In this article Chris Bruce discusses a requirement established by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in Brooks v. Stefura. This was that “accelerated inheritances” should be deducted from each plaintiff’s dependency award.
The Court did not, however, state clearly what it meant by “accelerated inheritances,” nor did it specify how those inheritances were to be calculated. In this article, Chris offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.
Read More...In this article Scott Beesley discusses a requirement established by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in Brooks v. Stefura. This was that “accelerated inheritances” should be deducted from each plaintiff’s dependency award.
The Court did not, however, state clearly what it meant by “accelerated inheritances,” nor did it specify how those inheritances were to be calculated. In this article, Scott offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.
Read More...This article points out that while the method set out by the Court of Appeal in Brooks v. Stefura does prevent double-recovery, it does not prevent double-payment, that is, the payment of the same dollar to one plaintiff under the FAA and to another under the SAA. The text of the judgment makes it clear that the Court does not wish this to occur. The article suggests a refinement of the Court’s method which would prevent such double-payments. Four detailed examples are provided.
Read More...The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the case of Boston v. Boston. This was a case involving the variation of spousal support at the time of the husband’s retirement. He retired in 1997 and began to receive his pension. He applied to have the original support payment reduced, on the grounds that he was now paying support from his pension, which had already been considered in the original division of assets. It was argued that the wife had traded off her right to half the pension, and in return had received the bulk of the physical and other assets. He succeeded in having the monthly payment lowered from $3,200 to $950, but the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the figure back to $2,000. The husband was appealing that last OCA decision in the Supreme Court.
The SCC’s decision allowed the husband’s appeal and restored the motions judge’s decision to reduce support to $950 per month. This was in my view correct, as it would appear to be unjust that the wife should receive half of an asset at separation, and then be allowed to claim part of the husband’s half of that asset later.
Read More...