DSF Announcements Careers
Pay Bill or Consultation Pay Retainer
Testimonials Blogs
Toronto Barrie Whitby Midland Collingwood Haliburton Other Locations
info@devrylaw.ca

LAWYER SEARCH

Author: 3vW9gGvy

Can Employers Terminate Employees While They are on Leave?

This blog post was written by employment lawyer, Carrie Kennedy in response to the question: “Can employers terminate the employment of an employee while that employee is on pregnancy leave, parental leave, or any other type of leave?” Of course they can. However, doing so may be a costly decision.

The Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), similar to the Canada Labour Code, provides that “upon the conclusion of an employee’s leave under this Part, the employer shall reinstate the employee to the position the employee most recently held with the employer, if it still exists, or to a comparable position, if it does not”. Despite this obligation on an employer to reinstate an employee when a period of leave ends, an employer may terminate that employee’s employment for a number of reasons including: a) the position no longer exists and there are no comparable positions to offer to the employee; b) the employer terminates the employment in compliance with the termination and severance requirements in the applicable legislation; or c) the employer has grounds to dismiss the employee that are completely unrelated to the fact that the employee is on leave.

Both the Canada Labour Code and the ESA both have case law decided under them that clearly state that, while the legislation is designed to protect employees on leave, they are not designed to provide greater rights to employees who go on leave than to other employees. Although an employer may terminate the employment of an employee on leave, employers must be sure not to treat employees who are on leave more poorly than those employees who are not on leave. Often, an employee on leave will believe their rights or protections have been violated if dismissed while on leave and they will seek further compensation from the employer. The termination, therefore, even if part of a corporate reorganization, might come at quite a cost to the employer.

In the recent case of Moday v. Bell Mobility Inc. 2013 CarswellNat 393, Moday, an 11 year employee of Bell Mobility, received a termination letter from Bell Mobility while she was on maternity leave. Bell Mobility argued that, due to downsizing, it had eliminated Moday’s job and all comparable jobs, so there were no comparable positions to which she could return. In this case, Bell Mobility had eliminated about 220 jobs in its reorganization. Although Bell Mobility offered Moday a severance and termination package that exceeded the requirements of the Canada Labour Code, she brought an action against Bell Mobility for wrongful dismissal. The arbitrator dismissed Moday’s complaint. It found that an employer may dismiss someone on leave when the employee’s job is eliminated and there are no comparable jobs to be offered, the right to be reinstated does not trump an employer’s right to reorganize, and being on leave does not put an employee in a superior position to other employees who also lose their jobs during a corporate reorganization.


The downside to an employee who is terminated while on leave is obvious: the employee loses his or her job. The downside to an employer who terminates the employment of an employee while he or she is on leave is that it might be a very costly decision. The employer will be required to pay, at a minimum, the amounts set out in the termination and severance provisions of the applicable legislation. It will also likely have to pay legal fees if that employee brings a civil action against it for wrongful termination or makes a complaint against it before the Human Rights Tribunal. It is likely that an employer will either have to voluntarily pay an employee an amount that exceeds the minimum legislated standards in order to avoid litigation or it will be ordered to do so if unsuccessful in litigation. What this means for an employer is that, while it may technically act within the bounds of the law in terminating the employment of an employee on leave in certain circumstances, it may cost much more to terminate that employment compared to terminating the employment of an employee who is not on leave.

For more information on Canada Labour Code, Employment Standards Act and Notice and Termination of Employees for Employers or if you need an employment lawyer, contact Carrie Kennedy or one of the employment law lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP, listed on our website by clicking on their name.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Employment Law

Can You Lose Half Your House Because You Married Someone

The short answer is yes.  A lot of people unnecessarily loose a lot of money after a short marriage due to a “quirk” in Ontario law.  However, it is not a hard problem to avoid.  Unfortunately, most people do not take the necessary steps and unnecessarily loose hundreds of thousands of dollars to an ex-spouse.

In Ontario, married spouses do not get an actual legal interest in each other properties. Your house is still 100% yours. He spouse still owns his/her assets. In Ontario, the way property division works, is each spouse shares the value of the growth of his or her net worth with his or her spouse. You take your net worth now, subtract your net worth on the date of marriage and come up with a number. Your spouse does the same thing. Then one spouse makes a cash payment to the other to make the numbers the same. The effect of this is to make the growth of your net worth during the marriage the same. You do not have any right to your spouse’s assets, but he or she may have to sell some assets or transfer them to you to make the payment.

HOWEVER, and this is very important, if the house you lived in when you separate is the same house as you owned on the date of separation, you get absolutely no credit for bringing it into the marriage. It is as if you bought the house after the date of marriage withe money that you earned after the date of marriage. This essentially means that your spouse is entitled to have of the equity in the house, even if you brought it into the marriage fully paid for. Watch the video below and listen to this podcast to learn more. It is only half of the equity (the value of the house minus the mortgage) that your spouse shares with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nplweWniHM

There are a few ways to make the impact less devastating on you.  The best things to do have to be done before or during the marriage.  You can get a marriage contract that gives you credit.  If the marriage contract is done properly, which requires the help of a lawyer, then judges usually think that giving a spouse credit for bringing the house into the marriage is fair.  The other choice is for both you and your spouse to designate one property as the matrimonial home on title.   If both parties sign the marriage contract, then all other matrimonial homes cease to be matrimonial homes.  If the house you brought into the marriage is not the one that is designated as the matrimonial home, you will get full credit for bringing it into the marriage.

There may be other things you can do (as discussed on the video and the podcast), but you really do need to speak to a family lawyer. That appointment may save you thousands of dollars. If you want some general information.

By 3vW9gGvyUncategorized

(Canada) Attorney General v. Johnstone and Canadian Human Rights Commission

This blog is written by our law summer student, Michelle Farb

An employer’s failing to accommodate an employee’s childcare needs constitutes “family status” discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Fiona Johnstone, along with her husband, were both employed by the Canada Border Services Agency as border services officers at Toronto’s Pearson Airport since 1998. Fiona and her husband were both required to work rotating shifts. When Fiona returned to work after her maternity leave in January 2003, she was unable to secure childcare that would allow her to work her rotating shift schedule. She requested an accommodation in the form of three 13-hour fixed shifts per week. Her request was denied by the agency on the basis that they would not provide full-time employees with fixed shifts for child-rearing responsibilities, but they would provide them for medical or religious reasons. Due to her denial, she was given part-time hours, with less pay for overtime hours and a pro-rated pension and pro-rated benefits. After the birth of her second child in 2005, she made the same request, and was denied again.

In April 2004, Fiona filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, on the basis that the agency discriminated against her on the prohibited ground of family status, contrary to s. 7(b) and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed with Fiona and ruled that refusing to accommodate child-care obligations constituted discrimination on the basis of family status. In response, the federal government then filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.


The Court ultimately dismissed the government’s request for judicial review, and upheld the Tribunal’s determination that the ground of “family status” includes child-rearing and parental obligations. The Tribunal’s conclusion was reasonable due to Fiona’s evidence of her unsuccessful attempts to find appropriate childcare, her failure to be accommodated by the agency, and the agency’s failure to demonstrate they would experience undue hardship if they accommodated her. Federal Court Judge Leonard Mandamin emphasized that the legislation should be given a liberal interpretation in order to fulfill its purpose, but noted that “not every tension that arises in the context of work-life balance can or should be addressed by human rights jurisprudence.” The judge rejected the “serious interference” test adopted in the B.C. case of Campbell River, which stated that childcare obligations arising out of discrimination claims based on family status have to be of substance and the complaint must have tried to be accommodated, and must have tried to be reconciled with family and work obligations. In this case, the judge endorsed a broader approach, and defined the test as “[A]ny significant interference with a substantial parental obligation is serious. Parental obligations to the child may be met in a number of different ways. It is when an employment rule or condition interferes with an employee’s ability to meet a substantial parental obligation in any realistic way that the case for prima facie discrimination based on family status is made out.” He emphasized that family status discrimination should be governed by the same broad criteria as other alleged grounds of discrimination.

Full link to decision: www.canlii.org.

If you have any questions about whether this applies to you, please contact one of the employment law lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP. For more information on the ongoing development of family status within the case law, or childcare obligations, as well as other dependency relationships which exist within families in relation to what the law says about developing &implementing policies, such as eldercare obligations, contact us to learn more about good faith obligations of both the employer and employee.

The law offices of Devry Smith Frank LLP are located in the Lawrence and Don Mills location of Toronto and we have a lot of free parking.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Employment Law, Human Rights Law

What Breach Of Trust In An Employment Relationship Is Too Small To Justify Dismissal?

Employee of 36 years dismissed after stealing a pack of cigarettes, discharge upheld at arbitration.

By: Michelle Stephenson, our law summer student

A pack of cigarettes may not be too small a cause for termination, according to a Manitoba arbitrator.

The discharge of a cashier (“the grievor”) by Canada Safeway for stealing a pack of cigarettes was upheld, even after he claimed that he never intended to steal them. The arbitrator had to decide whether there was cause for discipline, which turned on whether the grievor was telling the truth, and whether termination was the appropriate penalty.

The grievor’s co-worker had begun to suspect that he was stealing cigarettes from work and, after confirming her suspicions, reported it, which led to an “integrity shop” investigation. After being left with extra cigarettes by the undercover investigator, the grievor put some away but claims he forgot about the other pack his apron, which he left with. He said he did not notice the other pack as he had a lot in his pockets, had spilled tea on his hands, and when he reached into the apron, only found the one pack. He was fired the following Monday, and the Union filed a grievance, claiming he did not steal the cigarettes and should be reinstated with full back pay and seniority.

The credibility of the witnesses was significant in determining whether theft had taken place. In this case, the arbitrator found that the grievor’s story was not credible.

The arbitrator found that the employees were generally aware of the importance of honesty to the employer, that theft would result in their dismissal, and that consumable products were never to be put in aprons. In contrast, the grievor claimed that it was normal practice for employees to put these items in their aprons. The grievor’s story and behaviour was found to be illogical and inconsistent. On the other hand, the employee who noticed his behavior was found to be credible.

The arbitrator determined that the employee intentionally stole the cigarettes; however, it was recognized that theft should not necessarily result in dismissal. In Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and Yellow Pages Group Co. 2012 ONCA 448, determining whether dismissal was appropriate required the balancing of the severity of the conduct with the severity of the penalty. The analysis is contextual, determining whether the employee’s misconduct is reconcilable with sustaining the employment relationship.


Using this test, the arbitrator balanced the grievor’s many years of service with the company and impact of losing his job against his past performance (which was not exemplary, but not poor enough on its own to justify dismissal), the impact of theft on the employer, the significance of trust in the retail industry, that it was known that theft would result in termination, the importance of deterring this behavior, and the grievor’s continued denials and dishonesty. The arbitrator found that the employment relationship was irreparably damaged and the Union’s grievance was therefore denied.

While the significance of trust in an industry that depends on income from easy-to-steal products is clear, and the seriousness of the issue was not the value of the item stolen, the fact that this man lost his job of 36 years for stealing cigarettes may surprise some people. This decision shows that even apparently trivial transgressions can damage the employment relationship beyond repair, such that terminating the employee is justified at law.
Full decision available at: Decisions Up Werier Safeway.

For more details or assistance in relation to employment law, Just Cause for Termination, Theft, Breach of Trust, Employment Relationships, or advice on what are Just Cause For Termination, kindly contact one of our Employee lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP.

To browse some others law videos pertaining to Employment law, kindly browse through our media page.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Employment Law

Do You Need An Emergency Temporary Custody Order?

Question: How do I go about getting an emergency temporary custody order for my son?

Answer: Provided by our Toronto Family Lawyer John Schuman

The first question you have to ask is whether you need an emergency temporary custody order. Judges do not like making custody orders, especially on incomplete evidence and on rushed basis unless the order is necessary to protect the health and welfare of the child. If the order is not necessary to do that, then the judge will want you to have a case conference first. Of course, that is if you really need to be in court. There are alternatives to court that are often better able to address children’s issues than court, unless there are issues of abuse, mental health, substance abuse or a very difficult parent. You can learn more about the alternatives to court in this video: Do I have To Go To Court For A Divorce.


If you do have to go to court, there a large number of things you must do, and correctly. Your best chance to get this right, and avoid having a judge refuse your request, is to get a lawyer to help you. (For more reasons why you should hire a lawyer, see this webpage Why Do You Need A Family Law Lawyer. If you cannot hire a lawyer, you should get a copy of this $20 book on the basics of Family Law, which describes the Family Court Process and custody access issue, to help you: Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition. However, if that is not possible, here is the information about how to get the Order:

  • First you should understand the legal meaning of the term “custody.” It may be different than you think. Read this webpage for more info: What Does The Term Custody Of A Child Mean?
  • You must file a Form 8 Application General that sets out all the orders you want the court to make and the facts that give the court the legal authority to make those orders. There are certain facts that are important when judges decide any parenting issue, including custody, and many facts that judges do not care about. It is important to put the right facts in your Application, and in your affidavits, so read this webpage: How Do Judges Decide Which Parent Gets Custody of a Child?. They both explain how judges decide who gets custody.
  • Since you are claiming custody, you must also complete, and swear or affirm before a commissioner of oaths (these are in law offices and at the court), a Form 35.1 Affidavit which sets out several facts that judges want to know regarding parenting.
  • If you are asking for any form of support you must also complete a Form 13 Financial statement (again this has to be sworn or affirmed). If you are asking for support and making property claims, you have to fill out a form 13.1 Financial Statement. (Note that only the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to deal with property claims.) Your financial statement must attach 3 years of Notices of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency. If you do not have them, you must get them through the CRA’s website: My Account.
  • You have to take all of the above documents to the court to have them “issued.” The court will not allow you to issue the documents if there are errors or they are incomplete.
  • You must create a continuing record volume for the court. For information about doing that, see this link: Formal Requirements.
  • At the time that you are issuing your Application, you should ask the court for when you can have a case conference. You should book the first date. The court will give you a Conference Notice, that you must add to all the other documents.
  • After issuing the documents, you must have someone, other than you, serve the documents on your spouse and anyone else who can claim to have been an active parent of the child. Service usually means identifying the person being served and a handing them the documents to be served. The person must complete a affidavit of service, attesting that he or she served the documents properly (another commissioned document). Then you must file the documents with the court.
  • After all of that, you must bring a motion for temporary custody. Unless there is a compelling reason why the other parent(s) should not be served with your motion material (because they would do something bad to the child before the court had an opportunity to hear the motion) you must give them at least 4 business days notice. To get a court date, you have to go to the family court service counter and ask what dates the court has available to hear your motion.
  • You must first complete a Form 14 Notice of Motion that sets out the precise order you are asking the court to make.
  • You must also write, and swear, a Form 14A affidavit that sets out your version of the facts. (Refer to the podcast and website listed above to know what facts are important.) As you have to swear or affirm that the document is true, it is very important that the facts be accurate. It is also important that the affidavit is written in a way that is clear and compelling to a judge. To hear about what judges consider good parenting, listen to this podcast: The Voice Of A Child. The affidavit must also make it clear why you cannot wait to until the court can have a case conference to discuss the issues on your motion. One thing you must include is when the first case conference date is available from the court and also The affidavit is your “evidence” on the motion. You do not get to tell the judge any additional facts on the hearing of the motion. The motion is not a trial, so no one testifies in court. All the facts that the judge needs must be in the affidavits.
  • If you want other people to give their evidence on your motion, they have to swear their own affidavits.
  • You must serve the Notice of Motion and all of the other affidavits on the other parties that you have named in your Application. Unless you are trying to bring your motion without notice to the other parties, you must serve them at least 4 days before.
  • The other parties in your court proceeding have the right to file their own affidavit in response to yours. After they do that, you have the right to file an affidavit that responds to the new facts or issues in the other party’s affidavits. However, you cannot raise any new issues in your “reply affidavit.”
  • Two days before the set motion date, before 2:00 p.m., you must file a form 14C to tell the court and the judge whether your motion is going ahead as scheduled or not. Most courts let you file your 14C by faxing it to a special fax number, but the 14C is the ONLY document you can file that way.
  • Then you show up on the day of the motion and you explain to the judge why the law says you should get your emergency temporary custody order (and why you could not wait for the case conference). The judge usually will have had the opportunity to read all the affidavits, so you will only want to mention the most important facts and tell the judge where to read about them in all the materials that were filed (using specific tab and page numbers if possible). Keep in mind that motions are supposed to be argued in less than an hour total. So, you should plan on speaking to the judge for no more than 20 minutes at first. That includes the time that the judge asks you questions. The other party will get about the same amount of time. Then you will get to speak to the judge about any new facts or issues that the other party spoke about that you did not mention in your first twenty minutes. However, this is not a time to repeat your points. The judge’s time is precious and there are a likely other cases waiting. So you do not want to be repetitive, or do anything else to upset the judge.
  • The judge will then either decide your case on the spot, or “reserve” which means the judge will decide the case later and send a written decision to you. The decision is different from a formal court order. If you need a formal court order, that is another process… which can the topic of another post. Or you read about it in the book that I mentioned above.
  • If the judge decides against you, or decides the motion could have waited until after a case conference, then the judge will likely order you to pay the legal fees and other costs of the other party. This is where not using a lawyer can really cost you. If you do not get your own lawyer, you can end up paying the cost of your ex-spouse’s lawyer if you lose.

All the court forms are found here: Ontario Court Forms. Also, I did not quote the precise rules that set out all of the above, but you can find the Family Law Rules here English Elaws.

Again, the process for bringing an urgent motion is a complicated one, and you have to tell the judge the right things. So, you should consult a good family lawyer and get a copy of this $20 book Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition on family law that covers all of this in more detail. . For further information or assistance with a legal matter regarding Family Law & Emergency Temporary Custody Orders, contact one of the Toronto Family Law Lawyers listed below of the page.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Family Law

Very Distressed Child Asked for Advice in Upcoming Child Custody Case

My friend’s child asked for advice on a upcoming child custody case. His parents are in family court and have trial in 2 months on child custody and access. He has a children’s lawyer, but afraid to tell her what he wants as he doesn’t want this information to be shared with parents – he is very afraid of their reaction. The lawyer does not keep things in private as promised. The child is in a much distress and wants to talk to a judge, but OCL is against it. The child is turning 13 in few months. I don’t know how to help him, I am very concerned about his state of mind. He is vey stressed and turns it against himself by having a very low view of his worth and his life worth. His OCL unfortunately does not see it and is convinced the child is OK. What would you advise to this child and is there any way I can help? If I talk to his parents he will loose trust in me as well.

This is an upsetting situation. However, the perspective on hearing from children is changing in Ontario Family Law. Many judges recognize children have a right to be heard in matters that affect them, provided it is the child who wants to be heard and not a parent trying to get the child to take sides.

Technically, a child does not have to be represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. A child can retain a private lawyer to assist him or her. Judges views this with some scepticism unless it is clear the child was not “put up to it” by a parent. This means the child has to contact the lawyer himself, see the lawyer without a parent present and negotiate the retainer for that lawyer. That lawyer can than advice the court and the OCL that he or she is representing the child and the OCL is no longer doing so. The court (and the OCL) will likely want to explore the situation to ensure this was not a parent influencing the child. At some point, the child may have to say that he lost confidence in the OCL lawyer. That may take some fortitude, but so will putting a position before the court on his parent’s divorce. However, a child who does all of that to ensure he is heard by the court, will convince most judges to at least listen.

It sounds like you are being “neutral” in this situation, so it would likely be OK for you to assist the child in finding a lawyer.

Also, it is important to remember that a child expressing a point of view is NOT determinative of any issue. Even if a judge listens, the child will only be a witness, not the decision-maker. After listening, the judge may make a decision that is different from what the child wanted. However, often just knowing that the judge has heard his point of view is enough to get a child “on board” for any decision.

If you want to know the technicalities of the law in relation to courts listening to children, you can see if your local reference library or law library (often in the courthouse) has a copy of Wilson on Children and the Law. There is a long chapter on this issue. The book itself is several hundred dollars to purchase. So, you will need to find a good library to get a copy.

There is more about children in the family court process, how to navigate family court, and many other family law issues in this $20 easy-to-understand book on Family Law: Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition.

For further information or assistance in regards to child custody, child access or family law, please contact Toronto family lawyer John Schuman.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Family Law

Tax Considerations in Wrongful Dismissal Settlements

When employment litigation resolves in a wrongful dismissal settlement, an important issue for the employer and the employee is the tax considerations and how the settlement funds will be allocated. Employees should ensure that the settlement funds are allocated in order to minimize their tax liability. Employers may also be able to settle cases for less if they cooperate with employees in the allocation of the settlement funds.

There are many different ways in which the payments can be allocated, such as wages, retiring allowance, general damages and legal fees.

Any money allocated as wages will be subject to withholdings. The employer is required to withhold Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI) contributions, as well as income tax from settlement funds allocated as wages.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) defines “retiring allowance” as “an amount paid to officers or employees when or after they retire from an office or employment in recognition of long service or for the loss of office or employment.” Significantly, the employee does not have to be retiring in the colloquial sense in order to be entitled to a retirement allowance. In other words, an employee who is terminated from one job and starts a new one shortly thereafter could still be entitled to a retiring allowance.

The employer is required to withhold money on retiring allowance payments at the following lump sum rates:

  • 10% for amounts up to and including $5,000.00;
  • 20% for amounts between $5,000.00 and $15,000.00; and
  • 30% for amounts of $15,000.00 and over.

No withholdings are required for CPP, EI and income on retiring allowance payments.

General damages are monies awarded to a litigant as compensation for pain and suffering for bullying/harassment, breaches of human rights legislation and other torts. If settlement funds are allocated as general damages, and the payment relates to the loss of employment, it would be subject to withholdings at the lump sum rates. In other words, if the employee would not have been entitled to the payment but for the loss of employment, the money is subject to withholdings.

On the other hand, if a payment of general damages is made as compensation for events that are unrelated to the loss of employment, the money would be non-taxable.

Settlement funds allocated as legal fees are non-taxable. No withholdings are required and the employee will not pay tax on these amounts. This is dealt with in the Income Tax Act by way of an income inclusion and an offsetting deduction.

Please talk to one of our employment lawyers to review your tax considerations and legal options before accepting a wrongful dismissal settlement.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Employment Law, Tax

Tips for completing your Family Law 13.1 Financial Statement

Many people faced with having to complete a 13.1 Financial Statement find it a daunting task.  Here are a few tips to simplify the process.

The idea of completing an accurate monthly budget has some people collecting bank statements and credit card statements for the past year, and averaging out their expenses over that period, and then breaking them down to a monthly figure.  Although it is important to be realistic in your budget, this exercise is not necessary.  It is ok to “ballpark” how much you spend on groceries in any given month.  Although it used to be that spousal support would be loosely based on the “Budget” section of your Financial Statement, now that the SSAGs have become widely accepted in Court, the “Budget” has become less important.  It is still important to ensure that your budget makes sense in a global way.  Your budget should not be wildly off base, or your spouse will ask to see all the bank statements and receipts. If your budget indicates that you are running a deficit every month, but you do not have any corresponding increase in your debt, the accuracy of your Financial Statement may be called into question.

With respect to the property section of the 13.1 Financial Statement, it is designed to capture three specific dates: the date of marriage, valuation date (which is the date you separated) and today.  Any property that you owned between your date of marriage and valuation date, but did not own on either of those pertinent dates, is not entered on your Financial Statement.  The exception to this rule is if it is property that you have disposed of within the past two years.   Part 8 deals exclusively with property that has been disposed of during the past two years.  Perhaps the easiest way to understand how to complete the property section of your Financial Statement is this:  If you took a photograph of your financial situation on the date you were married, the date you separated, and the day you are completing your Financial Statement, these are the figures that you put into the respective columns.  Finally, the Financial Statement that each party completes addresses only the property that they have an ownership interest in.  For example, if your matrimonial home is in your spouse’s name, you do not put it on your Financial Statement because you do not “own” it.  Similarly, if you lease your vehicle, it does not get entered on your Financial Statement because you do not “own” it.

When you are completing your Financial Statement, you should keep all of the documents that you relied on to prepare the Financial Statement, so that you can give them to your lawyer together with your draft Financial Statement.  This step will save you a lot of time and hassle in the future, as your lawyer will most certainly ask for these documents.  If you are involved in a Court proceeding, it is important for you to know that a Court will not accept your Financial Statement if you have not attached your last three years’ Notices of Assessment (the form you receive from the CRA that has your income tax refund cheque attached to it).  You can order copies of these documents by calling 1-800-959-8281.  You should always do this as soon as you are asked to fill out a Financial Statement because the process of receiving them takes about six weeks.

Financial Statements are important no matter what path you have chosen to resolve your matrimonial matters – litigation, collaborative practice, negotiation of a Separation Agreement, or mediation/arbitration.  The most common reason that resolution of matrimonial matters is set aside by a Court at a later date is for lack of financial disclosure.  The thinking is this:  if you did not know what you were giving up because you did not have all of the information you needed, how could you have made an informed decision about whether or not it was the right choice for you?  This is true when entering into a Marriage Contract as well.  Think of it this way – if you are releasing your future right to receive spousal support, but you do not know how much your spouse earns, you may have made a different decision if you had all of the information available about your spouse’s income and income potential.

By 3vW9gGvyBlog, Family Law