Table Of Content

FAMILY LAW Cases and Materials Volume in Carol Rogerson and Martha Shaffer Faculty of Law University of Toronto 1996-1997 Prepared with the assistance of Ranald Sinclair, Ella Schwartz, Faith Teo and Wendy Adams * * * These materials are distributed solely for classroom use by students in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto :'V A>' ' OgV ■{- BQRA LASKIN LAW LIBRARY SEP 4 1996 FACULTY Of m BKUHLSITY OF TMOHra j LASKIN LAW LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF TOROwS FAMILY LAW Cases and Materials Volume IE Carol Rogerson and Martha Shaffer Faculty of Law University of Toronto 1996-1997 Prepared with the assistance of Ranald Sinclair, Ella Schwartz, Faith Teo and Wendy Adams * * * These materials are distributed solely for classroom use by students in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/familylawcasesma03roge_5 FAMILY LAW 1996-1997 Professors Carol Rogerson and Martha Shaffer Table of Contents Volume III Page No. VIII. DOMESTIC CONTRACTS A. Introduction; Contracting in the Family Context Balfour v. Balfour.653 Harper’s Magazine, “Conditional Love”.653 O'Donovan, "Reforming the Private" from Sexual Divisions in Law.655 Mnookin, "Divorce Bargaining: the Limits on Private Ordering".658 Trebilcock and Keshvani, "The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law".662 Bailey, "Pelch, Caron, and Richardson".664 Note: The Pelech Trilogy.664 B. Limits on Contracting a) Setting Aside Contracts: General Principles of Contract Law Hovius, Family Law.666 Hvldtoft v. Hyldtoft.667 Puopolo v. Puopolo.668 Lindsay v. Lindsay.671 Crouse v. Crouse.676 Note: Heaton v. Heaton; Currie v. Currie.680 Rosen v. Rosen.681 Slate v. Slate.684 Majury, "Unconscionability in an Equality Context".685 b) Statutory' Powers to Set Aside and Vary' Introductory Note 691 11 i) Post-Pelech: Variation Requests by Wives (Payees) Cossman, "A Matter of Difference: Domestic Contracts and Gender Equality".691 Note: Fyffe; Marshall; Isaacson.693 Winsorv. Winsor.694 ii) Post-Pelech: Variation Requests by Husbands (Payors) Bailey, "Pelech, Richardson and Caron".696 Note: Leman; Ritchie.697 Hood v. Hood.697 Masters v. Masters.704 L.G. v. G.B.709 XI. CHILD SUPPORT A. Defining the Parent-Child Relationship a) Establishing Paternity Re Rhan and Pinsonneault.716 K.P. v. P.N..719 Note: Status of the Unmarried Father.720 b) In Loco Parentis Primeau v. Primeau.723 Ogden v. Anderson.728 Carignan v. Carignan.729 Hart v. Hart and Boyce.737 Note: Morrison - Pelletier v. Pelletier.739 B. Calculation of Child Support a) Introduction Blown and Milliken, "The Failure of the Legal System to Protect the Legal Rights of Children".740 Department of Justice, Evaluation of the Divorce Act.745 Eekelaar and Maclean, "The Evolution of Private Law Maintenance Obligations".746 iii Eekelaar, "Maintenance and Children" from Family Law and Social Policy.747 b) The Paras Formula Rogerson, "Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act".749 Paras v. Paras.750 Rogerson, "Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act".751 Lucas v. Lucas.755 Moosa v. Moosa.758 Note: Contributions of the Custodial Parent Linder the Paras Formula.760 Further Reading.760 c) New Developments in Child Support: The Judicial Arena Levesque v. Levesque.761 Willick v. Willick.772 Note: Variation of Child Support Agreements.787 Kawall v. Kawall; Rusticus v. Rusticus (Lawyer's Weekly).788 d) Legislative Reform of Child Support Law: Child Support Guidelines Pask, "The Effect of Maintenance on Custody Sharing".791 Note: The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada.793 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, Report and Recommendations on Child Support.793 e) Variation of Child Support and Second Family Obligations Government of Canada, The New Child Support Package, (March 6, 1996).795 Rogerson, "Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act, 1985".803 Eekelaar, Family Law and Social Policy.803 Sawchyn v. Sawchyn.804 Storer v. Storer.807 R. (L.D.) v. R. (H.D.).809 Note: Zablocki v. Redhail.810 Johnston v. Haywood (Lawyer's Weekly).811 IV f) Child Support and Access Note: Twaddle v. Twaddle; Lee v. Lee; Brownell v. Brownell; Harrison v. Harrison.817 Welstead v. Bainbridge.817 X. CUSTODY AND ACCESS A. Introduction Folberg, "Custody Overview".819 Boyd, "Women, Men and Relationships with Children: Is Equality Possible?".822 Gordon, "Multiple Meanings of Equality: A Case Study in Custody Litigation".826 Richards, "Divorcing Children: Roles for Parents and the State".834 Young v. Young.837 B. The Best Interests Test a) Applications Department of Justice, Custody and Access; Public Discussion Paper.856 Boyd, "Women, Men and Relationships with Children: Is Equality Possible?".863 Talsky v. Talsky.864 Klachefsky v. Brown.869 R.v.R.875 Fishback v. Fishback.884 Boyd, "Women, Men and Relationships with Children: Is Equality Possible?".889 b) Violence and Abuse "Mother loses custody after move to shelter", The Globe and Mail, February 15, 1989.891 Young v. Young.891 Renaud v. Renaud.896 Myers, "Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Visitation Litigation: Recommendations for Improved Fact Finding and Child Protection".896 V c) Sexual Orientation Bezaire v. Bezaire.900 Crean, In the Name of the Fathers: The Story Behind Child Custody.904 Ehrcke, "Limiting Judicial Discretion in Custody Proceedings on Divorce".906 Note: Saunders v. Saunders.910 K. (Re).910 C. Alternatives to the Best Interests Test Folberg, "Joint Custody".916 Note: Recent Changes to California's Custody Legislation.921 Department of Justice, Custody and Access: Public Discussion Paper.921 Lenoff, "Joint Custody and Beyond".923 Department of Justice, Custody and Access: Public Discussion Paper.928 Boyd, "Potentialities and Perils of the Primary Caregiver Presumption".929 K. v. K...934 Department of Justice, Custody and Access: Public Discussion Paper.937 Boyd, "W(h)ither Feminism? The Department of Justice Public Discussion Paper on Custody and Access".938 D. Mobility Rights of the Custodial Parent and Access Gordon v. Goertz.942 E. Interference With Access Tremblay v. Tremblay.959 Frame v. Smith.960