support—Heads She Wins, Tails He Loses." Karen Selick.
8 May 2007 <http://www.karenselick.com/CL9711.html>.
This article argues that the spousal support law is unfair to the male party. It lists some reasons and case study regarding to this matter. The author argues that a woman can always find a reason to claim spousal payment: if she worked outside the home and supported her husband, her claim is for "compensatory support." If she stayed at home while the husband supported her, her claim is for "developing a pattern of economic dependency." She argues that the Canadian law is set up this way because when a divorced/separated woman is having economical difficulties, the government prefers the ex-husband to pay to support his ex-wife rather than having her on welfare; but what is the difference between any taxpayer and the ex-husband now that they are not married? As one can perhaps predict by the title, this article is written in a biased point of view, in which the author (a lawyer who practices family law) focused on only facts that supported her opinion and left out those which contradict her point of view.
"Spousal Support ." Ontario Woman's Justice Network. Sept. 2005. 8 May 2007
<http://www.owjn.org/info/spousal.htm>.
This article answers some common questions regarding spousal support, focusing mainly in Ontario. The article is a short but clear summary of basic information on spousal support. It states the factors that judges look at when granting spousal support, including length of cohabitation, functions performed by both spouses during that time, any orders, agreements or arrangements made by the spouses, likely future assets and means of both parties, dependant's capacity to contribute to her own support , respondent's capacity to provide support, parties' age and physical and mental health, dependant's needs with respect to accustomed standard of living during cohabitation, length of time and cost involved as well as means available to assist dependant in becoming self-supporting, the need for either party to stay at home to care for a child and the history of child care responsibilities during the time of cohabitation and effect on the dependant's earning capacity because of responsibilities (such as housekeeping and other domestic services, assumed during cohabitation). The article also relates spousal support to child support, and that where child support is also to be paid, priority is given to child support over spousal support; the amount of spousal payment is related to the child as well, as mentioned above in reasons for granting spousal support Although the article is written for a female-based audience group, the article itself is not biased as it does not single out one sex or the other. The article is also a little out-dated.
"Spousal Support Under Canada's Divorce Act." DUHAIME'S CANADIAN FAMILY LAW
CENTRE. 6 May 2007 <http://www.duhaime.org/family/ca-divss.aspx>.
The article provides basic information regarding to the Canadian spousal support law. The Canadian court has the right to make decisions prevail to a couple’s divorce, such as spousal support. The court makes such decisions on the basis of the length of time the spouses cohabited, the functions performed by the spouse during cohabitation and any order or agreement relating to support of the spouse. The spousal support order is suppose to serve 4 main purposes: to recognize the economical advantage/disadvantage arising from the divorce; to take care of any needs arisen from the child(ren); to relieve any economical hardship one spouse may face as a result of the split; to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. The amount of money and the time of support vary between cases, as they are evaluated on their own merits and is dependent on market conditions. The source of information provided by this article should be reliable and bias-less as it comes from a reputable law firm.
the fire within ice Community Member 
|
|
