Divorce Bankruptcies

Peter Karl Roscoe

Nov 2008

Contents

page

Introduction 1

Divorce Bankruptcy Data Summary 3

Conclusions 4

Appendix A Divorce Bankruptcy Cases 5

Appendix B Divorce Bankruptcy Variation Cases 14

Appendix C Divorce Bankruptcy Case Extracts 18

Introduction

Divorces may involve many stresses and emotional turmoil. Financial issues can be amoungst the most contentious. The costs of a fully contested divorce may range into the 100’s of thousand dollars. Not all families can afford a contested divorce. Bankruptcies have become a common phenomena associated with divorce. Massive losses of a families overall financial resources clearly can’t be seen to be in the best interests of the children.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on many occassions that a purpose of divorce legislation is remedying women for economic disadvantages incurred in marriage

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3

In enacting the spousal support provisions of the FLRA, and later the FLA, the Legislative Assembly was aware of the unhappy historical experience of women under the previous family law regime, and had the primary purpose of ameliorating the position of women who had become dependent upon their partners in both married and conjugal opposite-sex relationships

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670

Moreover, there are related public policy goals to consider. As recently recognized by L'Heureux-Dubé J. in Moge v Moge ( 1992 ) 3 SCR 813 "there is no doubt that divorce and its economic effects" (p. 854) are playing a role in the "feminization of poverty" (p. 853). A statutory interpretation which might help defeat this role is to be preferred over one which does not. [Emphasis added.]

I most heartily agree.

Clarke v. Clarke, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 795

The Act is accordingly remedial in nature. It was designed to alleviate the inequities of the past when the contribution made by women to the economic survival and growth of the family was not recognized. In interpreting the provisions of the Act the purpose of the legislation must be kept in mind and the Act given a broad and liberal construction which will give effect to that purpose.

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801

In my opinion the statutory powers of the Court to which I have referred were granted partly in the public interest to provide a substitute for this husband's duty of maintenance and to prevent the wife from being thrown upon the public for support. If this be true, the powers of the Court in this respect cannot be restricted by the private agreement of the parties....The wife's right to future maintenance is a matter of public concern, which she cannot barter away.

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813

What are the consequences of divorce for women, men and children, besides emotional pain? They are very different. Men tend to maintain the standard of living they had before the divorce, while women and children sink into instant poverty.

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303

As this Court stressed in Moge at p. 850, in many (if not most) marriages, the wife remains the economically disadvantaged partner. Though marriage relationships are, in general, becoming more egalitarian, there continues to be a disjunction between the principle of equality and the lived economic and personal reality of many married women, and the law needs to be able to recognize and to accommodate the situations where this disjunction exists.

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325

I agree with these comments, given my review of the historical context giving rise to the enactment of the first matrimonial property statutes. The statutes are remedial in nature.

This study examines the financial consequences of divorce on both sexes from the perspective of bankruptcies. Traditionally welfare statistics for single mothers have been used to depict the femminization of poverty. It is impossible to derive similar statistics to compare for divorced fathers because they may be denied welfare for a variety of reasons. Support paying husbands may have incomes too high to qualify, yet be reduced to welfare levels after support and taxes. Bankruptcies could be even more significant indicators of financial devastation than welfare because debts to other parties are defaulted in addition to personal insolvency.

The cases listed below are examples of 212 registered bankruptcies of divorced spouses. They were obtained by searching the Canlii legal database using the search terms bankruptcy and divorce. Two types of cases were recorded. Actual divorce cases directly between spouses, and other civil actions including bankruptcy hearings and lawsuits. Divorce cases were deemed to be the best indicator of financial relations between ex spouses since family issues were not mentioned in many third party actions. The large number of claims would indicate it is a common problem with divorces. From a comparative standpoint, bankruptcy claims in divorce cases were found to be almost as common as allegations of domestic violence, or orders for income imputation. Bankruptcies affected both sexes. A higher percentage of men than women declared bankruptcy. In some cases both spouses declared bankruptcy. At bankruptcy hearings, ex spouses were frequently opposing creditors. Revenue Canada was the next most common. Banks and mortgage companies also typical.

The consequenses of bankruptcies can be severe for both spouses. Debt obligations may be jointly held. When one spouse goes bankrupt the other may become liable for their debts. A spouse may even seek bankruptcy to try to defeat property equalization and cost awards. If a party is deemed to have acted in bad faith, the bankruptcy court may attach conditions to their discharge. The most common is repayment of a portion of the debt. Bankrupt payors often request the family court to reduce their support obligations due to financial hardships. Sometimes instead support is increased as it is reasoned they are now in a better financial position from having been relieved of prior debtload. Creditor spouses may seek vesting orders that transfer a portion of their partners estate so it does not become part of the bankruptcy, or charging orders so they are preferential creditors with respect to any new debt. Many bankrupt parties could no longer afford lawyers and had to appear in court self represented. This could present a significant disadvantage in a complicated divorce case. Even in negotiating a separation agreement. The worst impact of divorce bankruptcies is undoubtedly on the children. It could mean the difference between the family being able to give their kids a good home and university education, or meager subsistence on public welfare plans.

The cases examined in this study are listed in Appendix A.Cases where a variation was sought against a bankrupt payor are listed in Appendix B. Case extracts have been included in Appendix C

Divorce Bankruptcies Data Summary

Total Bankruptcies

1 Number of Cases

2 Number of Cases where Bankrupt is Self Represented

3 Number of Cases Where Ex Spouse is a Creditor

4 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Recieves Support

5 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Pays Support

1

2

3

4

5

Men	162 ( 76.4 % )	56 ( 83.6 % )	82 ( 85.4 % )	7 ( 19.4 % )	106 ( 96.4 % )
Women	50 ( 23.6 % )	11 ( 16.4 % )	14 ( 14.6 % )	28 ( 80.6 % )	5 ( 3.6 % )
Total	212 ( 100 % )	67 ( 100 % )	96 ( 100 % )	35 ( 100 % )	84 ( 100 % )

Banruptcies in Divorce Litgation

1 Number of Cases

2 Number of Cases where Bankrupt is Self Represented

3 Number of Cases Where Ex Spouse is a Creditor

4 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Recieves Support

5 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Pays Support

1

2

3

4

5

Men	116 ( 75.3 % )	42 ( 84.0 % )	61 ( 85.9 % )	7 ( 20.0 % )	94 ( 94.9 % )
Women	38 ( 24.7 % )	8 ( 16.0 % )	10 ( 14.1 % )	28 ( 80.0 % )	5 ( 5.1 % )
Total	154 ( 100 % )	50 ( 100 % )	71 ( 100 % )	35 ( 100 % )	99 ( 100 % )

Variation of Bankrupt Payors Support Payments

1 Number of Bankrupt Payors Where a Variation is Sought

2 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Payors Support is Reduced

3 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Payors Support is Unchanged

4 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Payors Support is Increased ( includes imputed income, retroactive arrears, lump sums, and cost penalties )

1

2

3

4

Men	90 ( 100 % )	5 ( 5.6 % )	28 ( 31.1 % )	57 ( 63.3 % )
Women	5 ( 100 % )	2 ( 40.0 % )	2 ( 40.0 % )	1 ( 20.0 % )

Support Received by Male Recipients ( $’s per month )

N= 7 mean = 375 median = 396

6.000 12.00 233.0 396.0 500.0 504.0 1100.

Support Received by Female Recipients ( $’s per month )

N= 19 mean = 1454 median = 760

75.00 274.0 448.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 521.0 633.0 751.0 760.0 770.0 882.0 1600. 1674. 2250. 2400. 4000. 4087. 5000.

Conclusions

It would appear that bankruptcy statistics do not bear out the Supreme Courts proposition divorce legislation is required to ameliorate females. They would indicate instead that there were worse effects for divorcing males. 77 % of divorce bankruptcies were by men. 82 % of bankrupt males were support payors and only 5 % recipients. Support was decreased in less than 6 % of cases when a bankrupt males payments were varied. In 68 % of cases it was increased. Almost 2/3 of the cases had ex spouses as creditors. Over 85 % of spousal creditors were females. In contrast, 70 % of bankrupt females received support and only 16.7 % were payors. On average the support received by females was over 4 times higher than that received by males. It must be concluded that the vast majority of post divorce bankruptcies were men, and most of them were further burdened with support payments and arrears which would increase the difficulty of recovery. Most women who went bankrupt were recipients of support and therefore received some relief. Most bankruptcies resulted in protracted litigation for both former spouses which must be seen as negative to the interests of any children, in addition to the overall loss of resources by both parents.

Appendix A Divorce Bankruptcy Cases

Contents

1 Divorce or Non Divorce Case D – Divorce X – Non Divorce

2 Sex of Bankrupt Party M – Man W - Woman

3 Sex of Bankrupt Parties Lawyer M – Male F = Female L - Lawyer

4 Sex of Opposing Lawyer M – Male F = Female L - Lawyer

5 Bankrupts Ex Spouse is Creditor Y - Yes

6 Bankrupt is Payor or Reciepient of support P – Payor R - Recipient

Case

1

2

3

4

5

6

Description

A.P. v. G.P., 2006 CanLII 9976 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Man has gambling problem and is disallowed assigning divorce ruling to bankruptcy
Adams v. Adams, 2005 CanLII 34799 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M	Y	R	Wife gets $ 75 per month spousal support, wife owes husband 31.5 K equalization
Akerboom v. Steele, 2004 CanLII 29451 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Man is intentionally unemployed
Alousis, Re, 2000 CanLII 22493 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	L		P	Man couldn’t pay income tax because support was too much of income
Aneziris v. Aneziris, 2007 CanLII 250 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr		P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy so no equalization, husband is intentionally unemployed
Aneziris v. Aneziris, 2007 CanLII 250 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M		R	Both spouses declare bankruptcy so no equalization, husband is intentionally unemployed
Appleby, Re, 2001 CanLII 28476 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	L		R	Wifes ex husband dies and support was her only income
Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	1.4 K support, husband owes cost penalties
Babinsky v. Babinsky, 2006 CanLII 32912 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears, motion to vary dismissed
Backman, Re, 2001 CanLII 28271 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Wife is opposing creditor
Baird (Re), 2007 CanLII 15792 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	sr			Wifes bankruptcy opposed by her divorce lawyer
Balyk v. Balyk, 1994 CanLII 7498 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y		Wife must register as a creditor in husbands bankruptcy to get equalization
Barrick v. Barrick, 2006 CanLII 1317 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	W		P	Man must pay 1 K per month spousal support
Beattie v. Ladouceur, 2001 CanLII 28166 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		49 contempt orders against man, 120 days in jail, he owes wife 550 K
Behich (Re), 2007 CanLII 5143 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			No family issues mentioned
Beitel v. Beitel, 2006 CanLII 60944 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	L	Y	P	Mans proceeds from equalization to be held in trust for support payments
Ben-Lolo (Re), 2008 CanLII 37052 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			Mans business goes bankrupt, both wife and husband take off with remaining cash, both go bankrupt, family matters not mentioned
Ben-Lolo (Re), 2008 CanLII 37052 (ON S.C.)	X	W		L			Mans business goes bankrupt, both wife and husband take off with remaining cash, both go bankrupt, family matters not mentioned
Benmergui v. Bitton, 2008 CanLII 11639 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	sr		P	Wife believes she is entitled to funds from husband but no retroactive support or spousal saupport or imputed income is ordered
Bennett v. Riem, 2004 CanLII 34518 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			Third party action, family matters not mentioned
Berry (Re), 2008 CanLII 14889 (ON S.C.)	X	W	sr	L			Woman on third bankruptcy goes bankrupt to avoid paying cost penalties on an estate issue with her family, she doesn’t pay or receive support
Bertrim v. Bertrim, 2002 CanLII 49520 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Wife is opposing creditor, support increased from 1.8 K per month to 2.2 K year of bankruptcyin 1996, reduced in 2002
Beynon (Bankruptcy of) (Re), 2003 CanLII 18688 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Man has 2 ex wives as creditors
Bialek (Re), 1994 CanLII 7265 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Man makes assignment in bankruptcy in canada to escape US student loans, family matters not mentioned
Blaschuk v. Bridgewater, 2005 CanLII 28787 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr	Y	R	Both parents imputed intentionally unemployed, minor retroactive support and s.7 expenses
Bobyk, Re, 1995 CanLII 7384 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife is creditor in husbands bankruptcy,man pays support
Boileau v. Boileau, 2003 CanLII 2288 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Mans bankrupt secure pension split and 97 K lump sum ordered
Boneva v. Boneva (No. 2), 2005 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Variation denied as man used friends to shelter assets, arrears, FRO default motion
Both v. Both, 2008 CanLII 52613 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y		Non depletion order, 121 K costs
Bothwell, Re, 2000 CanLII 22506 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	L			Husbands mother sues bankrupt divorced couple for loan, no mention of family issues
Bothwell, Re, 2000 CanLII 22506 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	L			Husbands mother sues bankrupt divorced couple for loan, no mention of family issues
Boychuk v. Boychuk, 2004 CanLII 5032 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	14 K arrears, not varied
Bradley v. Bradley, 2000 CanLII 22513 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Retroactive support, separation agreement set aside
Bukvic v. Bukvic, 2007 CanLII 14323 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Wife has hearing against bankruptcy trustee, wife gets 150 K lump sum
C.(J.J.D.) v. C.(S.L.), 1996 CanLII 8098 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	123 K arrears, variation denied, 46 K security ordered
Cantwell v. Cantwell, 2000 CanLII 22450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Bankrupt man must pay 30 K lump sum support
Carpentier v. Carpentier, 2005 CanLII 44412 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M	Y	P	Wife pays child support, spousal support to husband denied, 1 K retroactive child support
Chute v. Chute, 2006 CanLII 1915 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Variation denied, mans income imputed 30 K above claimed
Ciolfe (Caravatta) v. Ciolfe, 2006 ONCJ 118 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Imputed income, retroactive arrears, 5 K costs
Clement v. Clement, 2007 CanLII 12686 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Variation denied, 3 K costs tow ife
Cook v. Plante, 2008 CanLII 46696 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Mans support payments doubled, 10 K retroactive support
Cotton v. Cotton, 2004 CanLII 10486 (ON S.C.)	X	W	M	sr			Wife sue husband in small claims court claiming he owes her 5 K
Couvillon v. Couvillon, 1996 CanLII 8075 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Variation denied, 2.1 s.7 lump, ordered to get life insurance
Currey v. Currey, 2003 CanLII 2090 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M	Y	R	Wife must pay 236 K costs, support ended, no refund of overpayment denied
Cutillas v. Proulx, 2001 CanLII 28218 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	sr		R	Man leaves country, wife gets support, arrears, wife gets equalization after bankruptcy
D.R.H. v. K.B.K., 2003 CanLII 22806 (ON C.J.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	R	Custody changed to shared with father, offset for arrears means wife pays $ 6 per month support
D.W. v. C.O, 2006 CanLII 16361 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	M	Y	P	Man has custody, wife pays $ per month support, imputed income, 6 months retroactive not 4 years
Daemi v. Morovati, 2003 CanLII 2092 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears, support not varied
Dagg v. Pereira, 2000 CanLII 22459 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M		P	Joint custody, both unemployed, father pays child support
Dang v. Duong, 2006 CanLII 34339 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	M		R	Child support and arrears owed to wife, spousal support adjourned to trial
Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	L	Y	P	Variation denied, man imputed, arrears
Dawood (Re), 2007 CanLII 15234 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L		P	Man gambles after separation
Day v. Adley, 2003 CanLII 2302 (ON S.C.)	X	W	sr	L			Wife doesn’t pay lawyer and goes bankrupt and lawyers sues to recover fees, man pays 175 K lump from pension to settle both equalization and support
Devitt v. Devitt, 2000 CanLII 22574 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	15 K arrears lowered to 6 K
Dewar v. MacLean, 2006 CanLII 30588 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Mans girlfriend sues him and ex wife, ex wife dies, family matters not mentioned
Di Nunzio v. Edwards, 2004 CanLII 4782 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	sr	Y		Suit by wife for repayment of loan, wife gets 40 K
Duguay v. Thompson-Duguay, 2000 CanLII 22515 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		P	Arbitration award overturned
Engels v. Richard Killen & Associates Ltd., 2002 CanLII 49496 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	L			Man goes bankrupt after divorce, lawsuit with third party, family matters not mentioned
Erinc (Re), 2008 CanLII 36523 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife is opposing creditor
Eveleigh v. Eveleigh, 2005 CanLII 6049 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M	Y	P	Man declares bankruptcy after equalization payment judgment
Fair v. Fair, 2004 CanLII 16762 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	F		R	Man must pay 4 K per month interim support
Fendelet v. Dohey, 2006 CanLII 34273 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Variation denied, 144 K arrears
Flewelling v. Flewelling, 2007 CanLII 8924 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Family home transferred to wife and mans share given to FRO for support
Foster v. Foster, 2004 ONCJ 114 (CanLII)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Wife becomes responsible for some of husbands debt from his bankruptcy, variation denied
Fraser v. Fraser, 2004 CanLII 7038 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		R	Man has leukimia, wife pays 1.1 K per month spousal support, variation denied
Fredriksen v. Lehane, 2003 CanLII 2122 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	R	Man gets custody and child support, wife pays $ 12 per month offset for arrears
Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2004 CanLII 39943 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M		P	Separation agreement set aside, wife gets $ 950 per month spousal support
Geddes, Re, 2006 CanLII 37596 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	sr	Y		Wife is opposing creditor
Goudie v. Stapleford, 2004 CanLII 20297 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	sr		R	Separation agreement overturned, husband must pay support
Gough v. Gough, 1996 CanLII 988 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Husband goes bankrupt owing wife 152 K equalization
Guitard v. Guitard, 2007 CanLII 14929 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Man goes bankrupt and wife loses her equalization claim
Guy v. Tulloch, 2004 CanLII 11695 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Imputed income, retroactive support, s.7 expense lump
Hance v. Carbone, 2006 CanLII 38234 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Separation agreement overturned, wife gets support
Hann (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 22949 (ON S.C.)	X	M	F	sr	Y		Man commits fraud and discharge is suspended, wife opposing creditor
Harris v. 358207 Ontario Ltd., 2000 CanLII 22281 (ON C.A.)	D	W	F	sr	Y	R	Husbands appeal from spousal support order of 5 K per month denied, arrears
Harrison v. Harrison, 2004 CanLII 6216 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Support, arrears, imputed income, costs
Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	L		P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy, man self represented at trial,imputed income
Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	L		R	Both spouses declare bankruptcy, man self represented at trial
Hatfield, Re, 1995 CanLII 7382 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	L		R	Third party is opposing creditor
Henderson, Re, 1997 CanLII 12401 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Opposing creditor is wife, man must pay an extra 48 K because he went bankrupt to escape divorce ruling, 6 K costs
Herskovits v. Herskovits, 2001 CanLII 28233 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y		Man pays 30 K lump sum and support obligation is ended
Higgins v. Higgins, 2007 ONCA 663 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	sr	Y	P	Retroactive arrears, default, pleadings struck
Hill v. Hill, 2008 CanLII 43767 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Retroactive arrears
Hochrein, Re, 2005 CanLII 38098 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Wife has custody, opposing creditor third party, family matters not mentioned
Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	13 K cost penalty
Iddon v. Iddon, 2006 CanLII 1450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Man is underemployed and imputed, arrears
J.P. (Re), 2005 CanLII 57901 (ON C.C.B.)	X	W	F	L			Competence hearing
Janakowski v. Janakowski, 2000 CanLII 22587 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M		P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy
Janakowski v. Janakowski, 2000 CanLII 22587 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	F	Y	R	Both spouses declare bankruptcy, wifes spousal support ends with agreement and is not varied, wife loses equalization claim due to husbands bankruptcy
Jellison v. Jellison, 2008 CanLII 35682 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F			Joint custody man on disability, mother seeks sole custody, support not mentioned
Johnston v. Marshall, 2003 CanLII 2320 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	sr		R	Court grants common law wife constructive trust claim after her bankruptcy
Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Fraudulent conveyance and imprisonment, garnishment hearing
Jones v. Jones, 2006 CanLII 24445 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Man goes bankrupt owing ex 125 K of 225 K judgment
Kansra (Trustee) (Re), 2003 CanLII 3496 (ON S.C.)	X	W	sr	M			Matrimonial proceedings not begun yet
Kenora Prospectors & Miners, Ltd. v. Duncan Green, 2003 CanLII 25496 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Wife petitions husband into bankruptcy to get corporate assets
Kopaniak v. MacLellan, 2002 CanLII 44919 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M	Y	R	Man leaves country and marries his divorce lawyer, takes child denying mother access, mother owes retroactive arrears
Kovinich v. Kovinich, 2007 CanLII 8922 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M	Y		Husband is creditor in wifes bankruptcy
L.K. v. G.K., 2007 CanLII 9612 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M			Wife suffers from depression, man gets custody
Lanfrey v. Lanfrey, 2006 ONCJ 522 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	F		R	Both husband and wife go bankrupt, child have lived with both, no arrears, wife pays support
Lanfrey v. Lanfrey, 2006 ONCJ 522 (CanLII)	D	W	F	sr		P	Both husband and wife go bankrupt, child have lived with both, no arrears, wife pays support
Laue v. Laue, 2000 CanLII 20295 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Man denied variation
Ledrew (Bankruptcy), Re, 2005 CanLII 23101 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L	Y		Revenue Canada and wife are opposing creditors
Lee v. Wright, 2007 ONCJ 454 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Imputed income, s.7 expenses, 11.3 K arrears
Lees v. Lees, 2000 CanLII 22580 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Both spouses go bankrupt, separation agreement overturned, wifes suicide attempt is a change of circumstance, wife gets spousal support
Lees v. Lees, 2000 CanLII 22580 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M		R	Both spouses go bankrupt
Lefebvre v. Strilchuck, 2007 CanLII 8019 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	F		P	Husband denied requesting retroactive support
Legault v. Pineault, 2006 CanLII 12315 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr			Wife is denied lump sum or periodic spousal support
Levy, Re, 2002 CanLII 12644 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M		P	Man defaults on payment to aunt and she claims separation agreement with wife is fraudulent conveyance
Logan v. Logan, 2004 CanLII 195 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	F			Wife asks for support 6 years after divorce, interim motion for disclosure
Lowry v. Kushnir, 2007 CanLII 18146 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Husband ordered to pay 35 K per month and 20 K costs, wife recives payment from bankruptcy trustee
Lynch v. Lynch, 1994 CanLII 3845 (ON C.J.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Variation refused, arrears
M. Al. O. v. Me. A. O., 2005 CanLII 2740 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	sr	Y	R	Unemployed mans income imputed to 40 K, arrears, retroactive arreas, supervised access
M.M.K. v. P.R.M., 2000 CanLII 22536 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		P	Man in contempt for abducting child to Bermuda
MacDonald, Re, 2002 CanLII 11321 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Wife is opposing creditor
MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2003 CanLII 2328 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F		P	Financial planner goes bankrupt and may be suspended, support varied
MacPherson v. MacPherson, 1994 CanLII 7464 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Wife asks shares in company be transferred to her instead of being part of husbands estate for bankruptcy, husband goes bankrupt invalidating separation agreement to settle lump sum support
Madruga v. Madruga, 2007 CanLII 51166 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	No equalization as house was in mans name when he went bankrupt, retroactive arrears
Manis v. Manis, 2001 CanLII 3851 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears, man stops making mortgage payments and wifes home sold, 6 months in jail
Marks v. Tokarewicz, 2003 CanLII 2038 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M	Y	R	Wife doesn’t pay tax on spousal support and goes bankrupt and debt falls to husband, reapplication for spousal support after separation agreement expires is denied
Marshall Romaniuk v. Marshall Romaniuk, 2005 CanLII 14985 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	2K per month spousal support, mans bankruptcy causes debts to fall to wife
Mashaollah (Re), 2007 CanLII 44828 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	M			Opposing creditor third party, family matters not mentioned
McCague, Re, 2006 CanLII 39084 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M			Man has gambling problem after divorce, criminal conviction for fraud, family matters not mentioned
McConnell, Re, 2005 CanLII 47745 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Man pays 3.5 K per month in spousal support
McGillan v. Burdney and Ancona, 2004 ONCJ 60 (CanLII)	D	M	L	sr	Y	P	Man seeks to vary 2 support orders at once, over 15 K arrears, variation denied
McGoey v. McGoey, 2003 CanLII 2179 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M		R	Wife recieves spousal support
McGrath v. McGrath, 1998 CanLII 14903 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Wife is opposing creditor, discharge in bankruptcy refused as man goes bankrupt to escape divorce judgment
McNally v. McNally, 2007 CanLII 9613 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Father pays net support, trial ordered for variation and arrears
Melzack v. Germain, 1998 CanLII 1798 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	sr		P	Imputed income, appeal dismissed
Mensah, Re, 2006 CanLII 37133 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M			Family issues not mentioned
Mercieca v. Merciera, 2002 CanLII 2754 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L		P	Man pays child support, wifes claim for spousal support in wrong jurisdiction
Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	370 K costs, danages for fraud, support and penalty for contempt to survive bankruptcy
Miller v. Bouchard, 2001 CanLII 28173 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Husband doesn’t inform wife of new income and must pay half retroacxtive arrears for period
Moberg v. Peterson, 2001 CanLII 28262 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F			P	59 K in arrears not varied, man earns 25 K per year
Mondino v. Mondino, 2004 CanLII 21293 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M	Y	P	Child support, retroactive spousal support
Mott, Re, 2005 CanLII 38104 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M		P	Fraud charges, discharge refused
N.L. v. S.L., 2007 CanLII 46697 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F		P	Child support, 6 months spousal support
Niemi v. Maier, 2006 CanLII 22142 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Wife loses equalization claim, 3 K per month child support, 100 K lump sum spousal support and 8.5 K charge for funds spent on boat
Nitsopoulos v. Alousis, 2000 CanLII (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F		P	Man goes bankrupt and suffers from depression
Nussbaum v. Nussbaum, 2004 CanLII 23086 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	M		R	Wife claims husband transferred property to her to avoid creditors as he intended to declare bankruptcy, husband has not paid child support and owes 300 K
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2003 CanLII 2366 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears
Ogilvy v. Ogilvy, 2006 CanLII 32909 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	F			Wifes claim for equalization after her bankruptcy dismissed
Okel v. Misheal, 2007 CanLII 7409 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears
Olah v. Olah, 2008 CanLII 43589 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Man goes bankrupt leaving wife liable for debts, 3.5 K arrears, 12 K costs
O'Reilly (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 22697 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	L	Y	P	Mans second bankruptcy, both man and wife are lawyers, criminal charges, one month imprisonment for violation of family court order
Otis v. Gregoire, 2008 CanLII 50510 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M		P	Man owes revenue Canada 20 K, no retroactive arrears
P.S. v. K.S., 2004 CanLII 6326 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M		R	Husband has custody but owes wife 17 K equalization after her bankruptcy, wife gets spousal support 15 years after separation
Payne (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 4784 (ON S.C.)	X	W	M	M	Y		Bankruptcy trustee moves that 1.3 million dollar lump sum is frauduilent conveyance
Pearce v. Pittock, 1994 CanLII 7499 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Man goes bankrupt leaving wife liable for debts,
Perpich, Re, 2006 CanLII 37266 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Family issues not mentioned
Perry v. Perry, 2007 CanLII 20982 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears, retroactive support, 11K costs
Philip v. Philip, 2008 CanLII 39436 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M	Y	P	60 % of 17 K cost penalty survives bankruptcy and 1 K cost penalty fo hearing
Poisson v. Allen, 2008 CanLII 24226 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F		P	Child support cancelled after mans bankruputcy, reinstated 5 years later, no retroactive arrears
Pottayil, Re, 2000 CanLII 22500 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M			Family issues not mentioned
Ramsey v. Proffitt, 2001 CanLII 28161 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Separation agreement not extinguished by bankruptcy
Reitsma v. Reitsma-Leadsom, 2005 CanLII 47762 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	sr		P	Variation denied
Remus v. Remus, 2003 CanLII 2222 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M		R	Imputed income, variation denied
Risen v. Risen, 1998 CanLII 14571 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife gets support increase
Ristimaki v. Cooper, 2004 CanLII 16074 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Man leaves country and is petioned into bankruptcy by creditors
Ristimaki, Re, 2000 CanLII 22486 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M	Y		Wife owed 4.4 million and revenue canada owed 9 million
Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada, 1995 CanLII 7247 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Man goes bankrupt and bank makes claimagainst wife for mortgage.
Roby v. Roby (Estate), 2003 CanLII 2011 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M	Y	P	Wife is opposing creditor, mortgage on home set aside
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2003 CanLII 2227 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Man is alienated from daughter, retroactive arrears
Rowe (Re), 2007 CanLII 699 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	sr		P	Both man and wife go bankrupt, wifes parents are opposing creditors
Rowe (Re), 2007 CanLII 699 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	sr		R	Both man and wife go bankrupt, wifes parents are opposing creditors
Rueter v. Rueter, 2002 CanLII 2733 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	M	Y	P	Wife accuses husband of land flip, support not varied, arrears
S.A.S. v. J.J.S., 2007 CanLII 1901 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr	Y	R	Man gets supervised access and must take mental health exam, retroactive arrears
S.B. v. D.B., 2002 CanLII 2782 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	F		R	Husband has custody and wife pays child support
Sachdeva (Re), 2008 CanLII 63171 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Third party creditor, family matters not mentioned, man convicted of fraud transferred assets to ex wife as divorce settlement
Sagl v. Sagl, 1997 CanLII 12248 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Mans business goes bankrupt
Scott v. Blake, 2008 CanLII 26695 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr		P	Woman pays $ 75 per month support
Scott v. Nicholson, 1995 CanLII 7445 (ON C.J.)	D	M	M	sr	Y	P	Man has 2 ex wives and new family
Sebastiano v. Sebastiano, 2008 CanLII 28063 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr		R	Man pays 1.6 K per month support
Selkirk Landscaping Ltd. v. Selkirk, 2004 CanLII 33015 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Family matters not mentioned
Serrao v. Jardine, 2003 CanLII 2237 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Mans pleadings struck, arrears, contempt, imputed income, variation denied
Shaw-McInnis v. Crawford, 2003 CanLII 2241 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	L	Y	P	Imputed income, variation denied
Shea v. Fraser, 2007 ONCA 224 (CanLII)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Judge orders retroactive support, upheld on appeal
Sherman v. Sherman, 1999 CanLII 4102 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M		P	Reduction in support overturned on appeal
Sherwood v. Sherwood, 2006 CanLII 40795 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Imputed Income, intentionally unemployed because husband lost his job
Skirten v. Lengyel, 2007 CanLII 4890 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr		R	Child support, spousal support costs
Slan v. Blumenfeld, 1997 CanLII 12259 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Mans bankruptcy incorporated into divorce judgment, house vested to wife
Sodhi v. Sodhi, 2002 CanLII 41503 (ON C.A.)	D	W	M	M		R	Support arrears reduced, upheld on appeal
South v. Tichelaar, 2001 CanLII 28133 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M		R	Shared custody after husband has custody for 7 years, support paid by wife cut in half
Stajkowski v. Stajkowski, 2007 CanLII 16829 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Support varied
Sten, Re, 2006 CanLII 62 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	L	Y	P	Man owes wife 16 K in arrears and costs
Stoate v. Stoate, 2005 CanLII 13820 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr		R	Man has income imputed, retroactive arrears
Stoklosa (Re), 2008 CanLII 35929 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	L			Third party creditor, family matters not mentioned
Stratton v. Kangas, 2001 CanLII 26440 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Request for interim imputed income denied
Stutz v. Stutz Sorrenson, 2002 CanLII 2815 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr	Y	R	Wifes business goes bankrupt owing husband 75 K
Sukhraj v. Narain-Sukhraj, 2002 CanLII 2816 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr	Y		Man not intentionally unemployed, 4 K arrears, support obligation terminated
Takis v. Takis, 2002 CanLII 2818 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	L		R	Woman makes suicide attempt, joint custody
Tang (Re), 2007 CanLII 10216 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			Man runs gambling business and loses, second bankruptcy, discharge refused
Taylor v. Taylor, 2004 CanLII 42952 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Man goes bankrupt, wife gets 19 K equalization from his pension and 10 K compensatory support
Testa v. Basi, 2005 CanLII 25186 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr		P	Man says he lost job due to wife pressing criminal charges and falsifying his name on credit cards
Thiessen v. Hurd, 1999 CanLII 14980 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	17 K lump sum for spousal support
Tremblay v. Tremblay, 1999 CanLII 3748 (ON C.A.)	D	M	sr	sr	Y		Man ruled to have gone bankrupt to avoid 750 K damage award, new trial of support ordered
Trepanier (Re), 2007 CanLII 15806 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	sr	Y		Wife gets garnishment order, man goes bankrupt
Trick v. Trick, 2003 CanLII 2260 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M		R	74.5 K retroactive child support from husband
Visneskie v. Visneskie, 2003 CanLII 2264 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Wife must pay 45 K costs and property issues can’t be dealt with in family court because of mans bankruptcy
Wale, Re, 1996 CanLII 8275 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	F	Y		Man files bankruptcy 1 hour before family trial, bankruptcy anulled
Wallace v. Prince-Cox, 2008 CanLII 56018 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	M	Y	R	Wife borrows 22 K and it becomes lump sum spousal support because of her bankruptcy, periodic support denied.
Webb v. Tomlinson, 2006 CanLII 18192 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	F	Y		Ex wife lends husband money and he goes bankrupt
Werth v. Werth, 2004 ONCJ 43 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Retroactive support claim for adult child
Wheeldon v. Wheeldon, 2003 CanLII 2398 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		P	Man pays child support and $ 1 per month spousal support
White, Re, 2006 CanLII 11236 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Man pays wifes mortgage and declares bankruptcy, court does not believe they are separated
Wilson v. Wilson, 2001 CanLII 28111 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Wife claims fraudulent conveyance of family home
Winsa v. Spano, 2005 CanLII 6403 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Wife is secured creditor
Woodall v. Woodall, 2005 ONCJ 253 (CanLII)	D	W	M	L	Y	R	Wife declares bankruptcy and husband must pay debts, husbands motion to vary support dismissed, arrears
Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P
Yetman v. Yetman, 2006 CanLII 7039 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		P	Child support not varied, spousal support increased
Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y		Man does not attend hearing
Zuk (Re), 2006 CanLII 42590 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M		P	Man has gambling problem, discharge refused, may reapply in one year

Appendix B Divorce Cases Where a Variation is Sought on Bankrupt Payors . Support

Contents

1 Divorce or Non Divorce Case D – Divorce X – Non Divorce

2 Sex of Bankrupt Party M – Man W - Woman

3 Change in Support 1 – Support is Reduced 2 – Support is Not Varied

3 – Support is Increased

4 Bankrupt is Payor or Reciepient of support P – Payor R - Recipient

Case

1

2

3

4

Description

Stajkowski v. Stajkowski, 2007 CanLII 16829 (ON S.C.)	D	M	1	P	Support varied
MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2003 CanLII 2328 (ON S.C.)	D	M	1	P	Financial planner goes bankrupt and may be suspended, ex parte impution order varied retroactively
Devitt v. Devitt, 2000 CanLII 22574 (ON S.C.)	D	M	1	P	15 K arrears lowered to 6 K
Visneskie v. Visneskie, 2003 CanLII 2264 (ON S.C.)	D	M	1	P	Wife must pay 45 K costs and property issues can’t be dealt with in family court because of mans bankruptcy
Poisson v. Allen, 2008 CanLII 24226 (ON S.C.)	D	M	1	P	Child support cancelled after mans bankruputcy, reinstated 5 years later, no retroactive arrears
Janakowski v. Janakowski, 2000 CanLII 22587 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy
Moberg v. Peterson, 2001 CanLII 28262 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	59 K in arrears not varied, man earns 25 K per year
Reitsma v. Reitsma-Leadsom, 2005 CanLII 47762 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Variation denied
Mercieca v. Merciera, 2002 CanLII 2754 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man pays child support, wifes claim for spousal support in wrong jurisdiction
Barrick v. Barrick, 2006 CanLII 1317 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man must pay 1 K per month spousal support, not varied
Duguay v. Thompson-Duguay, 2000 CanLII 22515 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Arbitration award overturned, support variation denied
Laue v. Laue, 2000 CanLII 20295 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man denied variation
Sherman v. Sherman, 1999 CanLII 4102 (ON C.A.)	D	M	2	P	Reduction in support overturned on appeal
Benmergui v. Bitton, 2008 CanLII 11639 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Wife believes she is entitled to funds from husband but no retroactive support or spousal support or imputed income is ordered
Eveleigh v. Eveleigh, 2005 CanLII 6049 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man declares bankruptcy after equalization payment judgment
Pearce v. Pittock, 1994 CanLII 7499 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man goes bankrupt leaving wife liable for debts, variation denied
Boneva v. Boneva (No. 2), 2005 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)	D	M	2	P	Variation denied as man used friends to shelter assets, arrears, FRO default motion
Foster v. Foster, 2004 ONCJ 114 (CanLII)	D	M	2	P	Wife becomes responsible for some of husbands debt from his bankruptcy, variation denied
C.(J.J.D.) v. C.(S.L.), 1996 CanLII 8098 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	123 K arrears, variation denied, 46 K security ordered
Flewelling v. Flewelling, 2007 CanLII 8924 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Family home transferred to wife and mans share given to FRO for support
Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Fraudulent conveyance and imprisonment, garnishment hearing
Lynch v. Lynch, 1994 CanLII 3845 (ON C.J.)	D	M	2	P	Variation refused, arrears
A.P. v. G.P., 2006 CanLII 9976 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man has gambling problem and is disallowed assigning divorce ruling to bankruptcy
Rueter v. Rueter, 2002 CanLII 2733 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Wife accuses husband of land flip, support not varied, arrears
Stratton v. Kangas, 2001 CanLII 26440 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Request for interim imputed income denied
Fendelet v. Dohey, 2006 CanLII 34273 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Variation denied, 144 K arrears
Boychuk v. Boychuk, 2004 CanLII 5032 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	14 K arrears, not varied
Niemi v. Maier, 2006 CanLII 22142 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Wife loses equalization claim, 3 K per month child support, 100 K lump sum spousal support and 8.5 K charge for funds spent on boat
Wheeldon v. Wheeldon, 2003 CanLII 2398 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man pays child support and $ 1 per month spousal support
N.L. v. S.L., 2007 CanLII 46697 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Child support, 6 months spousal support
McGillan v. Burdney and Ancona, 2004 ONCJ 60 (CanLII)	D	M	2	P	Man seeks to vary 2 support orders at once, over 15 K arrears, variation denied
M.M.K. v. P.R.M., 2000 CanLII 22536 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man in contempt for abducting child to Bermuda
Ristimaki v. Cooper, 2004 CanLII 16074 (ON S.C.)	D	M	2	P	Man leaves country and is petioned into bankruptcy by creditors
Nitsopoulos v. Alousis, 2000 CanLII 22566 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man goes bankrupt and suffers from depression, he is unemployed and offers to pay $ 500 per month, $ 60 per month s.7 expenses added
Aneziris v. Aneziris, 2007 CanLII 250 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy so no equalization, husband is intentionally unemployed
Chute v. Chute, 2006 CanLII 1915 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Variation denied, mans income imputed 30 K above claimed
Hance v. Carbone, 2006 CanLII 38234 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Separation agreement overturned, wife gets support
Lees v. Lees, 2000 CanLII 22580 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Both spouses go bankrupt, separation agreement overturned, wifes suicide attempt is a change of circumstance, wife gets spousal support
Testa v. Basi, 2005 CanLII 25186 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man says he lost job due to wife pressing criminal charges and falsifying his name on credit cards, imputed income, support doubled
Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2004 CanLII 39943 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Separation agreement set aside, wife gets $ 950 per month spousal support
Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy, man self represented at trial,imputed income
Otis v. Gregoire, 2008 CanLII 50510 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man owes revenue Canada 20 K, no retroactive arrears, imputed income, trial ordered of whether there has been a change of circumstance for spousal support
Hill v. Hill, 2008 CanLII 43767 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Retroactive arrears
Philip v. Philip, 2008 CanLII 39436 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	60 % of 17 K cost penalty survives bankruptcy and 1 K cost penalty fo hearing
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2003 CanLII 2227 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man is alienated from daughter, retroactive arrears
Bradley v. Bradley, 2000 CanLII 22513 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Retroactive support, separation agreement set aside
Miller v. Bouchard, 2001 CanLII 28173 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Husband doesn’t inform wife of new income and must pay half retroacxtive arrears for period
Cook v. Plante, 2008 CanLII 46696 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Mans support payments doubled, 10 K retroactive support
Gough v. Gough, 1996 CanLII 988 (ON C.A.)	D	M	3	P	Husband goes bankrupt owing wife 152 K equalization, change of circumstance for support
Iddon v. Iddon, 2006 CanLII 1450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man is underemployed and imputed, arrears
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2003 CanLII 2366 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears
Okel v. Misheal, 2007 CanLII 7409 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears
Olah v. Olah, 2008 CanLII 43589 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man goes bankrupt leaving wife liable for debts, 3.5 K arrears, 12 K costs
Risen v. Risen, 1998 CanLII 14571 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Wife gets support increase
Sagl v. Sagl, 1997 CanLII 12248 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Mans business goes bankrupt, imputed income, lump sum
Scott v. Nicholson, 1995 CanLII 7445 (ON C.J.)	D	M	3	P	Man has 2 ex wives and new family, retroactive arrears, securing order
Shea v. Fraser, 2007 ONCA 224 (CanLII)	D	M	3	P	Judge orders retroactive support, upheld on appeal
Akerboom v. Steele, 2004 CanLII 29451 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man is intentionally unemployed
Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	1.4 K support, retroactive arrears, husband owes cost penalties
Beitel v. Beitel, 2006 CanLII 60944 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Mans proceeds from equalization to be held in trust for support payments, imputed income, retroactive arrears
Boileau v. Boileau, 2003 CanLII 2288 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Mans bankrupt secure pension split and 97 K lump sum ordered
Cantwell v. Cantwell, 2000 CanLII 22450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Bankrupt man must pay 30 K lump sum support
Couvillon v. Couvillon, 1996 CanLII 8075 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Variation denied, 2.1 s.7 lump, ordered to get life insurance
Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Variation denied, man imputed, arrears
Higgins v. Higgins, 2007 ONCA 663 (CanLII)	D	M	3	P	Retroactive arrears, default, pleadings struck
Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	13 K cost penalty
Madruga v. Madruga, 2007 CanLII 51166 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	No equalization as house was in mans name when he went bankrupt, retroactive arrears
Marshall Romaniuk v. Marshall Romaniuk, 2005 CanLII 14985 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	2K per month spousal support, mans bankruptcy causes debts to fall to wife, spousal support ordered
Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	370 K costs, damages for fraud, support and penalty for contempt to survive bankruptcy
Serrao v. Jardine, 2003 CanLII 2237 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Mans pleadings struck, arrears, contempt, imputed income, variation denied
Shaw-McInnis v. Crawford, 2003 CanLII 2241 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, variation denied
Sherwood v. Sherwood, 2006 CanLII 40795 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed Income, intentionally unemployed because husband lost his job
Taylor v. Taylor, 2004 CanLII 42952 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Man goes bankrupt, wife gets 19 K equalization from his pension and 10 K compensatory support
Thiessen v. Hurd, 1999 CanLII 14980 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	17 K lump sum for spousal support
Werth v. Werth, 2004 ONCJ 43 (CanLII)	D	M	3	P	Retroactive support claim for adult child
Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Uncontested trial, 56 K retroactive arrears
Melzack v. Germain, 1998 CanLII 1798 (ON C.A.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, appeal dismissed
Bertrim v. Bertrim, 2002 CanLII 49520 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Wife is opposing creditor, support increased from 1.8 K per month to 2.2 K year of bankruptcy in 1996, reduced in 2002
Perry v. Perry, 2007 CanLII 20982 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears, retroactive support, 11K costs
Daemi v. Morovati, 2003 CanLII 2092 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears, support not varied
Guy v. Tulloch, 2004 CanLII 11695 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, retroactive support, s.7 expense lump
Babinsky v. Babinsky, 2006 CanLII 32912 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears, motion to vary dismissed
Clement v. Clement, 2007 CanLII 12686 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Variation denied, 3 K costs to wife
Harrison v. Harrison, 2004 CanLII 6216 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Support, arrears, imputed income, costs
Manis v. Manis, 2001 CanLII 3851 (ON C.A.)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, arrears, man stops making mortgage payments and wifes home sold, 6 months in jail
Yetman v. Yetman, 2006 CanLII 7039 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Child support not varied, spousal support increased
Mondino v. Mondino, 2004 CanLII 21293 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Child support, retroactive spousal support
Ciolfe (Caravatta) v. Ciolfe, 2006 ONCJ 118 (CanLII)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, retroactive arrears, 5 K costs
Lee v. Wright, 2007 ONCJ 454 (CanLII)	D	M	3	P	Imputed income, s.7 expenses, 11.3 K arrears
Dagg v. Pereira, 2000 CanLII 22459 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Joint custody, both unemployed, father pays child support
Lowry v. Kushnir, 2007 CanLII 18146 (ON S.C.)	D	M	3	P	Husband ordered to pay 35 K per month and 20 K costs, wife recives payment from bankruptcy trustee
Lefebvre v. Strilchuck, 2007 CanLII 8019 (ON S.C.)	D	W	2	P	Husband denied requesting retroactive support
Scott v. Blake, 2008 CanLII 26695 (ON S.C.)	D	W	1	P	Woman pays $ 75 per month support, amount reduced from guidelines due to hardship
Carpentier v. Carpentier, 2005 CanLII 44412 (ON S.C.)	D	W	3	P	Wife pays child support, spousal support to husband denied, 1 K retroactive child support
Lanfrey v. Lanfrey, 2006 ONCJ 522 (CanLII)	D	W	2	P	Both husband and wife go bankrupt, child have lived with both, no arrears, wife pays support
D.W. v. C.O, 2006 CanLII 16361 (ON S.C.)	D	W	1	P	Man has custody, wife pays $ per month support, imputed income, 6 months retroactive not 4 years

Appendix C Divorce Case Excerpts

A.P. v. G.P., 2006 CanLII 9976 (ON S.C.)

[115] Amongst other things, marriage is an economic partnership. Here, assets and debt were joint. Each party, in effect, is trustee for the other when handling funds. By his conduct, Mr. G.P. violated that trust. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 178(1)(d), Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Mr. G.P. is prohibited from claiming the monies now owed to Ms. A.P. in any future assignment in bankruptcy.

Adams v. Adams, 2005 CanLII 34799 (ON S.C.)

[1] In August of 2003 Justice Smith dismissed a motion by the Applicant for interim support. He did so on a without prejudice basis. In his reasons he specifically pointed out that he had some concerns with respect to the fact that the Applicant had taken approximately $5,300.00 on a cash advance from a jointly held VISA; that she was not forthcoming with respect to her income; did not mention that she had received social assistance; and that she had not provided sufficient detailed records for her income as a farrier. She now brings this motion again seeking interim support

She has provided as part of her material in this motion copies of documents relating to her business prepared in the course of her bankruptcy in August of 2003.

Akerboom v. Steele, 2004 CanLII 29451 (ON S.C.)

He has now filed for Bankruptcy and made a proposal to his creditors, showing debts of $198,132, of which $160,000 is a mortgage. He says that he and his parents own the condominium he lives in, of which he has a 1/3 ownership. He says his debts are now $42,000. The child support arrears, however, are not expunged in a bankruptcy.

Alousis, Re, 2000 CanLII 22493 (ON S.C.)

[8] Alousis now resides with his common law spouse. He has been though what has been described as an acrimonious divorce. There are two children of the marriage. He pays $560 for support to his ex-wife, pursuant to an order of Timms J.

[9] Alousis’ bankruptcy was caused in part by marriage breakdown. He had, prior to the decision of the court, been paying significant portions of his income as support. This resulted in his failure to pay personal income taxes.

Aneziris v. Aneziris, 2007 CanLII 250 (ON S.C.)

[4] Although the wife claims there is an Equalization issue between the parties, in my view, it is no longer an issue. Since separation, each party has made an Assignment in Bankruptcy. There is nothing to equalize, as any assets available vest in the parties’ respective Trustees in Bankruptcy, as of the date of their respective Assignments.

Appleby, Re, 2001 CanLII 28476 (ON S.C.)

2 The grounds advanced by the bankrupt in support of the motion relate to the fact that Mr. Appleby died in January 2001. The bankrupt claims that support she received from Mr. Appleby was her only income and that, now that he has died, she has no means (and will unlikely have in the future) with which to satisfy the terms of discharge

Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)

[8] Unfortunately, as so often occurs after a separation, the parties’ emotions seem to have gotten the better of their common sense. The conduct of the parties through this long and tortuous litigation has resulted in the bankruptcy of the Husband. The Wife has been required to exist for the most part on a minimum wage income. As it stands today, the bulk of the property which existed at separation, and for which they worked so hard, has been lost to power of sale proceedings.

Ayoub v. Osman, 2006 CanLII 31205 (ON S.C.)

In this case substantial costs have been assessed against Mr. Ayoub himself. Those costs are specified to be in relation to the support issue and therefore remain an enforceable debt even if Mr. Ayoub makes an assignment in bankruptcy, as he apparently proposes to do

Babinsky v. Babinsky, 2006 CanLII 32912 (ON S.C.)

He says he earned only $20,500 in 2005, and only $19,000 so far this year and is now out of work. He and Ms. Barnes produced a “Record of Employment” that she had filled out (incorrectly it turns out) last weekend, effectively “laying him off” so that he can apply for Employment Insurance (and, for all intents and purposes, further reduce his income for the child support calculation purposes at this hearing). The Babinsky/Barnes Alliance present that his low income, his recent “layoff”, and the sudden lack of work occurring mere days before the hearing is entirely a coincidence. I am not at all persuaded by their assertions.

[6] Mr. Babinsky did not encourage the court to make the connection between all those “extra” taxes he had to pay and the fact that in 2005 he declared bankruptcy for debts of about $130,000 (he says, but who really knows, since Mr. Babinsky has resisted any financial disclosure, including any of his bankruptcy documentation, until the day before the last hearing, two weeks ago),

Backman, Re, 2001 CanLII 28271 (ON S.C.)

Although Mr. Page submitted that none of the matrimonial history is relevant to the issue before me, I disagree. The matrimonial litigation and the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court are very much intertwined.

Baird (Re), 2007 CanLII 15792 (ON S.C.)

[2] The bankrupt is 42 years of age and has been separated since August 2001. She has two children. She and her ex husband share custody.

Balyk v. Balyk, 1994 CanLII 7498 (ON S.C.)

[3] What makes this case extremely important for the people of Ontario is the fact that the husband makes two submissions. In the first place, he submits that all proceedings against the bankrupt are stayed by virtue of s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, and that until the wife obtains leave of this court sitting in bankruptcy to proceed, her claim against him in this respect is stayed. The second point made by the husband is that the wife has no claim against the husband other than a claim for a simple debt based upon an amount determined by the process of equalization. As such, she has a claim provable in bankruptcy and that her remedy simply is to make a claim in bankruptcy and take a share of whatever dividends may be declared by the trustee

Barrick v. Barrick, 2006 CanLII 1317 (ON S.C.)

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines — Refusal to be bound by guidelines — Court’s dissatisfaction with guideline award — For 33-year marriage, guidelines offered monthly range from $555 to $740 in this case — Nevertheless, husband had, without complaint, maintained interim monthly spousal support payments of $1,000, while keeping up mortgage payments on matrimonial home and another property as well as meeting his own monthly expenses — Moreover, since husband was now discharged bankrupt, he no longer carried any indebtedness — Court decided to keep monthly spousal support at $1,000.

Beattie v. Ladouceur, 2001 CanLII 28166 (ON S.C.)

2 I view this case as a tragedy. There is no other way to describe it. The parties have been in litigation for almost two decades with no real end in sight. There have been some forty-nine orders made in this matter. Thirty-four findings of contempt have been made against the Respondent. The Respondent was sentenced to 120 days incarceration, without any benefit of parole, for the 21 contempt citations made by Mr. Justice Binks pursuant to an Order dated May 18, 2000 [2000 CarswellOnt 1973 (Ont. S.J.C.)], other than with respect to the payment of costs (the “Binks Order”). His sentence was served. According to the Applicant, the Respondent presently owes the Applicant approximately $548,429.00, inclusive of $352,179.00 in costs.

59 The Respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy which was registered in the Superior Court, Terrebonne District, Quebec, on May 28, 2001.

96 It is to be noted that the Respondent in fact acknowledged that an appeal was the way to proceed in this matter, in his Affidavit dated April 17, 2001. He stated, in that Affidavit, that it was impossible for him to perfect the appeal and that it was dismissed for delay. He stated that three lawyers had told him that “unquestionably, the best way to deal with the situation is to appeal the order of May 18, 2000”, but that, “in the absence of legal aid or personal financial resources to fund an appeal myself, there is no way at present that an appeal can go forward”.

97 Any arguments with respect to the fairness of the hearing or the propriety of the orders made should have been dealt with on an appeal. There is no authority for the proposition which is apparently being put forward by the Respondent that because he couldn’t prosecute the appeal, he had to resort to this motion.

Behich (Re), 2007 CanLII 5143 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 59-year-old man. He is divorced, and has two adult sons, neither of whom resides with him.

Beitel v. Beitel, 2006 CanLII 60944 (ON S.C.)

[22] In December of 1999 Allan made a proposal of bankruptcy. It is notable that in the Statement of Affairs appended to the proposal, he did not claim any interest in the matrimonial home. The bankruptcy proposal was approved by Court Order on January 20, 2000. The fact that the matrimonial home was in Micheline’s name, in this case, served to protect it from Allan’s creditors.

Ben-Lolo (Re), 2008 CanLII 37052 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is 44 years old. He is separated from his wife, Annette Ben-Lolo, with whom he has two children.

It may be that they were not on the greatest financial footing, and this may well explain why this one bad customer caused the collapse of the businesses and the bankruptcies of both the Bankrupt and his wife

[7] Again, if only the story ended here, and the Bankrupt had told the Trustee about the cash. He did not. He failed to tell the Trustee about the separation in the weeks prior to bankruptcy

Benmergui v. Bitton, 2008 CanLII 11639 (ON S.C.)

Their emotions were barely below the surface for much of this trial. Both often broke down in tears, sometimes sobbing so much they could not carry on. Mr. Bitton twice made references to being so distraught that he might kill himself during the trial;

[13] There is no affidavit of service filed for Ms. Benmergui’s application, so it is unclear when Mr. Bitton received it but I do know that on April 12, 2001, the day after the application was issued, Mr. Bitton made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Bennett v. Riem, 2004 CanLII 34518 (ON S.C.)

[14] AMB Inc. was financed through credit facilities of about $100,000 provided by the Royal Bank of Canada and secured by a collateral mortgage on the home of Mr. Bennett and his wife, Karen Bennett. When Bernice and Roland Riem became shareholders, they provided the bank with their personal guarantees, but the bank did not request additional collateral security. Karen and Andrew Bennett divorced in 1994, but Karen Bennett resided in the former matrimonial home, which was registered in her name, with three children of their marriage. As the business losses increased, Bennett was worried that the property was at risk. He also thought it unfair to his former wife that the bank held collateral over the entirety of the former matrimonial residence, rather than on the value of his one-half interest. He was unhappy that he and his partner had unequal risk exposure.

[15] By the spring of 1995, Bennett concluded that the business plan that Riem had created was a failure, that the company could not manage its debt and that Riem had no viable solution to its difficulties. The corporation was experiencing extreme cash flow problems. Business had declined significantly. He began to press Riem for “hard security” and proposed that Riem and his wife also provide collateral for the bank’s credit facility.

[29] The net effect of these payments and receipts is that Bennett personally paid liabilities of AMB Inc. totaling about $190,000.00. This does not include the full amount owing to Revenue Canada for which Bennett was personally assessed. The inability to satisfy this claim eventually led to Bennett’s assignment in bankruptcy in March 2001

Berry (Re), 2008 CanLII 14889 (ON S.C.)

[5] The Bankrupt works steadily at a reasonably paying job in the automotive sector, as a quality control inspector and packer. She is 55 years old, and separated from her husband.

Bertrim v. Bertrim, 2002 CanLII 49520 (ON S.C.)

[4] On July 31^st, 1996, the Husband declared bankruptcy and was subsequently discharged on May 12, 1997. His former wife was one of the major creditors.

[5] In August, 1996, the wife brought an Application to vary the Divorce Judgment requesting an increase in the monthly payments due to the material change in circumstances, being the husband’s bankruptcy. The said Motion was heard by Mr. Justice Meehan and on October 25th, 1996, he ordered an increase in payments to $2,200 per month, indexed.

Beynon (Bankruptcy of) (Re), 2003 CanLII 18688 (ON S.C.)

By a judgment dated August 25, 1998 Joyce Beynon was granted a divorce judgment. As a result of that judgment, Joyce Beynon became entitled to costs fixed in the amount of $51,614.59. A writ of seizure and sale was filed with the Sheriff of the Judicial District of Peel with respect to that judgment on August 18, 1999. This was the first writ of seizure and sale to be filed with the Sheriff. Nothing had been paid with respect to that judgment up to the time that Mr. Beynon made an assignment in bankruptcy on May 29, 2002. Counsel advises that Joyce Beynon will be filing an amended claim seeking priority pursuant to Section 70 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act with Respect to those costs

Bialek (Re), 1994 CanLII 7265 (ON S.C.)

[1] D. LANE J.:—Barry Benjamin Bialek applies for discharge from bankruptcy.

He did not pursue this initiative because, he said, his life was in turmoil due to a separation from his then-wife and the revolution in Nepal.

Blaschuk v. Bridgewater, 2005 CanLII 28787 (ON S.C.)

[18] The mother has a history of improvident spending: she declared bankruptcy some years ago (1994). It is easy to understand how that happened.

[19] The evidence of the mother as to her efforts to obtain full-time employment was vague and inadequate. I am satisfied that she has n