children | Purvis Culbert Law

First Major Changes to Divorce Act since 1985

Posted on 1 June 2018 by Tim Culbert

On May 22, 2018 the Federal Government introduced Bill C-78, which proposes changes to the Divorce Act. The proposed amendment would be the first significant revision to the Divorce Act since its enactment in 1985.

The changes to the Divorce Act are designed to implement a more “child-focused” approach to family law disputes, rather than an adversarial approach. By removing language like “custody” and “access,” and encouraging dispute resolution, the Act is designed to better promote the interests of the child.

The Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould, summarizes the changes as follows:

(a) replace terminology related to custody and access with terminology related to parenting;

(b) establish a non-exhaustive list of criteria with respect to the best interests of the child;

(c) create duties for parties and legal advisers to encourage the use of family dispute resolution processes;

(d) introduce measures to assist the courts in addressing family violence;

(e) establish a framework for the relocation of a child; and

(f) simplify certain processes, including those related to family support obligations.

If this Bill passes in the House of Commons, the legislation will likely come into force in 2019.

Thus far, most family law practitioners and commentators view the proposed changes positively. However, some state the impact of these amendments will depend on how courts across Canada would apply the new provisions. We note that the common-law in Canada already requires the courts to apply a “child-centric” test and only consider the “best interests of the child” when making decisions regarding custody and access (or “parenting time” rather) (Young v. Young, [1993] S.C.J. No. 112). However, the proposed changes to the terminology should help reduce the “win/lose” mentality of many individuals involved in family law disputes.

To view Bill C-78 in its entirety, check out the link below:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-78/first-reading

To view the Divorce Act (1985), check out the link below:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/page-1.html

Child Support: Can I just pay the child directly?

Posted on 8 March 2018 by Tim Culbert

Not a week goes by that I do not hear the question: “can I pay child support directly to him/her (the child)?”. This question is usually followed by a discussion of why he or she (the other parent) is not spending the child support on the child. In this parent’s theory, the other parent is using the child support funds to go on extravagant trips and other luxury items that are not related to the child’s care. Hence, “why can’t I just pay him/her directly? Then atleast I will know that the funds are going toward the intended purpose.”

The answer to this question is that courts rarely allow child support payments to be made directly to a child; it is the exception rather than the rule. Courts in Canada have stated that compelling reasons must exist for payments to be made directly to a child. In Mylrea v. Benoit, 2003 CanLII 1975 (ON SC), the Ontario Superior Court responded as follows to a father’s request to set up a trust to pay child support directly to the children:

[31] Mr. Mylrea requests the right to limit the amount of child support that goes directly to Ms. Benoit to the sum of $248.00 each month, with the balance to be paid into a trust account for the benefit of the children. Again, even if I were inclined to do that – and I am not in the least – authority prevents me from doing so. In Simon v. Simon (2000) 1999 CanLII 3818 (ON CA), 1 RFL (5^th) 119 (Ont.C.A.), MacPherson, J.A., in delivering the judgment of the court, said this (at page 134 of the Report):

——-

It may be that in some cases a court imposed trust to secure funds for a child’s future care and education would be appropriate. However, in my view, absent a good reason for imposing a trust, the court should not do so. The presumption should be that a custodial parent will do his or her best to provide for both the child’s immediate needs and his or her future care and education. Unless there is strong evidence establishing the need for a trust (e.g. the misuse of support payments by the custodial parent) I see no reason to interfere with the way in which the parent balances the present and future needs of the child in his or her custody.

(emphasis added)

In L. B. L. v. S. B., 2010 NBQB 339 (CanLII), Justice Walsh of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick dealt with a situation where the payor mother was attempting to create her own system of child support payments to her child on the grounds that the father wasted funds meant for the child:

[65] On the totality of the evidence it is clear that the mother cannot stand the thought of paying child support directly to the father, despite the absence of any cogent evidence that the father was wasting the sums that he did receive through garnishment. By any means, by any claim, the mother has now sought to create her own system, to permit her to directly support or reward the children for her own purposes, to ignore the law’s requirements. The receipted claims she made in this case and the claims she has filed with Revenue Canada constitute clear evidence of her present approach. The irony is that the vast majority of the arrears that were terminated in May 2009 were for a period when the mother was having little, if any, contact with the children, and the children would appear to have forever lost this money owed to them (See: Beninger v. Beninger 2009 BCCA 145 (CanLII)).

[66] In these circumstances I apply Swiderski v. Dussault:

While D.B.S. [v. S.R.G. et. al., 2006 SCC 37 (CanLII)] at para. 109, opens the theoretical possibility that the payor parent can justify himself by showing total payments equivalent to the Guidelines amounts, this, I suggest, presupposes candour, openness and satisfactory proof of the amounts. None is present in this case.

There are at least two reasons why payors should not be able to create their own support regimes. The first is that the receiving parent usually has custody, and must be the one to make decisions about the child’s expenditures. A private unilateral scheme operated by the payor can be a method of control which undermines the authority of the custodial parent. The second reason is that the payor is in sole possession of the information about direct payments. Unless the payor is forthcoming about such payments in a timely way, the payee is at the mercy of the payor’s record-keeping …

(2009 BCCA 461 (CanLII),at paras. 38, 39) (emphasis added)

These cases stand for the proposition that child support is meant to maintain a child’s permanent home and to cover the incidentals that a custodial parent provides to a child (see Armaz v. van Erp, 2000 CanLII 22585 (ON SC) ). I often explain it this way to clients: just think of how much you might spend on the children or other incidentals if you were still living in the same home with the other parent. Wouldn’t it likely be more than you are spending right now? And regardless of whether these funds go directly toward the children or not, there are certain expenses the other parent must pay to keep the children’s quality of life similar to what they would have experienced if you were living with the children, correct?

As stated earlier, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as when the parents’ relationship is extremely acrimonious and the child lives away at school (see B. (T.T.) v. D. (P.H.), 2014 NBQB 164).

Curious Case: Bruni v. Bruni – A “how not” to behave in a family law dispute by being “one dimensional problem solvers”

Posted on 14 September 2017 by Tim Culbert

In this week’s installment of our Curious Case series, we take a look at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568. As stated in our last curious case post here, real life is often stranger than fiction. This is one of those cases where even the Judge in this case could not withhold his frustrations with the ways in which these parties interacted with one another. While entertaining, the Judge’s comments throughout this case serve as a stern warning to family law litigants to have some modicum of respect for one another.

Background:

Catherine and Larry Bruni separated in 2010 after an 11 year marriage. While in committed relationships with other people, the two separated individuals absolutely loathed one another. There was nothing out of bounds for this couple, from death threats to alienating their children, B and T, against each other.

Details:

Larry sought to set aside the child support provisions in their separation agreement because he felt that Catherine’s partner, Sam, was able to support her and the children. Larry also sought an equalization of net family property. As later stated by the Judge, Larry neglected to read the entire Separation Agreement resulting in disadvantages such as, property rights, rights to his children, and even the rights to independent legal advice.

Catherine responded by requesting variation of the separation agreement by amending child support and access provisions, seeking spousal support, and acquiring contributions to extraordinary expenses.

Catherine would often threaten Larry by stating that “the Hell’s Angels would be knocking on his door at any moment” or that” her family members were on their way to kill him”. She even took matters into her own hands by trying to run him over with her vehicle.

On the other hand, Sandra, Larry’s significant other, refused to allow B to contact her mother while in the care of her and Larry, stating that Larry’s time with his children was his and not Catherine’s.

Furthermore, Justice Quinn noted at paragraph 70 of his decision that “[o]n 14 occasions, within 18 months, the parties drew the police into their petty disagreements — a sad commentary on their inability to get along and a shocking abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service.”

During their trial, Catherine and her partner, Sam, continuously uttered threats in the court room directed towards Larry.

Outcome:

The Judge dismissed Larry’s requests and partially allowed Catherine’s requests by making small changes to the Separation Agreement including typographical errors and the amendments to the amount of child support Larry had to pay.

The judge felt that it had been Larry’s responsibility to read the entire Separation Agreement before signing, and it is due to his own neglect that he is now facing these misfortunes.

JUDGES NOTES WORTH READING:

“A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.”
“When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.”
“I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.”
It takes a special level of audacity to utter threats under the roof of the Court House.
I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.
My personal favourite excerpt, which is quoted in full:

[15] Some family trees have more barren branches than others.

[16] Larry testified about the many death threats he received from Catherine and members of her family around the time of, and in the months following, separation. I will mention some of them.

[17] In September of 2006, Larry went to live with his father “for a couple of days” to “clear my head”. When he returned to the matrimonial home, the locks had been changed. Larry stated in evidence: “Catherine didn’t want me on the property and her family threatened to have me killed.” [page260]

[18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine “Tried to run me over with her van.” [See Note 6 below]

[19] On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from Larry or her brother was “going to get the Hells Angels after me”. [See Note 7 below]

[20] On February 9, 2007, Catherine told Larry that she wanted him to sign adoption papers so that Sam could adopt their children. [See Note 8 below] Said Larry, “She threatened me with her brothers and Hells Angels again.”

[21] On August 13, 2007, Catherine’s niece (Donna), telephoned Larry “and told me I will get a bullet in my head if I don’t sign the adoption papers. She called back later and told me I’m as good as dead.” She called a third time, “to tell me her father and uncles are coming to kill me”. [See Note 9 below]

[22] The next day, Catherine telephoned Larry and said that she “wanted my truck or her brother and the Hells Angels are coming to get it and me”.

[23] On October 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added. According to Larry, “Donna Taylor, Catherine’s sister-in-law, yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.”

[24] As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one- dimensional problem solvers.

If you’re interested in taking a look at this curious case for yourself, here’s the link to the full decision!

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc6568/2010onsc6568.html

Amendments to Family Services Act in NB Considers Grandparents in Custody Matters

Posted on 28 July 2017 by Tim Culbert

The New Brunswick Government recently amended Section 129(3) of the Family Services Act to consider other parties, including grandparents’ access to their children. Section 129(3) of the Act used to state that “upon application the court may order that either parent or any person shall have access to a child”. The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench referred to this section in cases such as, G.G. v. J.W., 2008 NBQB 338 and Morecraft v. Morecraft (1991), 122 NBR (2d) 271 regarding whether grandparents have rights to access their granchildren. In GG, supra, Madam Justice D’Entremont referred to Morecraft, which stated “[t]here is no automatic right of access to third parties“. In an earlier post (see here), I noted the difficulty the wording of section 129(3) posed to questions regarding grandparent’s access to their grandchildren.

On May 5, 2017, the New Brunswick Government passed the bill–An Act to Amend the Family Services Act. This Act essentially replaces the current section 129(3) with the following:

129(3)Repealed: 2017, c.22, s.1

129(3.1)On application, the court may order, on the basis of the best interests of the child, that either parent, a grandparent, another member of the child’s immediate family or any other person shall have access to a child, whether or not an order for custody has been made with respect to the child.

129(3.2)An order under subsection (3.1) shall be made subject to the terms and conditions that the court determines.

129(3.3)On application by a grandparent or another member of the child’s immediate family, other than a parent or guardian, the court shall take into consideration the willingness of each parent or guardian of the child to facilitate access and the need for making an order for access.

129(3.4)An order under subsection (3.1) may provide that access be exercised in the form of visits, oral or written communication or by any other means of communication.

129(3.5)The court may vary or discharge an order under subsection (3.1) at any time.

These amendments broaden the items a judge must consider when making an order for access to a child to “grandparents” and “another member of the child’s immediate family.” In addition, section 129(3.4) specifies that access may be through visits or other means of communication (likely email, Facetime, Skype, etc.) These are likely welcomed changes for grandparents who have, until now, not been explicitly mentioned. As stated in my post <a href=”https://www.purvisculbertlaw.ca/proposed-changes-to-family-services-act-in-new-brunswick-to-consider-role-of-grandparents/”>here</a>, however, how these amendments affect grandparent’s access to their grandchildren will depend on how courts in New Brunswick interpret and apply these provisions in future

Here are some links to more information on these amendments:

– Copy of An Act to Amend the Family Services Act: https://www.gnb.ca/legis/bill/pdf/58/3/Bill-49.pdf

– Link to status of the bills in NB Legislature: https://www1.gnb.ca/legis/bill/print-e.asp?legi=58&num=3&page=4

– Link to current version of the Family Services Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/laws/stat/snb-1980-c-f-2.2/latest/snb-1980-c-f-2.2.html

Have you taken the “For the Sake of the Children” course?

Posted on 12 July 2017 by Tim Culbert

Separation and divorce can be painful and confusing for all parties involved. This is especially true for the children of separating couples.

It is important to recognize that you are not the only one hurting while you are going through a divorce. Children often get caught up in arguments and discussions between parents. For the Sake of the Children offers an informative program that helps to educate separating parents about the impact of certain actions on their children. The program reminds us that children are aware of more than we sometimes realize and that it can be very difficult for them to process painful and confusing information, in a healthy way, without the proper support and guidance. In addition, it can be difficult for parents to avoid the temptation to involve their children in their disagreements. For the Sake of the Children can help you to put your differences aside and focus on what really matters–the children!

In Manitoba, it is mandatory for separating parents seeking custody agreements to attend a similar educational program. Here in New Brunswick, however, the program is offered for free to any interested party, but it is not mandatory.

I have personally seen how parents justify using their children as pawns in their battle against eachother. It is not pretty and will ultimately not endear you to a Judge. Remember the words of Ontario Judge Alex Pazaratz in a previous post here.

See below to view the instructional videos shown during the For the Sake of the Children program:

Children: The Experts on Divorce (15 minutes)

https://vimeo.com/11106924

Divorce and Separation: Legal Considerations (19:44 minutes)

https://vimeo.com/11106951

Vignette #1: Miguel (The Messenger) (7 :27 min.)

https://vimeo.com/10556768

Vignette #2: Nathan (The Exchange) (3 :00 min.)

https://vimeo.com/10556790

Vignette #3: Denise (The Haircut) (6 :39 min.)

https://vimeo.com/10556698

Vignette #4: Jessie (Mom’s house – Dad’s house) (9:41 min.)

https://vimeo.com/10556748

For more information, or to register for the program, check out the following links:

For discussion:

Should For the Sake of the Children or a similar program be made mandatory for parents who wish to separate in New Brunswick?
Can you think of any issues that may arise with requiring all parents to attend the program before separating and implementing custodial agreements?

It’s a Terrible Life: People involved in custody disputes should heed this Ontario Judge’s words!

Posted on 11 March 2016 by Tim Culbert

1. Justice Alex Pazaratz, an Ontario judge known for his candid and creative writing style, recently blasted two parents involved in a bitter custody dispute over spending a combined $500,000 during the course of the custody litigation when the issues could have easily been resolved between the parties years earlier. Here is a link to a Toronto Sun article referring to this case:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/09/judge-blasts-warring-parents-who-squandered-500000-on-custody-battle

A copy of this case, entitled Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72 (CanLII), is available for free here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc72/2016onsc72.html?resultIndex=1

2. I recommend all individuals thinking about embarking on a custody battle read this case, especially the following comments made by Judge Pararatz:

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

759 This was the worst type of custody case.

a.The evidence focussed on the bad rather than the good.

b. On who shouldn’t get custody, rather than who should.

c. We spent 36 days debating which parent we have to guard against.

d. Rather than focussing on how we protect and reassure a little girl who didn’t want her parents to be doing any of this.

e. That could have been a brief, pleasant and productive discussion.

760 There’s no doubt the Respondent will be deeply disappointed with the result.

761 But I’m disappointed too. As judges, we all are.

762 Somehow, no matter how hard we try, we don’t seem to be getting the message out to separating parents:

a. Nasty doesn’t work.

b. Withholding the child doesn’t work.

c. Sarcastic e-mails don’t work.

d. Bad-mouthing the other parent doesn’t work.

e. Twisting the child’s life to create a new status quo…doesn’t work.

f. Selfish decisions which may be emotionally satisfying in the short term, never look good in a courtroom.

763 In the classic Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” there’s an extended fantasy sequence where Jimmy Stewart anguishes over had badly things would have turned out if he’d made a reckless, impulsive decision.

764 Perhaps family court should fund an instructional movie about this type of custody battle. “It’s a Terrible Life.” There could be a fantasy sequence about how happy a child might have been. If only…

3. Other notable quotes from Judge Pazaratz quoted by Michele Mandal in the Toronto Sun article are as follows:

Justice Alex Pazaratz’s judgments are considered a must-read by family lawyers.

His literary prowess can be traced back to his days as a newspaper intern before entering law school. A few of his compelling quotes:

“Breaking Bad, meet Breaking Bad Parents,” he wrote about another case in 2014. “The former is an acclaimed fictional TV show … The latter is a sad reality show playing out in family courts across the country.

“Breaking Bad Parents: When smart, loving, caring, sensible mothers and fathers suddenly lose their parental judgment and embark on relentless, nasty litigation, oblivious to the impact on their children.

“Spoiler Alert,” Pazaratz continued. “The main characters in both of these tragedies end up pretty much the same. Miserable. Financially ruined. And worst of all, hurting the children they claimed they were protecting.”