Table Of Content

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY LAW of FAMILY LAW Cases and Materials Volume III Carol Rogerson Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2012-2013 * * * These materials are distributed solely for classroom use by students in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Storage KE 538.5 .R64 2012 v. 3 c. 1 BORA LASKIN LAW LIBRARY Aim 30 2012 FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY LAW of FAMILY LAW Cases and Materials Volume III Carol Rogerson Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2012-2013 * * * 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_0 FAMILY LAW Table of Contents Volume III Page No. VII. SPOUSAL SUPPORT A. Some Preliminary Issues of Jurisdiction and Standing Note.543 B. The Principles of Spousal Support Rogerson, “The Challenge of Spousal Support” from “The Canadian Law Of Spousal Support” (2004), 38 FLQ 69.545 Eekelaar and Maclean, “The Evolution of Private Law Maintenance Obligations”.546 LRCC, Maintenance on Divorce.547 Rogerson, “Spousal Support After Moge”.548 Messier v. Delage.549 C. The Evolution of the Law of Spousal Support in Canada Rogerson and Thompson, “The Canadian Experiment with Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines” (2011) 45 FLQ 241 at 241-248.552 Note: The Supreme Court of Canada “Trilogy”.555 Pelech v. Pelech.555 Richardson v. Richardson.564 Moge v. Moge.571 Rogerson, “The Canadian Law of Spousal Support”.586 Bracklowv. Bracklow.588 Leskun v. Leskun.599 D. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Rogerson and Thompson, “The Canadian Experiment with Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines” (“Developing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines”) (2011) 45 FLQ 241 at 249-251 .608 Rogerson and Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, (Dept, of Justice, Canada, July 2008), Executive Summary.610 Rogerson and Thompson, “The Canadian Experiment with Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines” (“The Early Response and Use of the SSAG”) (2011) 45 FLQ 241 at 249-251 614 E. Some Without Child Support Examples Rogerson and Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, extracts from ch. 7 (The Without Child Support Formula),.617 Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA, 46 R.F.L. (6th) 235.621 Rogerson and Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, extracts • from ch. 12 (Exceptions, Illness and Disability).637 F. Some With Child Support Examples Andrews v. Andrews.:.640 Rogerson and Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, extracts 11 from ch. 8 (The With Child Support Formula).644 Bildy v. Bildy.647 G. Assessment of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Rogerson and Thompson, “The Canadian Experiment with Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines” (“An Early Assessment of the Advisory Guidelines”) (2011) 45 FLQ 241 at 261-269.650 H. Variation of Spousal Support Rogerson and Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, extracts from ch. 14 (Variation, Review, Remarriage and Second Families).655 VIII. DOMESTIC CONTRACTS A. Introduction: Contracting in the Family Context Balfour v. Balfour.661 Harper’s Magazine, “Conditional Love”.661 O’Donovan, “Reforming the Private” from Sexual Divisions in Law.662 Mnookin, “Divorce Bargaining: the Limits on Private Ordering”.665 Note: The Religious Marriage Contracts.668 Epstein and Madsen, “Comment on Nasin v. Nasin”, Family Law Newsletter, May 27, 2008, FAMLNWS 2008-21 [Westlaw Canada].668 Nathoo v. Nathoo, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2720 (B.C.S.C.).669 Kaddoura v. Hammoud (1998), 44 R.F.L. (4th) 228 (Ont. Gen. Div.).671 B. Limits on Contracting out of Family Law Entitlements Introductory Note.675 Miglin v. Miglin. 678 Note: Hartshorne v. Hartshorne; Rickv. Brandsema...704 Rogerson, “The Legacy of Miglin: Some Preliminary Thoughts” (Draft).707 C. Setting Aside Agreements: Inadequate Disclosure and the General Principles of Contract Law Hovius, Family Law, Introductory Note.718 (a) Inadequate Disclosure LeVan v. LeVan, 2008 ONCA, 51 R.F.L. (6th) 237 (Ont.C.A.).719 (b) The Law of Contract: Unconscionability Note: Unconscionability.728 Rosen v. Rosen.728 Rick v. Brandsema, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 295,62 R.F.L.(6lh) 239.731 Leopold v. Leopold..739 Note: D’Andrade v. Schrage, 2011 CarswellOnt 1292 (Ont.S.C.).744 IX. CHILD SUPPORT Introduction: Principles of Child Support Eekelaar and Maclean, “The Evolution of Private Law Maintenance Obligations”.747 Eekelaar, “Maintenance and Children” from Family Law and Social Policy.748 Paras v. Paras.750 Rogerson, “Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act”.751 Lucas v. Lucas.752 The Child Support Guidelines (CSG) (a) Introduction and Overview Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, Summary Report and Recommendations on Child Support.755 Government of Canada, The New Child Support Package, (March 6, 1996).757 Note: Federal and Provincial Guidelines.760 (b) High Earners: Incomes over $150,000 Francis v. Baker.762 Note: Subsequent Cases on High Earners {Simon, Tauber, R.v.R).770 (c) Determining Income Lavergne v. Lavergne (2007), 40 R.F.L. (6th) 239 (Alta. C.A.).772 Odendahl v. Brule.776 Montgomery v. Montgomery.778 Note: Van Gool, Donovan, Hunt-Smolis.782 Dry gal a v. Pauli.783 Thompson, “Slackers, Shirkers and Career Changers: Imputing Income for the Under/Unemployed”.787 (d) Section 7—Special and Extraordinary Expenses Note: 2006 Amendment, s. 7(1.1).790 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin.790 Note: Proposed Changes to Section 7 Expenses in Five Year Review.805 Simpson v. Trowsdale (2007), 34 R.F.L. (6th) 332 (P.E.I. S.C.-T.D.).805 (e) Undue Hardship—Section 10 Schenkeveld v. Shenkeveld.815 Gaetzv. Gaetz. 818 Thompson, “Case Comment: Gaetz v. Gaetz”.822 (f) Shared Custody—Section 9 Introductory Note.824 Mehling v. Mehling (2008), 62 R.F.L.(6U|) 25 (Man.C.A.).824 Froom v. Froom.831 Contino v. Leonelli-Contino.831 IV Thompson, Annotation to Contino.847 Note: Proposed Changes to the Shared Custody Provisions.852 (g) Contracting Out of the Guidelines Note.853 Gobeil v. Gobeil, 2007 MBCA, 212 Man. R. (2d) 140 (Man. C.A.).853 Note: Greene v. Greene, 2010 BCCA 595.859 (h) Retroactive Child Support D.B.S. v. S.R.G..861 Huddart, “SCC’s decision on annual disclosure threaten’s children’s Interests” Lawyers Weekly, September 22, 2006.878 Note: Mandatory Annual Disclosure of Income under the Ontario CSG.879 Osborne and Williams, “Lower income women benefit from support recalculation service” Lawyers Weekly, June 9, 2007.879 Note: Recalculation of Child Support in Ontario.881 C. Entitlement to Child Support: Who is a Parent? Who is a Child? Children Over the Age of Majority Bala and Feehan, “Child Support for Adult Children: When Does Economic Childhood End?” Queen’s Faculty of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper, Working Paper No. 08-01 (April 23, 2008).883 Rebenchukv. Rebenchuk (2007), 35 R.F.L. (6th) 239 (Man. C.A.).887 Bala and Feehan, “Child Support for Adult Children: When Does Economic Childhood End?”.900 Schmitz, “Lawyers debate injecting ‘fault’ back into adult child support” Lawyers Weekly, June 23, 2006.903 Moore-Orlowski v. Johnston [2006] S.J. No. 389 (Sask. Q.B.).905 (b) In Loco Parentis Bala and Thomas, “Who is a ‘Parent’? ‘Standing in the Place of a Parent’ and Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, s. 5” Queen’s Faculty of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 07-11 (July 12, 2007). 910 Char tier v. Chartier. 914 Bala and Thomas, “Who is a ‘Parent’? ‘Standing in the Place of a Parent’ and Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, s. 5” extract on “Standing in the Place of a Parent after Chartier”. .922 Note: Assessing Support Against a Stepparent Under the Guidelines. .924 H. (U. V.) v. H. (M. W.) (2008), 59 R.F.L. (6th) 25 (B.C.C.A.). .925 Note: Pigeau v. Pigeau, 2009 CarswellOnt 2102 (Ont. S.C.J.) .934