Midrise Condo Battle may go to Mediation with OMB High-profile residents of the Annex have brought their fight against a proposed midrise condo development to the Toronto & East York community council, which agreed Wednesday to have the city’s lawyer ask for mediation at the Ontario Municipal Board – a move they will consider next month – which is most likely to go forward. In our previous article, we mention the outrage residents had against the proposed development at 321 Davenport, with complaints from residents such as Margaret Atwood and Galen Weston Jr., both calling the development a “brutal and arrogant assault on [their] community.” Not to mention, the issues they have with privacy, as balconies may provide potential residents the ability to peer into their backyards at any time. There was little mention of any other issues in the previous post that was published, however, another concern has been made public after many residents of Toronto lashed out on social media, calling the likes of Atwood and Weston Jr. NIMBYs, which they intended to respond to. They have taken a stance, stating that they are not against the development, but that they have concerns surrounding the initial proposal of the development and the impact it will have on the environment, citing a concern such as the preservation of mature trees in the area. The proposal is said to develop “luxury” style homes within a condo building sitting 8-storeys high, with 16 large condos. City staff are in support of this development, as it is going to take the place of a 2-storey commercial building. Through mediation, developer Robert Cooper is hopeful that this will be resolved, as they are “willing to work cooperatively with the neighbours” to achieve a proper final proposal that provides “new midrise housing opportunities and appropriate intensification within an urban neighbourhood.” Atwood’s lawyer, Michael Melling too believes “[the] concerns can be resolved.” If you are in need of a planning and development lawyer or real estate lawyer, please contact our Planning and Development lawyers or Real Estate lawyers today. If you have any other questions, you can contact our office directly at (416) 449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Planning and Development Law, Real EstateSeptember 7, 2017June 18, 2020
Brazil’s Former Presidents accused of Forming a Criminal Organization Former President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Dilma Rousseff and other staff part of their Workers’ Party have been accused of forming a criminal organization. Charges were filed on Tuesday as part of an investigation into a scheme to inflate state contracts to pay kickbacks and bribes to politicians. The corruption probe has netted dozens of executives and senior politicians. An accusation against Rousseff includes: Suspicion of breaking budgetary rules by shifting money around to cover short-term deficits, ultimately landing her on an impeachment trial Some accusations against Luiz include: Multi-billion dollar bribery scheme revolving around the state-run oil company, Petrobras Obstruction charges on suspicion that he tried to pay a former Petrobras executive to stop him from giving information to authorities Silva, his successor and allies are accused of orchestrating the receipt of around $480 million in bribes. Silva alone faces several charges and has already been sentenced to 9 ½ years in another case, which he is appealing. For more information see: LA Times If you require representation for criminal offences, please contact our Criminal Lawyer David Schell, or call Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 today. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawSeptember 7, 2017June 18, 2020
Toronto Housing Market Update: August 2017 Home sales slowed down through August so much that there was a 34.8 per cent drop in sales compared to last year. This marks the fourth month in a row where sales and home prices have dropped. July’s average price was sitting at $746,033 while August had an average price of $732,292. Since the introduction of the 16 measures in April, the current average price has seen a significant drop. April’s average price was almost $1 million. Not to mention, the number of new listings was the lowest recorded for August since 2010, and down 6.7 per cent from last year. If you are currently searching for a property or have a plan to purchase property in the near future, contact our Real Estate Group with any questions or concerns you may have. Browse our Real Estate lawyers page and contact them directly, or, call our office at 416-449-1400 for more information. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateSeptember 6, 2017June 18, 2020
Insurance Adjusters in U.S. look to save time by using Drones to assess Damage Travelers Insurance in the U.S. is responding to the hurricane in Texas by training their adjusters to become certified drone pilots. Travelers Insurance had 65 certified pilots as of Friday among the 600 employees that are deployed to the Houston area. Overall, they have 300 employees that are certified drone operators, and are looking to get that number to 600 by early 2018. Other companies such as State Farm and Allstate have drones, but State Farm has decided to not use its drone fleet in Houston, just yet. Allstate has contracted a third-party drone operator to do hundreds of inspections a day in Houston. By using drones, insurance companies can save time and protect their adjusters from potentially unsafe areas, not to mention being able to get “the customer back on their feet more quickly, paying them more quickly so they can get their damages repaired as quickly as possible,” says vice-president of claims for Travelers, Jim Wucherpfennig. Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) eased some restrictions last year, insurance companies have increased their fleets. Drones have become very inexpensive and as a result, most major insurers now have a fleet – “the benefits were evident in the response to Hurricane Matthew last October,” according to Jim Whittle, chief claims counsel for the American Insurance Association. If you are unable to enter an area due to restrictions or nature, you can fly your drone and get access to the property for an assessment. For Travelers, they do not expect their drone fleet to take the place of human adjusters, as the claims specialists will almost always do an on-the-ground inspection to get a proper final estimate. The drones allow for a head start. For one Travelers employee Laura Shell, a catastrophe claims specialist, she believes that by using a drone it will allow her “to get a look into areas that aren’t easily accessible and onto roofs,” to do her job quickly. In situations like Hurricane Harvey and Matthew it has become evident that the benefits drones provide are far reaching, not only for the insurance companies and adjusters, but also the insured, who are in desperate need of support in order to get their lives back on track after such devastation. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Insurance DefenceSeptember 5, 2017June 18, 2020
Service Dog Not Allowed in Elementary School Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal has recently ruled that a 9-year-old boy with autism does not have the right to bring his service dog with him to class. This ruling marks the first legal disposition of a dispute between parents and their regional school board that began back in 2014. Their son has a certified service dog, and they wanted him to have the animal in the classroom. The parents argued that the dog was essential to their son’s education as the dog is able to control their son’s outbursts and prevents them from happening, enabling their son to suffer less distractions in the classroom. The school board, Waterloo Catholic, has rejected this argument and refused to permit the dog in the classroom. At the hearing, the school board suggested that the child was performing fine without the service animal and that its presence would not address the issues that the child was experiencing in the classroom. This is not the first time the Waterloo Catholic School Board has been challenged on its policy with respect to service dogs. In April of 2016 it was reported that a nine year old boy was prohibited from having his service animal accompany him to school. The School Board has not commented on why it has implemented a policy that restricts service dogs from coming into the classroom. The decision as to whether service dogs have the right to enter the classroom is determined by each individual school board’s own policy. Under the Guide Dog Act, guide dogs which are certified have the same rights and responsibilities as a person without a dog. This means they are allowed access where the general public is allowed access. However, while schools certainly deliver a public service, under the Education Act, schools are not considered public spaces; they lock their doors when school is in session. This means that school boards are not required under the Guide Dog Act to permit guide dogs on school property. Instead, parents look to the Human Rights Code to have the legality of the school board policy on service dogs determined. Under the Code, the school board is required to accommodate disabilities to the point of undue hardship. What constitutes accommodation to the point of undue hardship depends on the particularities of the situation, with the Code prescribing three considerations when assessing whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship: cost, outside sources of funding and health and safety requirements. No other considerations can be properly considered. To claim the undue hardship defence the organization responsible for making the accommodation has the onus of proof. The nature of the evidence required to prove undue hardship must be objective, real, direct, and if cost is a factor, quantifiable. What this means is that, as recipient of a successful ruling, the school board was able to demonstrate that its legal duty to accommodate students with disabilities does not extend to requiring the school to permit service dogs in the classroom. However, given the individuality of determinations from the Tribunal, it is still open for other situations regarding service dogs in elementary schools to receive an alternate ruling, permitting service dogs in the classroom. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm with experienced lawyers in the areas of Education law and Human Rights litigation. If you require representation for either of these areas, please contact the education law group and human rights group today. If you require representation for any other matter, you may contact our lawyers or call our office directly at 416-449-1400 today. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education Law, Human Rights LawSeptember 5, 2017June 18, 2020
Driver Acquitted of Impaired Driving Charges after News Crew Filmed Him at RIDE Checkpoint Due to a Global News crew filming a man who was pulled over, Kunal Gautam, at a RIDE check, a judge has acquitted his impaired driving charges. The judge, Ontario Court Justice David Rose said in his statement that Gautam has been acquitted as a result of: No evidence to suggest that York Regional Police placed any restrictions on the Global News TV crew Kunal Gautam’s rights to counsel were violated and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon (Charter rights were violated) Publicizing of a fairly routine police alcohol driving interdiction program Gautam blew two breath samples which came back at 152 and 146mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. While he was on the phone with a lawyer, a camera operator even placed his camera at the window pointing directly at Gautam while he was in the phone booth, making him feel uncomfortable when asking the lawyer questions, which resulted in the right to counsel violation. With the overwhelming effort of the Global News crew to gain access to the RIDE process and even interview Gautam during the segment, the judge had no choice but to exclude the blood alcohol content from evidence due to the violations, ultimately acquitting all of the charges against Gautam. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, please contact the lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP. You may visit our website or contact us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawAugust 31, 2017June 18, 2020
Mid-rise Housing, The Next Best Thing for Toronto Real Estate? With detached homes in Toronto reaching unattainable prices and an abundance of high rise condos taking over the city skyline, most of which are either purchased and sitting empty or demanding rent that is extremely high, could midrise development within some of Toronto’s neighbourhoods be the answer to the homeownership struggle many Torontonians are facing? Toronto planners think so, as they claim it would not overwhelm neighbourhoods and at the same time, will provide housing for thousands. Midrise buildings are typically four to eleven storeys, that many NIMBYs are opposed to having populated their neighbourhoods. To find out more on NIMBYs and their influence on Toronto’s real estate, check out two of our previous blogs: Affluent Boomers are Taking Pressure from ‘YIMBY’ Groups in the GTA Reasons Why A Starter Home is No Longer an Option Midrise development is, unfortunately, becoming tougher for developers to propose and carry out, as these so-called NIMBYs, or locals to the neighbourhoods in which the midrise development is being proposed, fight these developers to try to halt their project. In the most recent fight against a midrise development, these angry residents feature some of Toronto’s elite, such as Margaret Atwood, Galen Weston Jr., Scott Mcfarland, and his wife, Cleophee Eaton (yes, the department store). Some of their claims to the government include simply, ruining the Annex and destroying their quality of life. An excerpt from Weston’s email to Toronto city councillor Joe Cressy reads: “The development, designed as is, will change the neighbourhood in such a negative capacity and will devalue all of the assets we currently love about living here; it will no longer be the ideal place for our young family to grow up. This building is an invasion of our privacy, our community, and an environmental assault on our neighbourhood.” Now, they are probably concerned mostly about their privacy. With success comes money, with money comes entitlement (for the most part). As columnist Emma Teitel puts it, “they’ve chosen to make a stink about the possibility that someday down the line, someone standing on a balcony will be able to peer into their yards and see them barbecuing corn.” They are failing to see the benefit of such a development. Their blurred reasoning and understanding of this development proposal, maybe due to the fact that they are very successful and don’t want peering eyes into their backyards as Teitel said, or it could merely be because they don’t know what it is like to not own a home in the fourth-largest city on the continent, thus they cannot fathom what it is like to be an average Torontonian in this day and age, and how much these midrise developments really do benefit not only the city but the area it is situated in as well. As much as people don’t like change (take the recent renaming of the ACC to Scotiabank Arena as a prime example) you are forced to either adopt, adapt, or leave. As many like to put it, you better shape up or ship out. In the past, NIMBYs have fought against an Ossington midrise, that they took all the way to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). In 2015, the OMB approved the project but made minor modifications to the plans. It was a six-storey, 85 suite building. Now that it is up, it is clear that it is the best thing to happen to Ossington in the last century, and many of the so-called NIMBYs are starting to realize that. With the outrage for the proposed Davenport midrise, will it surprise anyone if the fight goes all the way to the OMB? Probably not. Based on Galen Weston’s email to Cressy, it sounds like he will take it upon himself to make sure the OMB does review it. Yes, the Annex is home to a number of notable figures, but it is also a central neighbourhood with a subway, shops, and is walking distance to a major university in the city. The fight to limit the accommodation of people who inhabit Toronto, especially a region within Toronto that is already a bustling metropolis, therefore, seems foolish of the elite to be against. You’d think with all of their smarts and success, along with the results of past challenges presented to the OMB, our influential Annexers would think twice and let it be. If you are in need of a planning and development lawyer or real estate lawyer, please contact our Planning and Development lawyers or Real Estate lawyers today. If you have any other questions, you can contact our office directly at (416) 449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Planning and Development Law, Real EstateAugust 31, 2017June 18, 2020
How is the Money from the Sale of a House Divided in a Divorce? Family lawyer John Schuman was recently asked this question: I bought my home in 1995 and it became the matrimonial home when i married my husband in 2009. I’m filing for divorce now and selling the house. Is the money from the sale of the house split 50/50 or will I receive a bit more being the original owner of the house? My husband is on the mortgage as well. Answer by John Schuman: When married couples separate in Ontario, the home (or homes – there can be more than one) that they live in on the day they separate gets special treatment in property “equalization” process. (Non-married or common-law couples may not divide property or may do it differently.) Those special rules may make it seem that matrimonial homes are divided “50/50”, but that is not actually how it works. The property division provisions of Ontario’s Family Law Act do not give married people any right of ownership over their spouses’ property or other assets. If title to the matrimonial home is in your name, it stays in your name, subject to some claims your spouse can make if he or she makes significant contributions to that property. Just being married does not mean spouses both own their home (or homes). Watch this video for more details on how Ontario Law divides the value of property, not the property itself, on separation. There are a number of special rights that attach to matrimonial homes (or homes). One is that neither spouse can kick the other out of matrimonial home, or secure debt against a matrimonial home, without the other spouse’s consent or a court order. The reason people think they share the equity in matrimonial homes 50/50 is that, absent a marriage contract, the entire equity in a matrimonial home is always included in the value of assets that married spouses share. With almost every other type of asset, spouses only share in the growth in the value during the marriage. However, section 5(2) of the Family Law Act does not allow a spouse to get any credit for bringing a property into the marriage if that property was a matrimonial home on the date of separation. So, without a marriage contract, spouses share whatever value is in their matrimonial homes. Spouses do not necessarily have to give their spouses “half the house” on separation. That spouse is entitled to stay in the house, and to have the equity included in property division, but, if a home is not jointly owned, there is not right to “half of it.” It is just included in the assets to be divided. So, if the spouse who does not own the matrimonial home has lots of savings or a pension to include in his or her assets to be divided, that may offset the value in the matrimonial home. If the spouse who owns the matrimonial home had a lot of assets (other than the matrimonial home) on the date of marriage, his or her increases in net worth may be less than the other spouse, which would mean the home would not be divided. The same may be also be try if the spouse who owns the matrimonial home has a lot of debt on separation may not have the increase in net worth that is necessary to owe the other spouse anything. But, in short term marriages, there is a real danger that a spouse can walk away being entitled to half the other spouse’s home. If the marriage was short, the couple may still live in the same house that one spouse brought into the marriage. In that case, the spouse with the house has to share half the value of the house because there were almost no changes in each spouse’s financial situation and so nothing to offset the value in the matrimonial home when the spouses “Net Family Properties” are “equalized.” Watch this video or listen to this podcast, for more on the dangers posed by the law of matrimonial homes. Note that that the special rights for matrimonial homes only apply between two spouses. Those rights regarding matrimonial homes do not apply to third parties, such as in-laws, landlords, business partners, or friends. A spouse has no right under Family Law to stay in a home owned by his or her in-laws or another landlord. You certainly do not become entitled to “half” of a matrimonial home that neither spouse owns. People who think they should have rights with respect to a property that is not owned by them or their spouse should speak to a lawyer to see if any other type of law might help. Before or after a marriage, spouses should never assume that the matrimonial home will just be divided 50/50 until they have each spoken to a lawyer to figure out how Ontario Family Law will work in their family’s situation. This is an area where making a mistake can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There may be things a lawyer can do to make things fairer – especially before a separation. But even after separation, there may be possibility of making the tricky legal arguments to adjust how property is divided either pursuant to section5(6) of the Family Law Act or the Principles of Equity. Obviously, there can be a lot of money involved in any marriage or relationship and that means there can be a lot at stake financially. Get the help of a lawyer immediately to avoid financial hardship. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including property division, support, and most other common family law issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a top family law lawyer. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawAugust 30, 2017July 5, 2023
Significant Changes Coming to Ontario’s Labour and Employment Laws Ontario is one step closer to approving the minimum wage increase of $15 an hour, however that is not the only change that is on Ontario’s horizon. A legislative committee studying the bill has concluded its work, advancing the bill to the fall session of the legislature, which begins September 11. Bill 148, known as the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, includes much more than a dramatic increase in the minimum wage. The bill makes large amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), Ontario’s minimum standards legislation, and the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”), which governs unionization. Many of these changes are favourable to employees, in an effort to alleviate the impacts of precarious work. Based on a worker’s classification as either an “employee,” “dependent contractor,” and “independent contractor,” a worker gets different rights under Ontario’s minimum standards legislation. The Ontario government seeks to introduce an automatic presumption that a worker is an “employee” (entitling them to the most rights) and that it would be illegal for an employer to misclassify its workers (to evade minimum standards legislation). The government also proposed to regulate scheduling inside a workplace. If the bill is passed, an employee who has been working for more than three months in a workplace can request a change in their schedule or work location without fearing dismissal. The well-known “3 hour rule” (i.e that a worker be paid for at least 3 hours for a shift) has been expanded to all workplaces and will even be triggered if an employer cancels a shift 48 hours before the employee was to commence working. An employee will also gain the right to refuse shifts without fear of termination if the request is made less than 96 hours before the proposed shift was to begin. Vacation pay entitlements will also be increased: an employee working less than 5 years for the same employer will continue to receive 2 weeks of paid vacation but an employee working more than 5 years for the same employer will receive 3 weeks of statutory vacation. The government also focused on making stronger provisions for equal pay for equal work. If passed, it would become illegal to pay part-time workers less than full-time workers and temporary help workers less than their directly-hired counterparts (absent other objective factors). Moreover, if a worker believes that they were being paid less on the basis of sex or employment status, they would gain the right to request a written review where the employer must either a) raise their wage or b) provide written reasons about why they disagree. Temporary help agencies would also face further regulation on their practices, including owing its employees one week “termination of assignment” pay (similar to “severance pay”) if the employee was terminated from a contract that was supposed to last 3 months or more. These employees would not get “termination of assignment” pay if they were placed in a new contract within a week. The government also hopes to introduce two (2) days of paid leave of absences and eight (8) days of unpaid personal emergency leave. This leave would cover personal illnesses, injuries and medical emergencies (for both the employee and his or her close relatives) and situations of sexual or domestic violence. Employers can request reasonable evidence of the employee’s entitlement to take the leave. It will also become less burdensome to file a complaint under the ESA. Previously, employees who felt their minimum standards were being breached needed to first notify their employer before making a complaint. This requirement would be removed under the new bill. The Director (the person who enforces the ESA) will also be allowed to collect security for any amounts owing under the ESA. Notices of contravention and Recognitions would be able to be widely publicized, despite privacy laws. Alcohol servers and others would be happy to know that the government has created a more specific definition of what constitutes a “tip” in order to prevent employers from stealing tips meant for their employees. The field of labour and employment law is becoming very complex for both employees and employers. It is important to seek out an experience labour and employment lawyer who knows not only the current law, but changes on the horizon. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawAugust 30, 2017June 18, 2020
Am I on the Hook to Pay Child Support Retroactively? One of DSF’s Toronto Family Lawyers was recently asked the following question: Can child support payments be retroactive? My former spouse never claimed child support and on top of that refused to take support payments from me for years. Recently, my former spouse has gotten into some financial trouble and filed an application for me to start paying child support. Will I have to pay child support retroactively from the date of our separation or will it start from the date of the application? Their Answer: The short answer is it depends. Family Courts can order retroactive child support in certain circumstances. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the issue of retroactive child support in D.B.S. v S.R.G. The Court looked at when retroactive child support can be ordered and in what circumstances. The Court provided a list of factors to take into account when child support can or should be ordered. Child support orders are made in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. There is a table amount that is set out for various income levels and the amount of support is based on the income of the payor spouse and the number of children. The Guideline was introduced as a way to make child support as simple, objective and predictable as possible. In deciding whether or not retroactive child support should be ordered, the Court looked at four factors: Is there a reasonable excuse for the delay in making the application; What is the conduct of the payor parent? Whether or not the conduct was blameworthy; What are the circumstances of the child; and Will there be hardship caused on the payor parent by the retroactive payment? In deciding the quantum of the award, there are four possible dates that the retroactive child support can be awarded from. Retroactive payments can be awarded from the date: The application is made; Of formal notice to the payor parent; Of effective notice to the payor parent; or When the amount should have been increased. The Court imposed a three-year limit as a rough guideline for how far back child support can be ordered. To answer the question above, it is likely that a Court would order retroactive child support to the date of ‘effective notice’. Effective notice, as the general rule, is the date that there is an indication by the recipient parent that child support should be paid. It is not the date that legal action is taken, such as filing the application, but is the date that the topic has been brought up with the payor parent. Because there has been no blameworthy conduct on the part of the payor parent, there would be no reason to move away from the date of effective notice. In this circumstance, the parent would have to pay retroactive support payments from the date the former spouse brought up that he or she now needed the support payments. The requirement to pay child support is a free-standing obligation that can fluctuate over time with the income and circumstances of the spouses. You can read more on the topic here, on John Schuman’s blog. John Schuman is a Certified Specialist in family law and is the partner managing the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP. If you have any questions about child support or family law generally, please visit our website and contact one of our Toronto family lawyers today. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawAugust 29, 2017June 18, 2020