7,366
edits
Difference between revisions of "The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 22:43, 16 July 2019
, 22:43, 16 July 2019→The law in other provinces
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Here is a sampling of judicial comment on the Advisory Guidelines. | Here is a sampling of judicial comment on the Advisory Guidelines. | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1llxc Woodall v. Woodall]'', 2005 ONCJ 253 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1llxc Woodall v. Woodall]'', 2005 ONCJ 253 (an Ontario case): | ||
<blockquote>"Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines may be of some assistance to the court on an initial application for spousal support, it must be noted that they are advisory only and are not binding on the court. More importantly, the authors of the guidelines make it very clear in the Executive Summary ... that the advisory guidelines do not deal with the effect of a prior agreement on spousal support and that this issue, like entitlement, is outside the scope of the advisory guidelines and would continue to be dealt with under the evolving law guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in ''Miglin v. Miglin''."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines may be of some assistance to the court on an initial application for spousal support, it must be noted that they are advisory only and are not binding on the court. More importantly, the authors of the guidelines make it very clear in the Executive Summary ... that the advisory guidelines do not deal with the effect of a prior agreement on spousal support and that this issue, like entitlement, is outside the scope of the advisory guidelines and would continue to be dealt with under the evolving law guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in ''Miglin v. Miglin''."</blockquote> | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1mjwb Puddifant v. Fraser]'', 2005 NSSC 340 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1mjwb Puddifant v. Fraser]'', 2005 NSSC 340 (a Nova Scotia case): | ||
<blockquote>"Counsel urged the court to consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. These are not law."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"Counsel urged the court to consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. These are not law."</blockquote> | ||
''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvph Modry v. Modry]'', 2005 ABQB 262 | ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvph Modry v. Modry]'', 2005 ABQB 262 (an Alberta case): | ||
<blockquote>"67. These <span class="noglossary">Guidelines</span> are not mandatory and are only a suggestion. There has been very little judicial analysis of the Guidelines as they are new. [...]</blockquote> | <blockquote>"67. These <span class="noglossary">Guidelines</span> are not mandatory and are only a suggestion. There has been very little judicial analysis of the Guidelines as they are new. [...]</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>"70. I suggest that courts will likely use these Guidelines as a <span class="noglossary">bench</span> mark to see what the support amount would be if the Guidelines were applied. Thus it will serve as another method of calculation, which when coincidentally echoing judicial discretion, will become referenced with approval. In other cases where the courts are either astonished by the payment proposition, that is that the math creates a number that is perceived to be too high or inadequate, the courts will shy away from its <span class="noglossary">application</span>."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"70. I suggest that courts will likely use these Guidelines as a <span class="noglossary">bench</span> mark to see what the support amount would be if the Guidelines were applied. Thus it will serve as another method of calculation, which when coincidentally echoing judicial discretion, will become referenced with approval. In other cases where the courts are either astonished by the payment proposition, that is that the math creates a number that is perceived to be too high or inadequate, the courts will shy away from its <span class="noglossary">application</span>."</blockquote> | ||
And, finally, my personal favourite for the judge's powerful and florid language, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754 | And, finally, my personal favourite for the judge's powerful and florid language, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754 (an Alberta case): | ||
<blockquote>"The provisions of the ''Divorce Act'' as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada are the law in this country with respect to spousal support. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are the work of two university professors, Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, assisted by a small committee. Those with strong views to the contrary were not involved, nor was there widespread discussion of the guidelines prior to their publication. They have not been enacted by the Parliament of Canada or any Provincial Legislature nor are they the subject of any governmental regulation.</blockquote> | <blockquote>"The provisions of the ''Divorce Act'' as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada are the law in this country with respect to spousal support. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are the work of two university professors, Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, assisted by a small committee. Those with strong views to the contrary were not involved, nor was there widespread discussion of the guidelines prior to their publication. They have not been enacted by the Parliament of Canada or any Provincial Legislature nor are they the subject of any governmental regulation.</blockquote> | ||