January is a busy time for family law lawyers. People come to me to end their marriages.
It’s not unusual for couples to put on a happy face for the holidays. The year-end socials and gatherings can serve as a welcome distraction to a wobbly marriage. After the holidays, for many, it’s back to the miserable reality. Thus, separation and divorce cases spike in January.
However, before you rush to your lawyer’s office, there are a few things you should consider before you make up your mind. Below are some of the issues that I encounter regularly as a family law lawyer.
Is it really over?
By law, lawyers in Canada have an obligation to inquire whether the marriage can be salvaged before a divorce can be filed.
I once came across a couple who vowed to end their marriage. However, halfway through the process of setting up a parenting plan, they realized that they wouldn’t be better off without each other. They decided to reconcile.
Think about the expenses they could have spared if they had had a candid discussion before rushing to their respective lawyers’ offices. It could have been a vacation or two.
Can you afford a divorce at the moment?
Let’s say you’re in a miserable but tolerable marriage. Before you decide to leave, you should consider whether you can afford to move into your own separate household. (That is to say, expenses ranging from costs of housing to utilities will no longer be shared.) Chances are that the living standard for both you and your spouse will decrease, perhaps quite drastically.
Once you move out of the matrimonial home, there’s no going back. (Unless you decide to reconcile halfway through, which means you completely missed my first point.) Don’t expect that your estranged spouse will merrily fork over support payments. You will need enough money to carry on your life before the negotiation or litigation process begins and reaches its fruition.
How are you going to tell the kids?
A judge once said in a conference, “No kids want to see their parents divorce.” Depending on the age and the maturity of the children, divorce can be traumatic to children’s well-being.
Even if divorce is inevitable, you should consider how the two spouses can (or cannot) be parents together. This will involve setting up a parenting time schedule and discussing the decision-making process between the two spouses.
Don’t let the children stand in the crossfire; seeing their parents split is hard enough for them. Do all you can to shield them from adult conflicts.
Is court the only way to go?
Many people think that litigation is the only way to resolve a broken marriage. But litigation is no longer the norm. More and more people are choosing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to deal with their separation and divorce. For example, mediation and collaborative process have been gaining popularity in recent years.
In fact, the Ontario courts have recently implemented a mandatory information program aiming to educate the litigants about other ways to deal with their matrimonial woes. Speak to your lawyer and ask what options are appropriate for your case.
If you’re thinking about separating from your spouse, give us a call at 416-433-5531. You get to spend up to 90 minutes with the lawyer for $339, tax included.
This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. The law may have changed since the publication of this article. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.
Publication Ban in Williams’s Divorce Is Set Aside
The divorce involving the notorious convicted serial killer Russell Williams has taken another detour in the Court of Appeal.*
Williams’s wife, identified only as M.E.H., obtained a publication ban and a sealing order by motion from the Superior Court of Justice on April 12, 2011. Various media outlets then intervened and appealed the publication ban.+
On January 24, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the challenged provisions under the publication ban, unless the ban is further ordered by the court within 14 days.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly identified the legal principles relating to publication bans and sealing orders. However, the evidence at bar could not support that the order was necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice. Absent that finding, said the Court of Appeal, “the orders could not have been made under the controlling jurisprudence.”
Under the jurisprudence, a publication ban should only be ordered when:
(a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and
(b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.^
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the wife’s right to go to court without fear of harm. “Access to the court should not come at the cost of a substantial risk of serious debilitating emotion or physical harm to the party seeking access,” said the Court of Appeal.
However, in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, the evidence provided by the wife wasn’t enough to justify a sealing order. In particular, the Court of Appeal could not find evidence that the media’s access to items covered by the publication ban would in any way negatively affect the wife’s ability to fully participate in the proceeding. In other words, the dangers of harm claimed by the wife had not been substantiated.
*2012 ONCA 0035
+See my previous post, “On Publication Bans and Sealing Orders in Family Law,” August 17, 2011
^R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, at para. 32
This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. The law may have changed since the publication of this article. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.