Judges expect court orders to be obeyed. (Photo courtesy of SXC; all rights reserved.)
Toronto Family Law Lawyer Pei-Shing B. Wang
It seems lately that the courts are cracking down on those who disregard court orders. For example, as I reported last week, a litigant was found criminally in contempt of court and jailed for 30 days.
Now a husband’s case is about to be thrown out of court (legalese: “pleadings struck“) unless he immediately complies with a court order.
The facts are as follows. The husband and the wife separated in 2011. In May 2012, they agreed to a court order that the husband was to pay for household expenses at the matrimonial home, where the wife lives with their four children.*
At the end of October, the husband told the wife that he would be cancelling the utilities and other expenses under his name by early November. The wife confirmed in her sworn written statement (legalese: “affidavit“) that the accounts had been terminated and the home had subsequently been without hydro or heat.
The wife then moved immediately to have the husband’s case tossed out.
In his defence, the husband alleged that the wife had attempted to derail the sale of the matrimonial home and he could no longer afford to pay the expenses. For that reason, he was bringing his own motion to be relieved from paying for the household expenses.
The judge, after carefully considering the parties’ conduct, stated that although both parties bear some responsibility for the current situation in the matrimonial home, the standard for changing a temporary order is high, and an existing court order must be obeyed.
The judge concluded that there had not been a significant change of circumstances for the husband; his income had not changed. The judge concluded that the husband’s cancellation of household utility accounts was an attempt to “self-remedy” the wife’s unreasonableness in preventing the sale of the matrimonial home.
Although the judge found the husband’s conduct “egregious,” in the end the judge did not toss out the husband’s case right away. Rather, the husband was given a last chance to behave himself. The husband was ordered to restore all cancelled accounts. If he doesn’t, then his case will be tossed, and the wife will be able to move forward on the case without the husband’s participation (legalese: “uncontested trial“).
*Ciarlariello v. Iuele-Ciarlariello (22 November 2012) Newmarket, FC-12-520 (Ont. Sup. Ct. (Fam. Ct.)) online: <http://www.advocatedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Endorsement-McDermot-Nov-15-12-00314973.pdf>
This blog is provided for educational purposes and for your reference. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of this article.
“Wallet Dad” Ordered to Keep Paying Tuition of Estranged Daughter
Must a "wallet dad" pay support to an adult child despite a complete breakdown of the parent-child relationship? (Photo courtesy of SXC; all rights reserved.)
According to a recent judgement, even though a man is “nothing more than a wallet” to his adult daughter, he must still pay for her education.*
After his eldest daughter cut him out of her life completely, the father in this case filed an application before the Ontario Superior Court to terminate his contribution to her university tuition.
Judge Gray of the Ontario Superior Court found that the father, while a sympathetic figure, hadn’t been completely blameless in the total ruin of his relationship with his daughters. The rather sad scenario had been the construction of both parents – the mother’s airing of financial grievances before the daughters and the father’s clumsy and rather inappropriate attempt to introduce his new girlfriend to his daughters when they were still children.
Under the Child Support Guidelines, parents who are separated from each other are generally obligated to support their adult children in full-time education, even when parent and child are estranged. At the same time, the judge may consider the factors that have led to a failed parent-child relationship before deciding whether the termination of support is warranted.
In the current case, the judge lamented that the rupture of the relationship was “irrational and could have and should have been avoided.” At the same time, the judge was of the opinion that the evidence fell short of justifying termination of the father’s support obligations towards his daughter. Nonetheless, the judge ordered the adult daughter to contribute 75% of her own income to her education.
Now I’m slightly concerned that, as a result of this order, the daughter will quit her job.
*Veneman v. Veneman, 2012 ONSC 6324 (CanLII) at para. 65
This blog is provided for educational purposes and for your reference. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of this article.