FOR A CONSULTATION, CALL: 4 1 6 - 5 9 1 - 1 3 5 4

Category: toronto divorce

Home › toronto divorce

By Thomas J. MacLennan

Navigating the complexities of family law can be extremely emotionally challenging. It is also one of the most legally intricate experiences of your life. Whether you’re dealing with divorce, child custody, spousal support, or property division, these decisions can impact your future. They can have long-term effects on your life. They can also affect the well-being of your loved ones. It is tempting to handle these matters on your own. You can also opt for a less experienced lawyer to save costs. Yet, hiring an experienced family law lawyer in Ontario can offer invaluable benefits. These benefits far outweigh the investment. Here’s why:

1. In-Depth-Knowledge of Ontario Family Law

Family law in Ontario is governed by a complex web of statutes, case law, and procedural rules. An experienced family law lawyer deeply understands the Family Law Act. They are knowledgeable about the Divorce Act and other relevant legislation. They stay up-to-date with changes in the law and know how to apply it to your unique situation. This skill ensures that your rights are protected and that you get the best possible outcome.

2. Personalized Legal Strategy

Every family law case is unique, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. An experienced lawyer will take the time to understand your specific circumstances, goals, and concerns. They will craft a tailored legal strategy that aligns with your needs. This strategy is effective whether you’re seeking an amicable resolution through negotiation or preparing for a contentious court battle.

3. Protection of Your Rights and Interests

Family law matters often involve high stakes. Issues like parenting and the division of significant assets can be complex. The payment or receipt of support also presents challenges. An experienced lawyer will ensure that your rights are upheld and that you are treated fairly throughout the process. They will advocate fiercely on your behalf, whether in mediation, arbitration, or court.

4. Guidance Through Emotional Challenges

Family law disputes are inherently emotional. It can be difficult to make clear-headed decisions when you’re dealing with the stress of a separation or divorce. An experienced family law lawyer acts as a steady guide. They give unbiased advice. This helps you avoid impulsive decisions that harm your case. They offer reassurance and clarity during a time of uncertainty.

5. Efficient Resolution of Your Case

Family law matters can drag on for months or even years if not handled properly. An experienced lawyer knows how to navigate the legal system efficiently, avoiding unnecessary delays and procedural missteps. They can help you explore other dispute-resolution techniques. These include mediation or collaborative law. This approach can save time, money, and emotional energy.

6. Strong Negotiation Skills

Many family law cases are resolved outside of court through negotiation. An experienced lawyer is a skilled negotiator who can advocate for your interests while maintaining a professional and respectful tone. They know how to achieve a fair settlement that meets your needs without escalating conflict.

7. Courtroom Experience

If your case does go to court, having an experienced litigator by your side is crucial. They understand courtroom procedures, know how to show evidence effectively, and can foresee and counter opposing arguments. Their experience can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.

8. Access to a Network of Experts

Family law cases often need feedback from other professionals, like financial experts, appraisers, or child psychologists. An experienced family law lawyer has a network of trusted experts. They can call upon these professionals to strengthen your case. These experts offer valuable insights.

9. Cost-Effective in the Long Run

Hiring an experienced lawyer seems like a significant expense upfront. Still, it can save you money in the long run. They can help you avoid costly mistakes. They make sure that support payments and property divisions are calculated correctly. They also prevent unnecessary litigation. Their skill can lead to a more efficient and favorable resolution.

10. Peace of Mind

The most significant advantage of hiring an experienced family law lawyer is the peace of mind. You know your case is in capable hands. You can focus on rebuilding your life and caring for your family while your lawyer handles the legal complexities.

Final Thoughts

Family law matters are too important to leave to chance. By hiring an experienced family law lawyer in Ontario, you gain a trusted advocate. This advocate will fight for your rights. They will protect your interests. They will guide you through one of the most challenging times of your life. At [Your Law Firm’s Name], we are committed to providing compassionate, knowledgeable, and effective legal representation to families across Ontario. If you’re facing a family law issue, don’t hesitate to reach out. Let us help you navigate the path ahead with confidence and clarity.

0

By Thomas J. MacLennan

I recently came across a study about the impact of the recession on family life, The State of our Unions, Marriage in America 2009: Money and Marriage. The study was released by the University of Virginia (click here for a PDF file).

The author of the stufy suggests that economic stress has made American marriages slightly more stable overall, as couples develop a “new appreciation for the economic and social support that marriage can provide in tough times”. Is this a nice way of saying that people are staying together for their creditors? How much fun can that be?

Having suggested that the recession might not be so devastating to American families, the study nonetheless expresses concern that the recession’s job losses have been heavily concentrated among working class men, who may not be equipped to make a smooth adjustment to playing stay-at-home dads while their wives support the family. So perhaps things aren’t so rosy for American families, after all.

Furthermore, although divorce rates in the U.S. are down slightly, the decrease can be explained by falling marriage rates. This is consistent with a trend we have seen in Canada over the past couple of decades away from marriage to cohabitation. Unfortunately, Canadian social studies suggest that families without the benefit of marriage and its commitment are at higher risk for separation.

The reality is that a financial stress like a recession places all families at risk.

0

By Thomas J. MacLennan

With the economy in a free fall, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s (OCA) decision in Serra v. Serra could not be more timely. The OCA decision reversed the trial court’s judgment and replaced it with an order requiring the husband to make a lesser payment to his wife to resolve the property claim under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The decision allows litigants to pursue an unequal division of net family property where market driven forces cause a decrease in the post separation value of assets.

Modern family law reflects a social policy of recognizing spouses equal contributions towards marriage by dividing family property equally. Ontario’s family property law differs from many jurisdictions because it uses a fixed date valuation approach to achieve that underlying policy. For most purposes, that date is the separation date.

Ontario courts had been reluctant to look beyond the separation date by either valuing assets ‘in hindsight’ or considering a post-separation value in an application for an unequal division. They did so because of the desire for certainty in resolving cases.

In the Serra case:

  • the husband’s business was worth between 9 and 11 million dollars at separation.
  • At trial 7 years later his assets had declined in value so that his net worth was perhaps 2 million.
  • Nonetheless, the trial judge found that she had no authority under Ontario’s Family Law Act to order a lesser equalization payment. The trial court ordered the husband to pay his wife an equalization based on the value of his business at separation — twice as much as his net worth at trial.

The OCA has clarified that a non-fault, market driven decline in the value of equalized assets is sufficient for the courts to consider making an award for an unequal division of property.

In one part of the decision, the OCA suggests that a temporary market decline of shares or securities would not meet the test of unconscionability. However, does this apply to a spouse’s RRSP savings, especially where it is not uncommon to see a loss of value exceeding 30 percent in this market? These are expensive issues for spouses that separated in 2007 or earlier, but who are only now effecting equalization payments.

The Court of Appeal relied on section 5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act, which says:

5(6) The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to…

(h) any other circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 5 (6).

Up until the Serra decision, the titled spouse was largely the insurer of the other party’s equalization claim in the face of market driven reductions. Now, market driven forces are “other circumstances” relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property.

In the face of declining markets, will the propertied spouse rush to make a transfer of assets vulnerable to reduction in value? Should he or she do so? The Family Law Act does not permit trial judges to make specific transfers of property in satisfaction of equalization payments.

Before making an order for an unequal division, a trial court must be of the opinion that an equalization will be “unconscionable”. The Court of Appeal noted the standard is more than simply “unfair”, “harsh”, or “unjust” alone but must “shock the conscience of the court”.

Of interest in the Serra decision:

  1. The Court’s ruling that unconscionability need not be based on fault based conduct;
  2. Despite the Court’s discussion of the absence in fault, it seemed to penalize the wife in her conduct of the litigation, and specifically the preservation orders and support orders obtained by her and which required the husband to hold on to his failing business to meet his obligations under the court orders;
  3. The OCA held that in fashioning an unequal division, the trial court should exercise its “normal discretion”, and not simply make an award that was shy of unconscionable; and
  4. yet the OCA gave very little insight about how it exercised its discretion when it declined to saddle the wife with the entire downside of the business decline.

The OCA really did not touch upon an interesting element of the trial. The fact that the husband had admitted the wife’s claim for a one-half interest in the business, that she subsequently withdrew on the eve of trial. Had the trial court allowed the admission, the wife would have been saddled with one-half of the decline in the business value, as she would have owned half of it.

Many practitioners feel there is enough in the Serra decision to allow litigants to pursue post-separation swings in the value of assets. Whether that will be applied to upswings in value will likely not be seen for years (given the recent market trends), and the extent to which trial judges will allow such claims is yet to be seen.

0

Call to Arrange a Consultation

Thomas J. MacLennan brings a sense of calm and rationality to challenging legal issues. Contact The Law Office of Thomas J. MacLennan through our online form or call 416-591-1354 to arrange a consultation.





    Sending this message does not create a solicitor and client relationship