Bhamra v. Bhamra is an example of a case that you don’t see very often: one that seems to be a complete waste of time and money.

The case dealt with two issues — property equalization and spousal support — after a relatively short (6 year) marriage. If both parties had been willing, their dispute could have been resolved during an afternoon settlement meeting. Instead, they fought about many minor valuation and property issues, and a modest spousal support claim against a payor spouse who made no more than $20,000.00 per year.

The parties dispute took up 8 days of trial — almost two weeks — resulting in an order that the wife pay the husband an equalization payment of about $3,200.00 and that the husband pay the wife $5,000.00 in spousal support. A net gain to the wife of $1,800.00 (until one considers the costs of paying two lawyers for four years).

It seems obvious that there were “unresolved emotions” stemming from the parties’ 2006 separation. At separation, the wife charged the husband with assault, and he was removed from the home. Then, the husband’s parents kicked the wife out of the home, too. Four years later they were fighting over minor issues.

There is not a lot of law in this case. Just misery.

The case of Boucher v. Boucher raises interesting issues about “without prejudice” temporary support orders, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) and the circumstances under which a court will change a temporary spousal support order.

Temporary spousal support orders are made to maintain litigants pending a trial. Orders such as these can be changed usually require a ‘material change in circumstances’. But what about a consent order made early in the litigation and clearly made “without prejudice” to either parties’ rights?

In Boucher, the parties marriage was 18 years. After separation, the parties entered into a temporary without prejudice support order of $2,000.00 per month in July 2009. Eight months later the wife returned to court requesting an increase. The wife had not anticipated large legal fees related to pending criminal charges.

At the March 2o10, an application of the SSAG placed the husband’s monthly support obligation (based on a conservative view of his income) from between $10,000.00 and $12,000.00 per month. However, Justice Hennessy resisted applying the SSAG to changing the temporary order because the wife knew the husband’s income when she entered into the July 2009 consent. Justice Hennessy made a moderate change to the temporary order by increasing the spousal support to $4,000.00 per month.

One can see the balancing of interests here — the desire to make a less intrusive order meant to maintain the parties to trial, while applying the appropriate level of support (where clearly, the wife had made an improvident agreement in July 2009). The “without prejudice” element of the July 2009 order was clearly taken by Justice Hennessy to apply to the trial proceedings and not further temporary motions. At the end of the day, and given the high likelihood that a trial judge may make a retroactive spousal support order adjusted for the appropriate amount under the SSAG, the husband’s victory at the motion may be short lived.

Had the motion to change been about child support rather than spousal support the outcome would have been much different. A motions court judge would have been required to order order full guideline child support based on the husband’s income.

Cassidy v. McNeil is an interesting case from Ontario’s Court of Appeal and deals with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG“). The case also deals with a trial judge’s duty to provide adequate written reasons for his or her decisions.

The trial judge ordered the husband to pay the wife spousal support of $1,200.00 per month for five years.

The lawyers who argued the appeal were not the same as trial counsel. Unfortunately, trial counsel failed to file and mark as exhibits the SSAG calculations used at trial.

The absence of a trial record was compounded by the brevity of the trial judge’s written reasons. The trial judge failed to deal with the issue of entitlement in his reasons, and simply noted that the wife had a need for support.

The Court of Appeal therefore used its own analysis of the SSAG and varied the trial judge’s decision to lower the spousal support to $950.00 per month, but made the order indefinite (given the ages of the parties and the length of the marriage).

Ontario’s Divisional Court upheld a temporary order requiring a husband to pay a wife spousal support of $110,000.00 per month. The spousal support award was reported in the news as the highest award in Canadian history.

The case is Elgner v. Elgner.

The focus of the appeal court is different from the motions court that made the award. In the appellate case, the focus was on whether there was an automatic right to an appeal in light of the provisions of the Divorce Act. The appellate court found there was no automatic right of appeal and that leave to appeal had to be granted.

The appellate court considered the test for granting leave to appeal an ‘interlocutory’ order under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act: whether there was a conflicting decision in Ontario, or where there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and the matter was of public importance.

The appellate court did not agree that there was a conflicting decision.

As for doubting the correctness of the decision, the appellate court held that temporary spousal support orders should be adjusted at trial rather than re-argued on appeal.

Family law cases have as their hallmark complete financial disclosure. If litigants have enough information, they can settle their disputes.

That principle usually operates in sync with some other fundamental principles, including:

• Proceedings should be brought on notice;
• Decisions should be based on evidence.

Simple enough? Apparently not.

In the case of Stuyt v. Stuyt, a wife obtained a court order striking the husband’s Answer (his defense) because she alleged that he defaulted in providing financial disclosure. The problem was that she obtained the order without notice to the husband, without disclosing all the facts to the motions judge, and without filing any evidence (such as a sworn affidavit) to support the relief. Clearly, the motions judge should not have made the order, but it took two years of wasted resources and wasted time (including an undefended trial) before the Court of Appeal corrected the error and sent everything back to the trial judge.

To what extent excessive and aggressive lawyering contributed to the two year court odyssey is unknown. At the end of the two years, the parties’ were no closer to a resolution.

Family law cases, like other disputes, are often shaped because of one party’s missteps and mistakes. One wonders to what extent the wife will wish to continue with her claims, or to what extent she will discount them in order to bring the Stuyt matter to a conclusion.

28 year old California lawyer Wajahat Ali, fought an epic battle for a home loan modification against Wells Fargo and won…Eventually.

His story is a well-written and terrifying look into the financial crisis, the state of America’s megabanks, and how homeowners in need seemingly stand no chance against the towering indifference, incompetence and confusion of those megabanks.

It is also a piece about how the passion and tenacity of a young lawyer (or any lawyer) can make all the difference in the lives of his or her clients — to empower the powerless and not the powerful.

For lawyers, Ali’s epic struggle to save his client’s home is an inspiration.

It seems like Parental Alienation Syndrome is in full bloom these days. Just this past week we read the story of