Property Division During COVID-19 In my previous post, I touched on the issue of changing support obligations in light of the pandemic. More and more, separating spouses are wondering how property issues will be dealt with in light of the pandemic, particularly as assets are dropping in value after separation. In Ontario, we follow an “equalization” regime under the Family Law Act. Broadly put, this means that spouses share in the increase of their net worth for the duration of their marriage. Generally, the spouse who had the greater increase of net worth during the marriage would pay the other spouse one half of the difference. For example, if Husband’s net worth grew by $100,000 during the marriage, while Wife’s net worth grew by $50,000, then Husband would owe Wife and equalization payment of $25,000 (which is half the difference between $100,000 and $50,000). Equalization is explained more fully here. For now, it is important to understand that two dates become very important: the date of marriage, and the date of separation. Both spouses’ net worth as of these dates become crystallized, which determines the figures used to calculate the equalization payment owing. Generally, fluctuations in the value of assets following separation are not considered, which could lead to unfair results. Some examples: Husband is an employee at a publicly-traded company but receives company shares as part of his compensation package. At the date of separation (pre-pandemic), he solely-owned shares worth $1,000,000. Following the pandemic, the value of the shares dropped by 10%, which may continue to plummet. This provides for a $100,000 reduction of the husband’s net worth post-separation. However, following a true “equalization” would provide that any decrease in value post-separation is not shared between the parties. As such, Husband would be accountable for the entirety of his equalization payment, while still absorbing the decrease of his net worth post-separation. Wife solely owns a retail store in downtown Toronto. At the date of separation (pre-pandemic), it was worth $500,000. In light of the pandemic, she is unable to pay her overhead costs and must close her doors. As a result, she is stuck with a business that she will struggle to sell. Again, a true equalization regime would have no regard for any post-separation fluctuations in value, leaving Wife accountable for an equalization payment that would otherwise be owed to her Husband. In either scenario above, the spouse owning the assets could look to section 5(6) of Ontario’s Family Law Act to request an “unequal division of net family properties” to avoid absorbing the entirety of the loss. Even then, the test under section 5(6) is stringent. The moving party would need to demonstrate that following a true equalization regime would “shock the conscience of the court”. For more information about property division or any other family law related issue, please contact the author of this blog post, Mason Morningstar at mason.morningstar@devrylaw.caor 416-446-3336. “This article is intended to inform. 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, COVID-19, Family LawMay 5, 2020September 30, 2020
What to Expect With Your Family Law Matter After COVID-19 Andreina Minicozzi and Devry Smith Frank LLP are committed to following the guidelines and recommendations outlined by the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure the safety and wellbeing of employees, colleagues, clients, friends, and families. During these unprecedented times, we understand that your family law matter may be in flux. It is important to recognize what the landscape of family law may look like in Ontario after COVID-19. This post looks at such a future. With limited relief currently available to families through the courts, these unprecedented times may change the future of family law forever. Alternative dispute resolution, which continues to be refined, has surged, and on the other hand, the courts are now forced to offer a more streamlined and efficient process. Overall, this may bode well for the family law system holistically. Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration and collaborative family law have become staples in the legal landscape and while the courts have scaled back on the issues which they can resolve, these alternative dispute options continue strongly and have the capability to adapt to an online platform much quicker. An online mediation could allow a couple to resolve their family law matter over a shared video conference platform such as Zoom. Arbitration allows parties to hire a private arbitrator to make a decision on their dispute. Arbitration can use video conferencing for oral arguments and cross-examination, and documents can be exchanged electronically in moments. Litigation can be lengthy and expensive, but with the health of alternative dispute resolution maintaining its position in the legal landscape amid such a crisis, you can expect many more family law matters to engage with the justice system through mediation, arbitration, and collaborative family law given their streamlined service and ability to adapt to changing landscapes. A Streamlined Court System Canadian courts are now also rapidly updating their procedure to accommodate litigants through remote access and virtual hearings. Even such processes like notarizing documents and signing affidavits have been adapted to accommodate the need to changes in this current landscape. We have also seen an advanced email filing system for many Ontario courts The longer social distancing is required, the more the courts will need to adapt, increasing the options for remote or virtual hearings and streamlining further processes. This is also stated with the understanding that there will be a predictable influx of new and ongoing family law matters that need to be addressed once the restrictions relating to COVID-19 are lifted. Even long after Canada has recovered from COVID-19, you can expect such streamlined processes in family law to remain as the new norm or at least a viable option for litigants; a welcomed culmination of a time where the entire world was forced to adapt for the better. What may result is a more modernized court process through technology and expediency, and one predicated on efficiency. Conclusion The future of family law may just mean a move away from the courts to other dispute resolution platforms, and a nuanced family court process that is more streamlined and efficient. Nevertheless, while understanding the future of family law is intricate, developing and dynamic, for many, the future is now. If you believe your family law matter requires urgent attention by the courts, please do not hesitate to contact Andreina Minicozzi at Devry Smith Frank LLP to have your rights assessed and protected. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 29, 2020September 30, 2020
How is COVID-19 affecting child and spousal support in Ontario? The coronavirus pandemic has brought far-reaching economic shock waves across the country. Over one million jobs have been lost in Canada due to COVID-19 in the month of March alone. As this crisis continues and more jobs and businesses evaporate, support payors and support recipients are going to feel the financial strain. If you are a support payor pursuant to a court order, child and spousal support must still be paid despite the current state of affairs. Each region has its own notices and practice directions regarding support issues. Since April 6, 2020, the Notice to the Profession for the Central East Region which includes Whitby, states that the following matters are eligible for a hearing in writing or virtually before a judge: 14B motions requesting consent Orders on issues such as support – a Support Deduction Information Sheet (“SDIC”) is required to assist in completion of a Support Deduction Order (“SDO”). If one or more than one party is represented by counsel, a draft Order is to be submitted with the SDO. Consent Motions to Change (Form 15D), if a party is represented by legal counsel then the SDIC and SDO are to be filed. Case Conferences upon request by 14B, if granted, are limited to 30 minutes unless permitted otherwise by the triage judge and only 1 or 2 pressing issues can be conferenced which includes financial issues that do not meet the stringent urgency test. Before proceeding with motions to the Court, first determine if you are eligible for any Federal government relief programs such as the CERB or Wage Subsidy Program. Eligibility may allow you to at least continue partial payments. Though, keep in mind that under Section 11 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, CERB payments cannot be garnished by the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) at this time. The next step would be to explain your financial situation to the person you are paying support to. Cooperate as much as possible in an attempt to agree to a temporary reduction of support and/or to pay out any arrears with a modified payment plan if and when you are able to regain employment. Once an agreement is made, request a consent motion for an Order to reflect the temporary agreement regarding support arrangements during this time. The Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) has confirmed that they will not be sending any new notices of driver’s licence suspensions and are in the process of cancelling notices that were previously sent in order to reduce the number of urgent refraining motions. This means that motions to vary or stop support payments will unlikely be considered “urgent” enough to be heard by the court at this time unless the payor is in “dire financial circumstances”. In Theis v. Theis, 2020 ONSC 2001, the support payor mother brought an urgent motion requesting that her share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home be released. She was a small business owner who was forced to shut down due to provincial restrictions and her revenue had dropped to zero. Unfortunately, she failed to provide evidence of “dire financial circumstances” warranting an urgent motion including her: her previous income before the restrictions; her total income now from all sources; her personal and business expenses; the extent of her resources more generally; an updated sworn financial statement; and the results of any applications for federal relief funding and timelines. As a result, due to the dearth of evidence in her motion materials, no finding of dire financial circumstances could be found and her motion was dismissed. The key take-away is try to negotiate a temporary settlement and bring a motion on consent or as a last resort bring an urgent motion if you have enough evidence to demonstrate dire financial circumstances. Contact family lawyer Andreina Minicozzi at 289-638-3179 or andreina.minicozzi@devrylaw.ca if you have more questions about support obligations during the coronavirus/COVID-19pandemic. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 27, 2020September 30, 2020
Bringing Motions During COVID-19 in Family Law Andreina Minicozzi and Devry Smith Frank LLP are committed to following the guidelines and recommendations outlined by the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure the safety and wellbeing of employees, colleagues, clients, friends, and families. During these unprecedented times we understand that your family law matter may be in limbo. It is important to understand which family law motions may still be brought before the Superior Courts. This post looks at this issue within the Toronto, Central East and Central West regions. Toronto In Toronto, the Superior Courts will only hear motions on specific grounds. The first ground is that the motion must be urgent. This includes: Requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home); Urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions, issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child, or failure to comply with existing court orders and parenting plans; Issues regarding the financial stability of the family unit, including for example support or the need for a non-depletion order; Urgent child protection motions involving the Children’s Aid Society. It is important to note that the actual hearing of these motions is likely to take place either virtually or by way of teleconference. Parties can also consider bringing motions by way of 14B. A 14B motion is a motion made in writing. The courts will continue to hear 14B motions that are made on consent of all the parties. Central East – Barrie, Bracebridge, Cobourg, Lindsay, Newmarket, Oshawa, Peterborough Much like Toronto, the Central East Region is only hearing motions on specified grounds. This includes: Urgent motions that meet the threshold for urgency, and ex-parte motions i.e. on matters relating to the safety or well-being of a child. 14B motions in writing, requesting consent Orders on issues such as support, changes to temporary support, parenting issues (primary residence, “access” time), disbursement of funds held in trust, appointment of an OCL, Child Protection matters, and other consent matters. 14B motions requesting a Case Conference if the issues are pressing. Pressing issues that may require a Case Conference include issues of parenting, COVID-19 concerns, financial issues, or Child Protection matters that do not necessarily meet the stringent test of urgency in addition to urgent matters of a similar nature. Consent Motions to Change when both parties are seeking to change a portion or all of a previous order or agreement in place. Again, note that the actual hearing of these motions is likely to take place either virtually or by way of teleconference. Central West – Brampton, Milton, Orangeville, Guelph, Owen-Sound, Walkerton The Central West Region’s hearing of motions during these unprecedented times mimic the hearings offered by Toronto, including again: Requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home); Urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions, issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child, or failure to comply with existing court orders and parenting plans; Issues regarding the financial stability of the family unit, including for example support or the need for a non-depletion order; Urgent child protection motions involving the Children’s Aid Society. The Superior Courts in Central West will also hear consent motions in writing, made by way of a 14B motion. However, unlike Toronto and Central East, Central West is allowing parties to submit motions if the parties consent that the entire motion can be decided in writing only. This means no oral hearing is provided, and the presiding judge will make their decision predominantly based on the parties’ written material only. Conclusion If you believe your family law matter requires urgent attention by the courts, please do not hesitate to contact Andreina Minicozzi at Devry Smith Frank LLP (289-638-3179 or andreina.minicozzi@devrylaw.ca) to have your rights assessed and protected. Court procedures for filing materials and scheduling a motion have also changed and we have stayed up to date on these new procedures so that your rights continue to be protected during these unprecedented times. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 23, 2020September 30, 2020
Do I still have to let my kids travel with my ex for March Break amid COVID-19? We are all aware of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Yesterday, the Ontario Government announced the closure of all publicly funded schools for two weeks following March Break, which is set to commence this Monday, March 16th. March Break tends to be one of the busiest travel seasons… but not so much this year. While most of us with travel plans have made the decision to cancel or reschedule, others are taking advantage of the cheap cost of travel and have decided to take the risk and travel anyway. So what happens if your ex-partner is insisting upon taking your children away for March Break during his or her parenting time with the kids? Do they have to go? Do you have to sign the travel consent form as required by many international laws and custom officials? The short answer: no. But you should be aware that if you do refuse to sign a travel consent form allowing your children to go on vacation with your ex, he or she may bring forward a Family Court motion, seeking to dispense with your consent to travel. When a parent is unreasonably withholding consent, the travelling party tends to be successful on this type of a motion, so long as the proposed travel is in the child’s best interests. But, in this time of COVID-19, it will likely be very difficult for a Family Court Judge to find such travel to be in the child’s best interests. Not only does the child risk being quarantined in the foreign jurisdiction amid increasing coronavirus concerns and border shutdowns, there is the very real and additional risk that child may actually contract the virus. Even if your child isn’t quarantined while away or ill with the virus, it is highly probable that he or she will be quarantined upon return to Canada. This would mean you – the non-travelling parent and presumed healthy one – wouldn’t be able to see your child for the entire quarantine period. On top of that, there is a chance that the “self-isolation period” for your child could extend past the school shutdown ordered by the Ontario Government. A prolonged absence from school could negatively impact the education of children who need additional assistance in school (exceptional pupils). This is a factor a judge will consider if asked to decide whether or not to allow a trip. Whenever you go to Family Court, it is important to make sure you have evidence to present to the judge about what truly is in your child’s best interests. All of these considerations suggest that travel outside Canada is currently not in a child’s best interests (even though it in normal circumstances, most judges tend to support children travelling). So say NO to travel… for now. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawMarch 13, 2020September 30, 2020
How Do I Convince a Family Court Judge That My Ex-spouse Is Incapable of Being a Good Parent? Differential parenting styles can have a negative effect on the family and is a frequent cause of separation or divorce. With that being said, concerns about the changes in a spouse’s behaviour can also lead to the end of the relationship, ultimately causing stress, anxiety and for one party to believe the other is incapable of being what they believe to be a good parent. Encompassing all of these concerns could also mean one parent may prevent the children from having regular contact with the other parent. However, voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home and taking the children, or otherwise acting unilaterally will indisputably create a very unfavourable position for one parent in family court. If children are going to be denied post-separation contact with a parent, then invariably, the parents will be heading to family court – perhaps on an emergency motion to restrict or allow a parent to have parenting time. Any parent going to family court on the premise of an emergency motion has to convince the judge that there is reason for this request. It is imperative that the reasoning behind the petition is compelling enough for the judge to agree. Here are some tips on how to obtain the correct parenting order: Family court judges typically aren’t interested in how one parent feels about the other parent – even if that parent has been wronged. Ontario (and Canadian) Family Law stipulates that the child’s best interest is the only factor to be considered. A parent who is focused on the children’s perspective and best tells the judge what the children need will be the parent who succeeds. The parent who appears to be focused otherwise, will lose. 1. Parents have to base their case on evidence, not speculation, no matter how incompetent one parent believes the other parent may be. Judges only take into account what the evidence shows. Judges will not base a decision on suspicions unless there is some evidence those suspicions are correct. 2. If a parent has not displayed evidence of bad parenting, there is no basis on which a judge can rule that he or she is a bad parent. The only exception to this is where there is objective evidence (not just the other parent saying) that a parent has threatened to harm the children or has expressed comments that sound like he or she might allow the children to be in harms way. 3. Judges view parents who try to undermine a child’s relationship with the other parent as a bad parent. They believe it shows poor judgment. So, if there are texts, social media posts, instant messages, emails or other evidence of a parent conveying damaging things about the other parent, that can assist the judge in making a determination. 4. Domestic violence, against any family member, is also a sign of bad parenting. Section 24(4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act specifically requires a judge to consider all forms of domestic violence when evaluating parenting. However, judges will not tolerate any party who makes false or exaggerated claims of domestic violence to gain an advantage in family court. 5. Finally, it is almost certain that a judge will view a parent who defies court orders, or will not cooperate with a parenting coordinator, as a bad parent. But again, a judge will not assume that a parent will breach a court order unless there is some evidence of the parent doing so in the past or there is clear of evidence of the parent’s intention to breach an Order. The key to convincing a judge, even on an emergency motion for child custody, is to have evidence of a parent’s bad parenting and to express those concerns from the child’s perspective – how do the concerns negatively impact the child. Once that is established, it is important to tell the judge, in light of the parenting concerns, what parenting arrangement is in the child’s best interest so the judge can order it. Protecting the well-being of your children should always be your top priority. For assistance, contact certified specialist in family law, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. 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, Family LawJanuary 28, 2020September 9, 2022
What happens when ex-spouses have opposing views on whether or not to vaccinate their children? This polarizing issue has become the subject of significant media coverage as anti-vaccine groups are becoming increasingly vocal. One father even launched a GoFundMe campaign in order to appeal an arbitrator’s decision that allowed the mother to refuse to vaccinate their children. The arbitrator cited the work of anti-vaccine activists to support his decision, and as a result, a number of experts have come forward to testify for free during the appeal of the decision. HOW HAVE THE COURTS QUALIFIED ANTI-VACCINE EXPERTS IN PAST CASES AND HOW HAVE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS BEEN DECIDED AS A RESULT? In G. (C.M.) v. S. (D.W.), 2015 ONSC 2201, the father, in this case, refused consent for his 10-year-old daughter to travel unless she was vaccinated. As a result, he brought a motion to change the joint custody order to sole custody when it came to medical-related decisions. The hearing went on to become a battle of the experts. The motion judge found that the mother demonstrated a “lack of objectivity and thoroughness of research” and went on to critique the experts she put forward for their dearth of objective facts, research and literature that was peer-reviewed. The motion judge also considered the evidence of the amicus curiae who pointed out that Canadian Public Health Policy is in favour of vaccinations which has led to the decline or elimination of potentially fatal illnesses. Their testimony was found to be based on many years of research and clinical participation in the field of infectious diseases. Furthermore, the Immunization of School Pupils, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER I.1, requires the immunization of school children unless exempted for religious beliefs or as a matter of conscience. In the end, the motion judge granted the father decision-making ability with respect to vaccinations and ordered the mother to no longer give the child negative information about vaccines. This decision was circulated and heavily cited by the judge in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision W. (P.) v. M. (C.), 2017 NSSC 91. The judge, in this case, found that the mother’s rigid and inflexible approach when it came to vaccinations demonstrated an inability to make medical decisions that were in the child’s best interests. As a result, the father was granted sole decision-making authority with respect to medical decisions, including vaccinations without the mother’s consent. Finally, in Di Serio v. Di Serio, 2002 CanLII 49568, the motion judge found that the father’s affidavit and book of authorities citing various anti-vaccine articles were not considered properly tendered evidence from a qualified expert. The mother called the children’s family physician to provide an opinion that they are in need of childhood immunizations and again the Immunization of School Pupils Act was cited. As a result, the motion judge found it was in the children’s best interests to be vaccinated. Based on the case law, it appears that the father appealing the arbitrator’s decision has a fighting chance in court. Unfortunately, since the decision was rendered, his two young children contracted whooping cough, an infection avoided by one of the standard childhood vaccinations. Proponents of both sides of the debate will surely be closely following and anticipating the decision’s release. For more information about decision making authority when it comes to the medical care of your children contact our family law group. “This article is intended to inform. 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, Family LawDecember 20, 2019September 30, 2020
Our Child Has Come to Live with Me, How Do I Stop My Child Support Payments to My Ex? Child support payments are based on where the child actually lives, not where a Court Order or Separation Agreement says that they are living, or should be living. Since child support is the right of the child, it is also irrelevant as to why the child is residing in one place as opposed to another; child support goes to the parent with whom a child is primarily living with. However when a child’s situation changes, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) does not have the authority to stop collecting child support. As with many instances within family law, there are various ways in which one can resolve a situation. If both parents agree that the child has changed homes, is not longer entitled to child support (note: child support does not always end when a child turns 18), or is living on his or her own, then they can write to the FRO and request a cease on further child support payments. Subsequently, the FRO will verify the information with each parent before honouring the request. Alternatively, the receiving parent can obtain a withdrawal form as a means of notifying the FRO. When a child changes residence, child support payments should not be terminated. The parent whom the child was living with initially, is now responsible for making child support payments. Because of this, some parents are reluctant to acknowledge that a child has moved. However, not paying child support, and not agreeing that you should stop receiving child support, is highly frowned upon in family court. Cases whereby one parent refuses to adhere to the guidelines, often results in having to sit in front of a judge. Only a judge can look at the circumstances and determine which parent should be paying support and how much (it is also possible to arbitrate those issues if both parents agree) The judge will inform the FRO on how to proceed. Many people may avoid seeking the appropriate change to child support because of the complexities of the family court’s procedures. The Ontario Government’s Child Support Online Recalculation Service only changes support when a support payer’s income changes in a particular way; it cannot change support because a child’s circumstances changed. Fortunately, there is a simplified court procedure for changing an existing support order. That procedure is based on the premise that there is no dispute about the facts of the case. Where a child has clearly changed homes, that fact should be clear to the Court. Ideally, when a parent serves a “Motion to Change Support”, that will be enough for the other parent to acknowledge the child has moved and agree to a change in support. A party who fails to acknowledge the obvious and is ultimately forcing a parent through the court process, can expect to pay the majority, or all, of the other party’s legal fees. Certified Specialist in Family Law John Schuman, has extensive experience assisting complicated child support and custody/access parenting matters. Contact John Schuman at 416-446-5869 or john.schuman@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. 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, Family LawDecember 12, 2019July 5, 2023
Do I Have to Give Half Our House to My Ex-Spouse Even Though I Paid for it Myself? This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. With the rising costs of housing in the GTA, the question of what happens to property after divorce can loom heavily on those who enter into marriage with significant assets. In Ontario, the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, (the “FLA”) is the legislation that governs the property rights of separating spouses including the “equalization of net family property”. Generally speaking, the purpose of equalization is to calculate the value of assets accumulated during the course of the marriage and to have it divided equally between the spouses, subject to exclusions such as gifts and inheritances. However, it does not actually change the ownership interest of the property itself. There are special rules that apply to the matrimonial home which is property where at the time of separation was “ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their family residence”. Even if only one party owned the matrimonial home prior to marriage, the full net value of the home is equalized. This leads to the question: is it worth it to get a marriage contract (also known as a pre-nuptial agreement) to protect your property that you purchased prior to marriage and are now using as the matrimonial home? In Martin v. Watts, 2018 ONSC 2622, clauses in the parties’ marriage contract regarding the division of their matrimonial home upon relationship dissolution were upheld. The wife in this case used her assets to purchase a property that would become their matrimonial home. The parties entered into a marriage contract in 1990 that stipulated if the parties separated, the wife would receive a return of her cash contribution plus 25% free of any claim by the husband, with the balance divided equally. This provision would apply when there was a sale or buy out of the matrimonial home. The husband brought a motion to have the matrimonial home sold and for him to be given carriage of the sale. He relied on s. 52(2) of the FLA, which provides that “a provision in a marriage contract purporting to limit a spouse’s rights under Part II (Matrimonial home) is unenforceable.” However, the motion judge upheld the marriage contract and reminded the husband that the FLA does not actually create ownership rights so he does not have the authority to force the sale of the home. As long as the “intent of the contract is sufficiently clear, a domestic contract may provide an exemption from the equalization provisions of the legislation”. In other words, a carefully worded marriage contract could protect your property from equalization even when it is the matrimonial home. For more information on the specific wording required, speak to certified family law specialist Katelyn Bell on 416-446-5837 “This article is intended to inform. 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, Family LawNovember 19, 2019July 5, 2023
How are “deals” made on “Shark Tank” and “Dragon’s Den” valued when it comes to family law? This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. The public got a behind the scenes look at how the deals made on reality television shows “Shark Tank” and “Dragon’s Den” really take place though Robert Herjavec’s family law case with ex-wife Diane Plese. The lengthy decision Justice Mesbur looked at how the “investments” Mr. Herjavec made on the shows are valued in relation to his Net Family Property. In 2003 Mr. Herjavec established a company called the Herjavec Group (“THG”) and during his appearances on the Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den, Mr. Herjavec caused THG to invest in some of the companies that were “pitched” during the episodes. The independent business valuators were tasked with determining the value of the Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den investments in order to value THG. There were two approaches: Mr. Herjavec’s valuators Duff & Phelps simply looked at the investment’s book value and Ms. Plese’s expert, Mr. Beaton predicted that at least one of the investments would turn a profit and made an “implied investment” calculation. However, Justice Mesbur found that the deals made on the reality shows are for entertainment purposes primarily and there is no real value or potential value of these investments besides the upfront amount already invested. Though there is a bidding process, offers made and final handshakes on the episodes, there are no binding contracts made between the Sharks/Dragons and the entrepreneurs. The usual due diligence takes place after the cameras finish rolling and the Sharks/Dragons then decide whether or not they still want to finance these companies. Oftentimes, the terms of the deal made while filming change drastically after this process. Justice Mesbur found there is no expectation of profit from any of these investments, therefore no expectation that they will increase THG’s value. In the end, the approach taken by Duff & Phelps to use the book value was accepted instead of the inflated value of their “potential growth”. If you have questions about how you or your spouse’s business and investments could be valued contact family lawyer Katelyn Bell at 416-446-5837 “This article is intended to inform. 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, Family LawOctober 22, 2019September 30, 2020