Divorce Bankruptcies

Peter Karl Roscoe

Nov 2008

Contents

page

Introduction 1

Divorce Bankruptcy Data Summary 3

Conclusions 4

Appendix A 5

Appendix B 12

Introduction

Divorces may involve many stresses and emotional turmoil. Financial issues may 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 cannot 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 standpoint 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.

The cases listed below are examples of approximately 157 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 found. 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 often were not mentioned in 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 approximately 2/3 as common as claims of domestic violence, or orders for income imputation. Unlike domestic violence allegations, all the cases in this study were actual bankruptcies, so the relative occurrence of real incidents would be closer. Bankruptcies affected both sexes. A higher percentage of men than women declared bankruptcy. In some cases both spouses declared bankruptcy. In non divorce cases, ex spouses were often opposing creditors. Revenue Canada was the next most common creditor. Banks and other mortgage lenders are also typical creditors.

The consequenses of bankruptcies can be diverse and severe. Debt obligations may be jointly held between spouses. When one spouse goes bankrupt the other may become liable for their debts. A spouse may even seek bankruptcy to try to defeat divorce equalization and cost awards. Often a bankrupt payor may request that their support obligations be reduced due to financial hardships. Sometimes instead it results in a payors support being increased as it is reasoned they are now in a better financial position having been relieved of debtload. Formal bankruptcies require additional court hearings and complex legal procedures. In many cases ex spouses were opposing parties trying to collect on claims. Support awards survive bankruptcy, but spouses are generally unsecured creditors with respect to other financial issues. They 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. That 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 educations, and meager subsistence on public welfare plans.

The cases examined in this study are listed in Appendix A, and case excerpts have been included in Appendix B

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 Pays Support

5 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Recieves Support

Men	121 ( 77.1 % )	44 ( 78.6 % )	80 ( 87.9 % )	1 ( 5.0 % )	79 ( 95.2 % )
Women	36 ( 22.9 % )	12 ( 21.4 % )	11 ( 12.1 % )	20 ( 90.9 % )	4 ( 4.8 % )

Total	157 ( 100 % )	56 ( 100 % )	91 ( 100 % )	21 ( 100 % )	83 ( 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 Pays Support

5 Number of Cases Where Bankrupt Recieves Support

Men	83 ( 77.6 % )	32 ( 80.0 % )	61 ( 85.9 % )	1 ( 5.6 % )	68 ( 94.4 % )
Women	24 ( 22.4 % )	8 ( 20.0 % )	10 ( 14.1 % )	17 ( 94.4 % )	4 ( 5.6 % )

Total	107 ( 100 % )	40 ( 100 % )	71 ( 100 % )	18 ( 100 % )	72 ( 100 % )

Conclusions

In conclusion, 77 % of post divorce bankruptcies were by men. Similar rates were observed in both divorce and other civil cases. Bankruptcy statistics do not bear out the Supreme Courts rationale that divorce legislation is required to ameliorate females. The statistics would indicate that either females do not need amelioration, or divorce legislation overachieves that goal to the point where males are now going bankrupt instead of females. Ex spouses were creditors in bankruptcy in 58 % of all cases, and 66% of divorce cases. Close to 2/3 of bankruptcies resulted in protracted litigation and losses for both spouses. Over 85 % of creditors were females. Self representation was 33 % for women and slightly higher for men. Divorce cases were deemed to be the best indicator of financial obligations between ex spouses as family matters were often not described in third party cases. In both divorce cases and total cases there was only 1 male support recipient. 95 % of recipients were females. In divorce cases 70 % of females received support. Only 16.7% paid support. In contrast, 82 % of bankrupt males were support payors and only 5 % recipients.

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. They also often were reduced to sub bankruptcy standards by having pensions and other bankrupt exempt assets vested to creditor spouses. Most women who went bankrupt were recipients of support, few were payors.

Appendix A Divorce Bankruptcy Case Summary

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

Legault v. Pineault, 2006 CanLII 12315 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr			Wife is denied lump sum or periodic spousal support
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
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
L.K. v. G.K., 2007 CanLII 9612 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M			Wife suffers from depression, man gets custody
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
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
Guitard v. Guitard, 2007 CanLII 14929 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Man goes bankrupt and wife loses her equalization claim
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
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
Ramsey v. Proffitt, 2001 CanLII 28161 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y		Separation agreement not extinguished by bankruptcy
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
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
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
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
Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y		Man does not attend hearing
Kovinich v. Kovinich, 2007 CanLII 8922 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M	Y		Husband is creditor in wifes bankruptcy
Janakowski v. Janakowski, 2000 CanLII 22587 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M		P	Both spouses declare bankruptcy
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
Nitsopoulos v. Alousis, 2000 CanLII (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F		P	Man goes bankrupt and suffers from depression
Reitsma v. Reitsma-Leadsom, 2005 CanLII 47762 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	sr		P	Variation denied
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
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
Barrick v. Barrick, 2006 CanLII 1317 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	W		P	Man must pay 1 K per month spousal support
Chute v. Chute, 2006 CanLII 1915 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Variation denied, mans income imputed 30 K above claimed
Duguay v. Thompson-Duguay, 2000 CanLII 22515 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F		P	Arbitration award overturned
Hance v. Carbone, 2006 CanLII 38234 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Separation agreement overturned, wife gets support
Laue v. Laue, 2000 CanLII 20295 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Man denied variation
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
Sherman v. Sherman, 1999 CanLII 4102 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M		P	Reduction in support overturned on appeal
Stajkowski v. Stajkowski, 2007 CanLII 16829 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M		P	Support varied
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
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
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
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
MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2003 CanLII 2328 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F		P	Financial planner goes bankrupt and may be suspended, support varied
Otis v. Gregoire, 2008 CanLII 50510 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M		P	Man owes revenue Canada 20 K, no retroactive arrears
Eveleigh v. Eveleigh, 2005 CanLII 6049 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	M	Y	P	Man declares bankruptcy after equalization payment judgment
Hill v. Hill, 2008 CanLII 43767 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Retroactive arrears
Pearce v. Pittock, 1994 CanLII 7499 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Man goes bankrupt leaving wife liable for debts,
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
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2003 CanLII 2227 (ON S.C.)	D	M	F	F	Y	P	Man is alienated from daughter, retroactive arrears
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
Bradley v. Bradley, 2000 CanLII 22513 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	Retroactive support, separation agreement set aside
Devitt v. Devitt, 2000 CanLII 22574 (ON S.C.)	D	M	L	L	Y	P	15 K arrears lowered to 6 K
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
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
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
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
Cook v. Plante, 2008 CanLII 46696 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	F	Y	P	Mans support payments doubled, 10 K retroactive support
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
Gough v. Gough, 1996 CanLII 988 (ON C.A.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Husband goes bankrupt owing wife 152 K equalization
Iddon v. Iddon, 2006 CanLII 1450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Man is underemployed and imputed, arrears
Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Fraudulent conveyance and imprisonment, garnishment hearing
Lynch v. Lynch, 1994 CanLII 3845 (ON C.J.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Variation refused, arrears
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2003 CanLII 2366 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	sr	Y	P	Imputed income, arrears
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
Risen v. Risen, 1998 CanLII 14571 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife gets support increase
Sagl v. Sagl, 1997 CanLII 12248 (ON S.C.)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Mans business goes bankrupt
Scott v. Nicholson, 1995 CanLII 7445 (ON C.J.)	D	M	M	sr	Y	P	Man has 2 ex wives and new family
Shea v. Fraser, 2007 ONCA 224 (CanLII)	D	M	M	M	Y	P	Judge orders retroactive support, upheld on appeal
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
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
Akerboom v. Steele, 2004 CanLII 29451 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Man is intentionally unemployed
Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	1.4 K support, husband owes cost penalties
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
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
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
Cantwell v. Cantwell, 2000 CanLII 22450 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	Bankrupt man must pay 30 K lump sum support
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
Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	L	Y	P	Variation denied, man imputed, arrears
Higgins v. Higgins, 2007 ONCA 663 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	sr	Y	P	Retroactive arrears, default, pleadings struck
Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	13 K cost penalty
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
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
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
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
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
Sherwood v. Sherwood, 2006 CanLII 40795 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P
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
Thiessen v. Hurd, 1999 CanLII 14980 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	M	Y	P	17 K lump sum for spousal support
Werth v. Werth, 2004 ONCJ 43 (CanLII)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P	Retroactive support claim for adult child
Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)	D	M	sr	F	Y	P
Lefebvre v. Strilchuck, 2007 CanLII 8019 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	F		P	Husband denied requesting retroactive support
Scott v. Blake, 2008 CanLII 26695 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr		P	Woman pays $ 75 per month support
S.A.S. v. J.J.S., 2007 CanLII 1901 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr	Y	P	Man gets supervised access and must take mental health exam, retroative arrears
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
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
Stoate v. Stoate, 2005 CanLII 13820 (ON S.C.)	D	W	F	sr		R	Man has income imputed, retroactive arrears
Goudie v. Stapleford, 2004 CanLII 20297 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	sr		R	Separation agreement overturned, husband must pay support
Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	L		R	Both spouses declare bankruptcy, man self represented at trial
Takis v. Takis, 2002 CanLII 2818 (ON S.C.)	D	W	L	L		R	Woman makes suicide attempt, joint custody
Lees v. Lees, 2000 CanLII 22580 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M		R	Both spouses go bankrupt
Trick v. Trick, 2003 CanLII 2260 (ON S.C.)	D	W	M	M		R	74.5 K retroactive child support from husband
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
McGoey v. McGoey, 2003 CanLII 2179 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M		R	Wife recieves spousal support
Remus v. Remus, 2003 CanLII 2222 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	M		R	Imputed income, variation denied
Sebastiano v. Sebastiano, 2008 CanLII 28063 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr		R	Man pays 1.6 K per month support
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
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
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
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
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
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
Stutz v. Stutz Sorrenson, 2002 CanLII 2815 (ON S.C.)	D	W	sr	sr	Y	R	Wifes business goes bankrupt owing husband 75 K
J.P. (Re), 2005 CanLII 57901 (ON C.C.B.)	X	W	F	L			Competence hearing
Baird (Re), 2007 CanLII 15792 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	sr			Wifes bankruptcy opposed by her divorce lawyer
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
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
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
Mashaollah (Re), 2007 CanLII 44828 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	M			Opposing creditor third party, family matters not mentioned
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
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
Hochrein, Re, 2005 CanLII 38098 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Wife has custody, opposing creditor third party, family matters not mentioned
Perpich, Re, 2006 CanLII 37266 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Family issues not mentioned
Selkirk Landscaping Ltd. v. Selkirk, 2004 CanLII 33015 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M			Family matters not mentioned
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
Behich (Re), 2007 CanLII 5143 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			No family issues mentioned
Bennett v. Riem, 2004 CanLII 34518 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			Third party action, 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
Mensah, Re, 2006 CanLII 37133 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M			Family issues not mentioned
Pottayil, Re, 2000 CanLII 22500 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M			Family issues not mentioned
Tang (Re), 2007 CanLII 10216 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L			Man runs gambling business and loses, second bankruptcy, discharge refused
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
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
Duong, Re, 2006 CanLII 30589 (ON S.C.)	X	W	sr	L			Woman has gambling problem after separation, woman has custody, husband lives with her to care for sick daughter
Kansra (Trustee) (Re), 2003 CanLII 3496 (ON S.C.)	X	W	sr	M			Matrimonial proceedings not begun yet
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.
Trepanier (Re), 2007 CanLII 15806 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	sr	Y		Wife gets garnishment order, man goes bankrupt
Hann (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 22949 (ON S.C.)	X	M	F	sr	Y		Man commits fraud and discharge is suspended, wife opposing creditor
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
Backman, Re, 2001 CanLII 28271 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y		Wife 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
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
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
Wale, Re, 1996 CanLII 8275 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	F	Y		Man files bankruptcy 1 hour before family trial, bankruptcy anulled
Webb v. Tomlinson, 2006 CanLII 18192 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	F	Y		Ex wife lends husband money and he goes bankrupt
Geddes, Re, 2006 CanLII 37596 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	sr	Y		Wife is opposing creditor
Ledrew (Bankruptcy), Re, 2005 CanLII 23101 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L	Y		Revenue Canada and wife are opposing 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
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
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
Rowe (Re), 2007 CanLII 699 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	sr		P	Both man and wife go bankrupt, wifes parents are opposing creditors
Dawood (Re), 2007 CanLII 15234 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	L		P	Man gambles after separation
Mott, Re, 2005 CanLII 38104 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M		P	Fraud charges, discharge refused
Zuk (Re), 2006 CanLII 42590 (ON S.C.)	X	M	sr	M		P	Man has gambling problem, discharge refused, may reapply in one year
Sten, Re, 2006 CanLII 62 (ON S.C.)	X	M	L	L	Y	P	Man owes wife 16 K in arrears and costs
Beynon (Bankruptcy of) (Re), 2003 CanLII 18688 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Man has 2 ex wives as creditors
Bobyk, Re, 1995 CanLII 7384 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife is creditor in husbands bankruptcy,man pays support
Erinc (Re), 2008 CanLII 36523 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Wife is opposing creditor
McConnell, Re, 2005 CanLII 47745 (ON S.C.)	X	M	M	M	Y	P	Man pays 3.5 K per month in spousal support
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
Rowe (Re), 2007 CanLII 699 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	sr		R	Both man and wife go bankrupt, wifes parents are opposing creditors
Appleby, Re, 2001 CanLII 28476 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	L		R	Wifes ex husband dies and support was her only income
Hatfield, Re, 1995 CanLII 7382 (ON S.C.)	X	W	L	L		R	Third party is opposing creditor

Appendix B Divorce Case Excerpts

Stajkowski v. Stajkowski, 2007 CanLII 16829 (ON S.C.)

[2] The husband declared bankruptcy in 2004, and has paid his spousal support up to December 2006. In August of 2006, the husband went off work on short term disability, which ended in December 2006. At that point he was denied long term disability, and at present says he is totally supported by his common-law wife, whom he lives with in British Columbia. Furthermore, having gone bankrupt, he has no assets with which to honour a spousal support award

Wilson v. Wilson, 2001 CanLII 28111 (ON S.C.)

1] The Defendant, Linda Teresa Leschaloupe, has appealed the order of Master Birnbaum dated August 7, 2000 in which Master Birnbaum granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

[2] The amendments related to allegations of a fraudulent conveyance of the matrimonial home that had been in the name of the Appellant only and to fraudulent collection of rental income by the Appellant from a farm property that the Appellant had been ordered to assign to the Respondent by the Bankruptcy Court on February 22, 1996.

Shea v. Fraser, 2007 ONCA 224 (CanLII)

[47] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appellant’s request for a declaration that his discharge in bankruptcy released him from his obligation to pay the $24,000 he owed the respondent.

MacPherson v. MacPherson, 1994 CanLII 7464 (ON S.C.)

[4] It is not disputed that the defendant Douglas Harry MacPherson filed an Assignment in Bankruptcy on the 12th day of September, 1991 declaring debts totally $530,000 against $165,000 of assets. One of the assets was the shares in the company in question and pursuant to a Shareholders Agreement these shares could not be transferred to anyone before being offered for sale to the other shareholders of the company. In paragraph 7(3) of a Separation Agreement dated the 28th of August, 1991 between Mr. and Mrs. MacPherson it is stated that:

The husband acknowledges that one-half of his shares in Thomson & Jemmett Inc. are held in trust for the wife and children and upon their sale one-half of the proceeds of sale shall be paid to the wife as trustee to be used for the education, benefit and advancement of herself and the children

Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)

[6] While at trial the husband took the position that a $100,000 amount was improperly included as one of his liabilities in the bankruptcy assignment, and while that appears to be so given my references in the previous ruling to correspondence from the trustee in bankruptcy, the husband has still not seen fit to implement any steps that would rectify the bankruptcy problem so as to permit a final resolution of the property issues.

Di Nunzio v. Edwards, 2004 CanLII 4782 (ON S.C.)

[8] The husband declared bankruptcy and this proceeding as against him was stayed. In the bankruptcy he also took the position that this was not a loan from him and therefore was not an account receivable to him

McGrath v. McGrath, 1998 CanLII 14903 (ON S.C.)

[2] Mr. McGrath applies for a discharge from bankruptcy. He is opposed by one unsecured creditor, his wife, Eleanor Charlotte McGrath, from whom he has been separated since about March 1994

Slan v. Blumenfeld, 1997 CanLII 12259 (ON S.C.)

[3] Paul Slan had been retained by the husband. Phyllis Brodkin had been retained by the wife. There were several pre-trials in the spring of 1995. The husband had made an assignment in bankruptcy on May 15, 1995. At a trial management conference on May 19, 1995, the husband and wife signed minutes of settlement.

Guitard v. Guitard, 2007 CanLII 14929 (ON S.C.)

[7] It appears that Mr. Guitard’s bankruptcy discharge has terminated his wife’s equalization claims. I gave some consideration to the fact that the respondent was not named as an unsecured creditor and was not given a formal notice of the bankruptcy. However, even prior to separation, the respondent was aware that the applicant was considering bankruptcy. On November 21, 2005, the respondent was well aware of a bankruptcy and some discussions were engaged between counsel, which ultimately led to a disclosure on April 25, 2006 of the name of the trustee and papers respecting the bankruptcy. Even if that disclosure had not been made, if there were concerns about the bankruptcy, a search in the local office of the Official Registrar would have yielded the necessary information. No motion was brought to lift the stay.

[8] The respondent’s claim for the equalization is dismissed

Bukvic v. Bukvic, 2007 CanLII 14323 (ON S.C.)

[18] On 9 November 2006, the wife delivered a Proof of Claim to the trustee in bankruptcy. She reported being an unsecured creditor for $294,766 and claimed priority as to $144,766, being child support.

Cotton v. Cotton, 2004 CanLII 10486 (ON S.C.)

The issue for this Court at this time arose late in the trial and it is this: does the plaintiff have the status to maintain this proceeding given that she is now an undischarged bankrupt.

The parties were married in 1982 and have a child born in 1989. In May of 1993 they separated and in that same month entered into a somewhat home-made separation agreement.

Jones v. Jones, 2006 CanLII 24445 (ON C.A.)

[1] The appellant and respondent were married. When they separated, they entered into a separation agreement. Each had the benefit of legal counsel. In para. 4 of the Separation Agreement, the respondent husband agreed to buy the wife’s interest in the matrimonial home for $225,000. He paid her $100,000 but went bankrupt before paying her the balance of $125,000

Higgins v. Higgins, 2007 ONCA 663 (CanLII)

They separated in 2004 when Mrs. Higgins learned that her husband was involved in a relationship with Ms. Fisher

[14] As indicated above, Mr. Higgins made an assignment in bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy proceedings, Mrs. Higgins opposed an application made by Mr. Higgins for his discharge from bankruptcy.

Boileau v. Boileau, 2003 CanLII 2288 (ON S.C.)

[1] A partial judgment, on the issue of child support, was rendered orally in this matter, on Friday, November 1, 2002. It outlined the background facts of this couple's date of marriage in September of 1974, and separation in August of 1995, set out that the two still-dependant children had lived with their mother since then, and made an order requiring Mr. Boileau to pay child support

[4] The husband has sought protection from his creditors on two occasions since the separation in 1995. The first time was in February of 1997 with a discharge in November of 1997. The husband proffered little evidence as to this bankruptcy and how it had come about.

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

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.

Hochrein, Re, 2005 CanLII 38098 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 45-year-old man. He is separated from his wife, and has two children. The assignment in bankruptcy was made by him December 16, 2003.

Trepanier (Re), 2007 CanLII 15806 (ON S.C.)

The Bankrupt and the Opposing Creditor had previously been in a common law relationship.

Mensah, Re, 2006 CanLII 37133 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 51-year-old man. He is separated from his wife, although they share a residence. He has three children, two of whom are minors.

McConnell, Re, 2005 CanLII 47745 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 50-year-old man. He is married, although separated from his wife, and has two adult daughters who attend the University of Guelph.

Hatfield, Re, 1995 CanLII 7382 (ON S.C.)

However, there is no evidence that the judgments obtained arise out of the negligent or other wrongful conduct of the Bankrupt, but rather that of her husband from whom she is now separated.

Dawood (Re), 2007 CanLII 15234 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is 39 years old. He is married, but separated from his wife. He and his wife have four children. The Bankrupt testified that, except for a four or five month reconciliation in late 2004, he has been separated since 2002.

Rowe (Re), 2007 CanLII 699 (ON S.C.)

2] The Bankrupt is a 41-year-old high school gymnastics teacher. He is separated from his wife, Rita Rowe. They have two young sons who reside primarily with Ms. Rowe.

McCague, Re, 2006 CanLII 39084 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 57-year-old man. He is separated from his wife of 36 years, although he presently lives in the basement of her residence. The Bankrupt made his assignment on January 21, 2005. This is a first bankruptcy.

O'Reilly (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 22697 (ON S.C.)

[3] This time, CCRA and his ex wife Joan (spousal support arrears of over $350,000) are his two creditors when CCRA petitioned him into bankruptcy in 2003. He is now separated and living apart from his second wife Carene as to whom he has agreed to pay $1,000/month in a separation agreement executed last month

Sten, Re, 2006 CanLII 62 (ON S.C.)

Separation and ill health are given as the causes of financial difficulty in the Statement of Affairs. It seems to me very likely that the Bankrupt’s assignment was motivated by revenge and a desire to somehow pay back Sten for her efforts to enforce her rights in the matrimonial proceedings

Duong, Re, 2006 CanLII 30589 (ON S.C.)

[3] The Bankrupt is a 39-year-old married lady with two children. She resides with her husband, but is, according to her testimony, living separate and apart from him, under the same roof. Her children are 10 and 8.

Perpich, Re, 2006 CanLII 37266 (ON S.C.)

[3] The Bankrupt is a 40-year-old man. He is single, in that he is separated from his wife, and lives alone

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.

Geddes, Re, 2006 CanLII 37596 (ON S.C.)

It appears, and I find as fact, that the Bankrupt embarked upon a course of cashing in his RRSPs in the years of separation leading up the divorce.

Zuk (Re), 2006 CanLII 42590 (ON S.C.)

[9] Similarly, the Bankrupt claims to be making monthly support payments to his ex-wife. The Trustee has requested evidence of those payments. All that has been provided is a letter from the ex-wife that the payments are being made.

Henderson, Re, 1997 CanLII 12401 (ON S.C.)

1] February 4, 1997. SPENCE J.: – On this application of the Bankrupt for discharge, the opposing creditor is Carol Henderson, his former spouse. In the Trustee’s Section 170 report, the cause of bankruptcy is stated to be that the Bankrupt was unable to deal with the significant legal costs and settlement terms resulting from separation. Ms. Henderson is the principal creditor. Her claim is based on the judgment she obtained against the Bankrupt in their divorce proceedings, including her equalization entitlement and her legal costs

Tang (Re), 2007 CanLII 10216 (ON S.C.)

2] The Bankrupt is a 48-year-old man. He is separated from his wife, and has two adult daughters. He resides with his sister-in-law.

White, Re, 2006 CanLII 11236 (ON S.C.)

I found, in that hearing, that White had developed a mortgage scheme, whereby he paid down capital on his wife’s mortgage on the home in her name, although he claimed they had been separated for many years

I further found that the documents, which White alleged were Separation Agreements with his wife, had no legal effect, given that they did not meet the requirements of the definition of a Separation Agreement under the legislation. Secondly these documents were drafted by White’s wife (who is a non-practicing lawyer). Finally, there was no Court Order that such payments were to be made

Mashaollah (Re), 2007 CanLII 44828 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 45-year-old man. He is separated from his spouse, and has one child who resides with her mother.

Bothwell, Re, 2000 CanLII 22506 (ON S.C.)

[6] The bankrupts moved to the Orangeville property and, at some time afterwards, Hugh moved out, on account of his separation from Kelly. Kelly thereafter lived at the Orangeville property. After making assignments in bankruptcy, the Orangeville property was sold. The proceeds of sale, after paying the mortgage and other costs, have been paid into court pursuant to the Trustee Act. The proceeds amount to approximately $50,000

Payne (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 4784 (ON S.C.)

[1] The bankrupt, Irene Payne, has been involved in extended Family Court proceedings with her husband, Albert Payne. These proceedings have involved issues of net family property, the matrimonial home, spousal support and an equalization payment.

[2] These proceedings are reflected in the voluminous materials of the Motion Record and Cross-Motion Record. They include: Endorsements on the Case Conference Record conducted by Kiteley J. January 21, 2002, and continued on April 5, 2002; Minutes of Settlement dated October 25, 2002; a Judgment of Mesbur J. dated March 27, 2003; a divorce Judgment of Backhouse J. dated April 29, 2003; an Order of Hoy J. dated December 16, 2003; and an Order of Stewart J. dated January 22, 2004

[5] Mr. Payne filed a Proof of Claim in which he claims a priority to the extent of $1,300,000.00 of the net sale proceeds from the sale of one of the jointly held properties, being 1054 Marwood Avenue, in Bracebridge, Ontario (the "cottage property"). In making this claim, Mr. Payne relies on Orders and Judgments obtained from the Family Court. In particular, he relies upon the consent Order obtained from Stewart J. dated January 22, 2004 (some 15 days before the assignment in bankruptcy) which orders and adjudges that $1,300,000.00 of the said net proceeds "shall be deemed to be owing and payable on account of lump sum spousal support, and shall survive any bankruptcy of [his spouse, Irene Payne]."

Kansra (Trustee) (Re), 2003 CanLII 3496 (ON S.C.)

[2] With respect to the Application, KPMG in its capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of

Mrs. Kansra seeks an order for a partition and sale of the property which was the matrimonial home of the Bankrupt and Mr. Kansra. It is not disputed that title to the property is in the name of the Bankrupt and Mr. Kansra as joint tenants.

[5] With respect to the matrimonial proceedings, there is no guarantee that such proceedings will be commenced in view of the fact that the separation occurred in November 1997 and no proceedings have been taken to date by Mr. Kansra.

Thiessen v. Hurd, 1999 CanLII 14980 (ON S.C.)

[15] In the case of Schroeder v. Schroeder the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench was confronted with a fact situation which was very similar to the case at bar. In that case, a former husband went bankrupt. His only significant debt was $30,000.00 owing to his former wife on a property settlement agreement, and his only asset was creditor-proof locked in pension fund. At issue was whether the wife retained a right to a share of the pension fund, notwithstanding the bankruptcy, and a separation agreement in which the property claims were settled. Halvorson J held that under the agreement the wife’s release of her Matrimonial Property Act interest in the pension was conditional on receiving the $30,000.00. Therefore, the husband continued to hold the wife’s share of the pension plan in trust. Her claim was not provable in bankruptcy so it was not defeated by the bankruptcy proceeding.

Kovinich v. Kovinich, 2007 CanLII 8922 (ON S.C.)

[3] Catherine Kovinich was and continues to be an undischarged bankrupt against whom a Receiving Order was made December 3, 2003. This resulted in the vesting of her claims for: equalization of net family property, an interest in the matrimonial home and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, Fontaine and Associates Inc.

Ramsey v. Proffitt, 2001 CanLII 28161 (ON S.C.)

1 A separation agreement was signed in 1989. It included a provision that the wife could, at anytime before or after the granting of a divorce, apply for an equal division of the husband’s retirement pension. In 1992, the husband made an assignment into bankruptcy. He did not list the wife as a creditor or advise his trustee of the existence of the separation agreement or his pension. Notice of the bankruptcy was not given to the wife. In 1995, the husband was discharged from bankruptcy. In 1998, the wife applied for the equal division of the pension. The husband refused and relies upon his discharge from bankruptcy as having extinguished the wife’s claim

Bobyk, Re, 1995 CanLII 7384 (ON S.C.)

[1] FELDMAN J.: – Mr. and Mrs Bobyk went through acrimonious Family Law Act and child support litigation over a five year period. Ultimately after trial Mr. Bobyk was ordered to make an equalization payment of over $30,000 after Mrs. Bobyk had offered to settle for as little as $10,000. The equalization payment was funded from monies held in trust after sale of the matrimonial home to the bankrupt’s mother who lives next door to that home

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.

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

Remus v. Remus, 2003 CanLII 2222 (ON S.C.)

ROBERT REMUS

ANN MARIE REMUS and ERNEST & YOUNG (THUNDER BAY) INC., Trustee of the Estate of Ann Marie Remus, a Bankrupt

[1] This is a very sad case. This case involves the separation of a young couple, both of whom appear to be devoted to their two children. This case involves a couple who have spent over $1 million in cash in the past six years, money that had been inherited by the father. This case involves a young man who has much to offer an employer but who has found it extremely difficult to locate employment in this community.

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.

Cantwell v. Cantwell, 2000 CanLII 22450 (ON S.C.)

[28] Mrs. Cantwell has established an entitlement to spousal support. I am satisfied that a lump‑sum is the appropriate way to resolve the issue. The respondent shall pay to the applicant $30,000 as a lump-sum for support, pursuant to section 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

[30] The applicant seeks to have the respondent’s locked in R.R.S.P. charged as security for any support award. That relief was not pleaded, and the issue is complicated by the respondent’s status as an undischarged bankrupt. I am prepared to receive further submissions on this point within the time for submissions on interest and costs.

Legault v. Pineault, 2006 CanLII 12315 (ON S.C.)

[1] Barbara Legault seeks lump sum spousal support in the amount of $6,100 - $9,200 to be paid by her former common-law spouse Normand Pineault arising out of their relationship of approximately 6 ½ years

The Statement of Affairs in the Bankruptcy lists the Ministry of Community, Family and Children as a creditor in the amount of $41,400. There was no suggestion that this was another debt to another government agency, so I can only conclude that this is the $40,000 debt that Barbara Legault said she was required to repay to Mother's Allowance. Also part of Tab A, Document 1 of Exhibit 5 is a Notice to Bankrupt. At page 2 of that document is a section dealing with debts not discharged by the bankruptcy.

Rather than retain counsel to take steps to obtain support from Norman Pineault, she chose to pay some $1,200 to a trustee in bankruptcy. To me, it is significant that this action was commenced on the eve of Barbara Legault's discharge from bankruptcy. It is also obvious that any support paid by Normand Pineault, would have gone to reduce some of Barbara Legault's indebtedness.

Scott v. Nicholson, 1995 CanLII 7445 (ON C.J.)

SUPPORT ORDERS — Form of order — Securing order — Jurisdiction — Preventing dependant from becoming or continuing to be public charge — Father, who had paid no child support and who placed his business and new family commitments ahead of duty to support his daughter, was on verge of bankruptcy but was still in possession of his capital assets — Daughter resided with mother who was on public assistance — To avoid diversion of support money to welfare authorities, court ordered father to pay retroactive support in form of $2,000 lump sum directly to child, to be secured by charge on father’s residential property and to be discharged at rate of $200 per month — Father also ordered to make ongoing monthly payment of $200 directly to child.

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.

Eveleigh v. Eveleigh, 2005 CanLII 6049 (ON S.C.)

[4] Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks a declaration by the Court pursuant to s. 17 of the Divorce Act to characterize the equalization payment due under the Judgment, as in effect a lump sum spousal support payment since, it is argued, the equalization payment was effectively the difference in relative value of each parties’ pension as of the date of separation.

[5] Finally, if the debt owed to the Petitioner under the Judgment is discharged by the bankruptcy, the Petitioner maintains that there has been a material change in circumstances entitling the Petitioner to claim spousal support under the Divorce Act

Drysdale v. Drysdale, 1994 CanLII 7453 (ON S.C.)

15] However, the facts of this case are quite different. It seems clear that the parties, prior to separation, were very concerned about the bank liability and, as a result, transferred the matrimonial home to the wife as a measure of protection against the bank. Their concern was well founded, as demonstrated by the fact that shortly after the separation, the company went bankrupt and defaulted on the bank loan.

Wale, Re, 1996 CanLII 8275 (ON S.C.)

[1] November 29, 1996. O’CONNOR J.:–Henry John Wale’s assignment in bankruptcy was date-stamped by the Official Receiver an hour and a half before the commencement of his family law trial. His former wife brings this motion, under s. 181 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to annul the bankruptcy and to vest his property in her pending the outcome of the family law trial, or to exempt her claims from the usual stay of creditor proceedings under s. 69.3, and other relief. She argues his filing was motivated solely by his desire to defeat her family law claims and was an abuse of the process of the court. He says he had no such intention, he is an “insolvent person”, as defined by the act and is entitled to its’ protection.

Winsa v. Spano, 2005 CanLII 6403 (ON S.C.)

Spano failed to honour either his child support or the equalization payment obligation. Therefore, as a result of an application before Mazza J. of the Ontario Court (General Division) Family Court, an Order was made September 16, 1998 mirroring the obligation for a collateral mortgage, as is referred to in the separation agreement. It is difficult to determine if this Order was made during the ongoing relationship between the defendants, as Tavormina, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit of November 23, 2004, speaks of the relationship ending simply in “September 1998”.

On June 7, 2004, Spano purported to transfer his interest in the property in question to Tavormina alone. The consideration for this transfer was $6,800.00. It is unknown at this point if he is discharged as bankrupt, one would have thought that the trustee in bankruptcy would have to be the transferor.

Janakowski v. Janakowski, 2000 CanLII 22587 (ON S.C.)

[7] The husband declared bankruptcy shortly after the separation of the parties. The wife declared bankruptcy some time later.

Lees v. Lees, 2000 CanLII 22580 (ON S.C.)

13] By January 1997, the couple had gone bankrupt.

[15] They began negotiating a draft separation agreement in the fall of 1996.

Wilson v. Wilson, 2001 CanLII 28111 (ON S.C.)

[1] The Defendant, Linda Teresa Leschaloupe, has appealed the order of Master Birnbaum dated August 7, 2000 in which Master Birnbaum granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

Nitsopoulos v. Alousis, 2000 CanLII 22566 (ON S.C.)

[5] There is no question but that the applicant received all the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and a condominium. She netted approximate $100,000.00 from that. The respondent had no assets to speak of on the valuation date, in that his liabilities, contingent and otherwise, exceeded his assets by more than $1,000,000.00. Not unexpectedly, he has recently gone bankrupt.

Goudie v. Stapleford, 2004 CanLII 20297 (ON S.C.)

[20] After the husband took her household contents, the Petitioner was left with nothing and went bankrupt, while the husband was left with assets that he has been able to parlay into real properties generating gross revenue of around $40,000/year,[1] as well as two businesses. [2] I do not believe that the income from the Bayview Athletic Club is as limited as he says it is

Logan v. Logan, 2004 CanLII 195 (ON S.C.)

In 1998 the parties separated and the business folded.

[3] The wife went bankrupt, received welfare and found employment in 1999.

Stutz v. Stutz Sorrenson, 2002 CanLII 2815 (ON S.C.)

[1] The parties were married in 1985. They have two children, now 14 and 11. The parties separated in 1999 and have been involved in litigation over a number of issues since that time.

[11] The mother has agreed to provide the corporation documents to the father and to provide verification that the company is bankrupt and that his debt of $75,000.00 should be taken as a capital gains loss

Carpentier v. Carpentier, 2005 CanLII 44412 (ON S.C.)

[4] The parties separated in January of 2004. The child, Justin, resided with the Petitioner from January until September 2004.

[18] The Respondent did not file an up to date Financial Statement, but the parties agreed that her income is $31,551 per year. I have no evidence of her expenses or of her assets, however, as she appears to be an undischarged bankrupt, she likely has little or no assets

Chute v. Chute, 2006 CanLII 1915 (ON S.C.)

[2] The payor seeks a reduction in his child support obligation to $175 per month commencing on 1 August 2005, based on an alleged income of $20,800 per year. He claims that he went bankrupt in July 2005 and can no longer afford the support payments previously ordered.

Werth v. Werth, 2004 ONCJ 43 (CanLII)

LIMITATIONS — Extension — Family law — Subsection 2(8) of Family Law Act — Threshold test — Absence of substantial prejudice — At time of separation, spouses had financial troubles — Husband became bankrupt within 3 months and wife went on welfare — Since then, husband was discharged in bankruptcy, became gainfully employed at two jobs — He has since had no relationship with another woman and had acquired no new dependents — Only prejudice to husband now was that order of spousal support might be made against him, but that was not intended meaning of term “substantial prejudice” because, ever since separation, he had always been subject to that possibility

Laue v. Laue, 2000 CanLII 20295 (ON S.C.)

[14] After the order of 27 April 1993, the applicant did not return to not work. He testified that his spending patterns continued over the years. In addition, according to his handwritten notes, he expended large amounts of money on legal expenses responding to the respondent’s appeal of the 1993 order to the Ontario Court (General Division) and her further appeal to the Divisional Court. The applicant continued to transfer funds to his current wife. He deposed that in all he transferred $352,000 to her. In 1996, he went bankrupt.

26] I order that of the $60,000 paid to the Director, Family Responsibility Office, by the applicant pursuant to the order of Justice Timms dated 15 February 1999, the sum of $41,987.45 is owed to the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the balance of $18,012.55 is owed to the respondent and I order that the said funds be distributed in that manner

Richardson v. Lafrance, 2005 ONCJ 299 (CanLII)

[20] Although suspended from the North Bay Police Force, Ms Lafrance was refused legal aid. She continued to be refused legal aid despite her having to go bankrupt.

[21] From the evidence at trial, Mrs. Coons’ position is quite understandable. Whether it be from the stress of criminal charges or the stress of losing her job as a police officer or the stress of the relationship breakdown, Ms Lafrance does not appear to have been “playing with a full deck” for quite a few months.

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

Bradley v. Bradley, 2000 CanLII 22513 (ON S.C.)

Douglas Bradley’s discharge in bankruptcy did not relieve him of his obligation to pay spousal support to Mary Bradley.

Inferentially, Saberi v. Saberi (1979), 10 R.F.L. (2d) 381 (Ont. C.A.) is authority for this proposition. In Saberi, the Court of Appeal established that a spouse could prosecute her claim for support against her bankrupt spouse and that maintenance is not a debt provable in bankruptcy.

Serrao v. Jardine, 2003 CanLII 2237 (ON S.C.)

[2] When the parties moved in together in 1995 the plaintiff was receiving social assistance benefits. From then until separation, the defendant supported him, since, regardless of his extensive work experience up to 1995 (see his resume at Exhibit 2, Tab 22), he seemed unable to obtain any meaningful employment for any length of time.

[3] In a nutshell, the defendant spent herself broke supporting herself and the plaintiff for 6 or 7 years, ending up a bankrupt. She has now successfully emerged from the bankruptcy, and is starting out fresh, but is now being sued for spousal support by the plaintiff.

I conclude on looking back over the evidence, that the plaintiff had very little intention of working when he joined the defendant in 1995, only looking for work when he was required to do so under the Ontario Works Program. And he has now totally abandoned any effort to obtain employment in order to support himself. That being his choice, it is questionable to what extent the defendant should be liable for his ongoing support

The defendant has been paying the plaintiff $239.00 for spousal support since February 1, 2002 (a total of 20 months) and she has also paid the equivalent of $874.00 per month for 18 months to the Trustee in Bankruptcy for a bankruptcy which likely would not have occurred but for the plaintiff’s disinclination to assist with family finances over the years of cohabitation

[24] The sum of $10,694 shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in 10 equal installments of $1,000.00 each commencing November 1, 2003

Herskovits v. Herskovits, 2001 CanLII 28233 (ON S.C.)

[19] By late October of 1996 his business reverses were so complete he went bankrupt. His liabilities, apart from the support he owed his wife, totalled $252,295 in unsecured claims, and $18,201 in secured claims. By the point of his bankruptcy, he had sold household effects and jewellery in order to meet his living expenses, and had closed down his business.

Reitsma v. Reitsma-Leadsom, 2005 CanLII 47762 (ON S.C.)

Mr. Reitsma testified that, upon separation, he declared bankruptcy and became a discharged bankrupt one year later

S.A.S. v. J.J.S., 2007 CanLII 1901 (ON S.C.)

Her position is that as she went bankrupt after separation any equalization payment she owed or was owed was extinguished in the bankruptcy

Scott v. Blake, 2008 CanLII 26695 (ON S.C.)

At present, Ms. Scott is an undischarged bankrupt.

Visneskie v. Visneskie, 2003 CanLII 2264 (ON S.C.)

[15] In my opinion, in terms of issues that were in dispute, the respondent succeeded and the petitioner failed. While the petitioner attempts to argue that the respondent “succeeded” on the property issue by going bankrupt and avoiding his responsibilities, I take the view that the failure of the petitioner to take any appropriate steps removed the property issues from the table at the trial.

Sebastiano v. Sebastiano, 2008 CanLII 28063 (ON S.C.)

[76] Given the status of the applicant as an undischarged bankrupt, it would be a matter for the bankruptcy court to determine whether or not the applicant has any personal liability with respect to the payment of the equalization amount to the respondent.

Moberg v. Peterson, 2001 CanLII 28262 (ON S.C.)

The two share joint custody of their four children. Qualitech Electric Inc. is no longer operative. It has more debts than assets and it is in the process of being wound down. The Applicant personally guaranteed the debts, and he is now at risk of going bankrupt. He has made a consumer credit proposal under which he would pay his creditors $150 monthly

[43] This retroactive variation results in the outstanding arrears being reduced to $59,664, and I fix the arrears at this level.

C.(J.J.D.) v. C.(S.L.), 1996 CanLII 8098 (ON S.C.)

At the time of the 18 December 1993 separation agreement, the father was an undischarged bankrupt with the hope and expectation that he would soon have a real estate agent’s licence and begin earning income that way.

O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2003 CanLII 2366 (ON S.C.)

Approximately two weeks later, the Respondent made an assignment in bankruptcy. Following the bankruptcy, the Respondent was either employed by or in business with Mr. Bird at a service station on Broadview Avenue. He admitted being paid “under the table”, perhaps because he was an undischarged bankrupt until February 1996. This also coincided with the timing of matrimonial litigation, when the Petitioner was pressing the Respondent for child support for their three children. On July 13, 1995, the Petitioner obtained an interim Order for child support, but it was never complied with.

MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2003 CanLII 2328 (ON S.C.)

[2] The plaintiff and defendant married in 1978. They have three children, aged 17 years old, almost 16 years old, and 14 years old. The date of separation has not been specified but it appears to have been in 1998. Wright J. made an interim interim order for spousal and child support on April 14, 1998

In August, 2002, he made a proposal to creditors. The proposal was rejected by his major creditor (the CCRA) and consequently in October, he became bankrupt. At the end of October, his office at Leslie Street was closed. There is no evidence that he informed his wife or her then solicitor that he had moved. As a result of his personal bankruptcy, he expected to be placed under “close supervision” by the Securities Exchange Commission. No Branch Manager in Toronto would accept him.

X.M. v. S.A.M., 2007 CanLII 14935 (ON S.C.)

21. May 9 – 11, 2005

Trial before Justice Snowie

22. June 23, 2005

Judgment of Justice Snowie awarding sole custody to Mr. X.M..

23. June 30, 2005

Ms S.A. bankrupt

Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.)

[56] I order and declare that as against the husband, the following shall survive his discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: all support monies owing, the damages for fraud and conspiracy, the costs of this action, the amount owing for penalty for contempt, the costs of the Receiver, and interest on all such amounts.

Mercieca v. Merciera, 2002 CanLII 2754 (ON S.C.)

They separated at the beginning of September 1997

The respondent went bankrupt in 1999

Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON S.C.)

[8] The Mother says that for the first two years after their separation, from 1998 to 2001, the Father exercised only sporadic access to the children, while she and the children remained in the family home. She says she paid all the expenses and once they were in court proceedings, the Father went bankrupt to “spite” her.

Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)

[4] The Mother has traced 5 of the Father’s companies that were operative during the period in question and before his recent personal Assignment in Bankruptcy

Boneva v. Bonev (No. 2), 2005 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)

[32] He noted that he had gone bankrupt in 2000 and that. since that date. he had no assets and. without the help of his friends. would have been unable to pay support and cover his living expenses. He testified that he was well over $100,000.00 in debt.

Sherwood v. Sherwood, 2006 CanLII 40795 (ON S.C.)

[1] Prior to the completion of the evidence in this family law trial, Mr. Paul Sherwood made an assignment in bankruptcy. He made this assignment on April 26, 2006. Cyril Sapiro & Co. Ltd., trustee of the estate of Paul James Sherwood, a bankrupt, has directly resolved the following issues with the Petitioner, Cherie Nadine Sherwood:

1) From Mr. Sherwood’s one-half share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, which share vested in his trustee, the trustee has paid to Ms. Sherwood the equalization payment owing to her by Mr. Sherwood pursuant to a consent executed by the parties on March 30, 2006 which consent was incorporated into an order of this court dated March 30, 2006. The equalization payment was in the amount of $31,191 as set out in the consent.

2) From Mr. Sherwood’s share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, the trustee has paid to Ms. Sherwood costs owing to her by Mr. Sherwood pursuant to previous court orders.

3) The estate has settled with Ms. Sherwood (and the Family Responsibility Office) the arrears of support owing by Mr. Sherwood to Ms. Sherwood in the 12-month period prior to his assignment in bankruptcy. This has been or will be paid to Ms. Sherwood by the trustee from Mr. Sherwood’s share of the net proceeds of sale. This is a preferred claim Ms. Sherwood has against the estate. There are no further arrears owing to Ms. Sherwood by Mr. Sherwood for any period prior to May 1, 2006.

[2] With these issues resolved directly between Ms. Sherwood and the trustee of Mr. Sherwood’s bankruptcy estate, the following are the issues remaining between the parties:

1) The quantum of child support to be paid by Mr. Sherwood to Ms. Sherwood for the two children of the marriage, namely Lauren Sherwood born May 1, 1997, and Mason Sherwood born December 15, 2000. This determination involves a consideration of whether income should be imputed to Mr. Sherwood. As a result of Mr. Sherwood’s assignment, the issue is quantum payable by Mr. Sherwood to Ms. Sherwood from May 1, 2006 and onward;

2) Ms. Sherwood’s entitlement to spousal support from Mr. Sherwood and, if entitled, the quantum payable by Mr. Sherwood to Ms. Sherwood and duration of spousal support. Mr. Sherwood is seeking that income be imputed to Ms. Sherwood. As a result of Mr. Sherwood’s assignment, the issue is entitlement to and quantum of spousal support from May 1, 2006 onward;

3) A determination as to whether money is owed by Mr. Sherwood to Ms. Sherwood for medical, drug and dental reimbursements, and a quantification of same;

4) A determination as to how the children’s medical, drug and dental expenses will be paid in the future; and

5) Costs. The parties are attending before me on December 1, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. for two hours to argue the issue of costs.

Testa v. Basi, 2005 CanLII 25186 (ON S.C.)

His view was that his first wife was the cause of all of his financial woes following their separation in 1995, and she was the reason why he does not have any meaningful continuing relationship with his son from that marriage.

[20] I note that even though Mr. Basi declared bankruptcy in 1997, in that year he acquired the mobile home in Alexandria Bay. His evidence was that his aunt, Thelma Mutolo, purchased the home for him so that he would have a place to take Michael.

Iddon v. Iddon, 2006 CanLII 1450 (ON S.C.)

Third, Peter held some funds that were intended to be used for his children’s higher education. They were characterized as trust funds by Christine. Peter went bankrupt, and took no steps to protect those funds before doing so. In the result, the funds were lost in the bankruptcy. Fourth, Peter did obtain short-term employment. He did not report this employment to Christine and did not pay child support on it until several months after he started earning an income again.

Peter pays her rent, at the rate of $250 per month. He prefers to keep this financial “obligation” current than to pay his child support. The “rent” he pays stays within the household in which he now lives, and thus enhances his own standard of living

Brans v. Brans, 2000 CanLII 22471 (ON S.C.)

[18] It is the father’s position that his side to his financial story is dramatically different from that of his former wife. He relies on the fact that Mr. Justice Beaulieu dismissed his former wife’s earlier variation application. The father tells the Court that he previously went bankrupt, had worked for several other law firms before settling down with his present firm.

Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)

[9] On May 22, 2002, Aitken J. released detailed Reasons for Decision after an appearance before her on April 22, 2002. Ric Jonas declared bankruptcy on April 19, 2002. Aitken J. made an order pursuant to s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act allowing the proceedings to be continued notwithstanding the bankruptcy.

Day v. Adley, 2003 CanLII 2302 (ON S.C.)

[1] Wilfred A. Day, a solicitor, acted on behalf of Sandra Gail Adley in family law litigation over rights to spousal support and equalization. By order dated March 10, 2000, Thomas Adley was ordered to transfer to Sandra Gail Adley all rights to the matrimonial home and to pay her $175,000.00 in final settlement of all claims by Ms. Adley to both spousal support and equalization. Mr. Adley was ordered to pay the $175,000.00 partly in cash ($5,000.00) and partly by a spousal rollover of $170,000.00 from Mr. Adley’s registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) to a retirement savings account of Ms. Adley.

[2] The transfers of cash and RRSP funds were accomplished. However, Mr. Day’s account was not paid. Ms. Adley subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy. Her home was sold by the bankruptcy trustee.

MacDonald v. MacDonald, 2004 CanLII 13166 (ON S.C.)

The credit due to the respondent for retroactivity of this order should go first to pay support arrears, and any remainder should be credited against the $21,000.00 owed by him to Mrs. MacDonald by reason of his failure to pay that amount of debt ordered in the March 13, 2000 order and his bankruptcy.

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.

Ramsey v. Proffitt, 2001 CanLII 28161 (ON S.C.)

51 I have found that the entitlement to seek, in future, an equal division of the pension is not a debt or liability provable in bankruptcy and as such, it is not extinguished by the discharge from bankruptcy.

52 I have also found that the separation agreement created a resulting trust by which Mr. Proffitt received one half of the pension funds in trust for Ms. Ramsey, and as such, her claim is not effected by his bankruptcy

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.

Philip v. Philip, 2008 CanLII 39436 (ON S.C.)

[1] The Applicant (“wife”) brings this motion to amend my order of December 18, 2007 whereby I ordered the Respondent (“husband”) to pay to the wife her costs of this action fixed at $17,897.35.

[2] The purpose of the wife’s request is to prevent the husband from extinguishing his liability for that part of the costs order that relates to support issues by reason of his recent assignment in bankruptcy.

[33] Therefore, I hereby order that paragraph four of my order of December 18, 2007 be varied to read as follows:

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant her costs fixed at $17,897.35, payable forthwith. I declare that 60% of these costs are to be considered to be a debt in relation to the support of a spouse or the support of a child living apart from the Respondent

[35] I therefore order that the husband shall pay to the wife her costs of this motion fixed at $1,000.00, all inclusive, and I also find that the costs of this motion constitute a debt in relation to the support of a spouse or the support of a child living apart from the husband

Olah v. Olah, 2008 CanLII 43589 (ON S.C.)

[11] The matter was not complex, in my view, despite the bankruptcy of Mr. Olah. The parties’ behaviour on separation are equally blameworthy, with Mrs. Olah leaving Mr. Olah with both the responsibility for the two children and the home without providing any financial assistance, and Mr. Olah then running up the line of credit, failing to make any payments, and declaring bankruptcy, leaving Mrs. Olah responsible for this debt

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.

Shaw-McInnis v. Crawford, 2003 CanLII 2241 (ON S.C.)

Psychiatric evidence filed also suggested he’d suffered an emotional breakdown as a result of the separation.

[21] As a result of the turmoil in his life, the husband declared bankruptcy in Ontario on February 19, 1997. He was discharged on January 7, 1998. He didn’t find full time employment again until 1999,

During his extended unemployment in 1997 and 1998, he received welfare, E.I. benefits and the charity of friends. In 2002 he found employment in Sault Ste. Marie as sales manager for J.F. Fitzpatrick Industries Inc

The husband’s claim for variation of support retroactively to the period prior to May 1, 1997 is denied.

Gough v. Gough, 1996 CanLII 988 (ON C.A.)

Abbey J.'s judgment of May 4, 1994, divorced husband and wife and made an equalization order in favour of the latter in the amount of $191,233.77. To satisfy $65,000 of this liability, the trial judge ordered that the matrimonial home be transferred to the wife. The balance of the equalization amount was to be made up of payments from the husband's pension of $4,068 per month from his former employer, Ontario Hydro, at the rate of $1,347.96 per month until he is 65 years of age and thereafter at $1,154.51 per month until his death.

The husband made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy on May 4, 1995

Tremblay v. Tremblay, 1999 CanLII 3748 (ON C.A.)

On January 3, 1994, after a marriage of approximately

17 years, the wife commenced divorce proceedings against her

husband. On the same date, she commenced an action for damages

for personal injuries arising out of alleged physical and mental

abuse. The husband made an assignment in bankruptcy in June

1996. Loukidelis J. found that he did so in order to avoid

paying his wife’s claim for damages which was in the amount of

$750,000. In addition, the husband admitted that he purposely

withheld from the trustee knowledge of a debt owing to his

sister, as it was his intention to pay her in full, that is, to

grant her a preference

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.

Backman v. Wendzac Ltd. Partnership, 2004 CanLII 30882 (ON S.C.)

[1] Dr. Brian Backman and Ms. Albina Backman divorced November2, 1990. Dr. Backman voluntarily assigned himself into bankruptcy April 21, 1992 pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act as am. (“BIA”). He was automatically discharged as a bankrupt September 17, 1992 pursuant to an order of the Registrar

Engels v. Richard Killen & Associates Ltd., 2002 CanLII 49496 (ON S.C.)

[4] Klaas Engels (Engels), after a 28-year career as an insurance broker, entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement dated October 31, 1994 (the “Brokerage Agreement”) with Merit Insurance Brokers Inc. (“Merit”). Engels petitioned himself into bankruptcy in March 1997. He was discharged from bankruptcy in late January 1998. Merit had loaned money to Engels. Merit was a disgruntled creditor.

[66] In 1994, Engels was in divorce proceedings. He was in arrears of support obligations. For a period (June to September 1994) Engels’ wife was by court order in control of Dixon to enable her to enforce the outstanding support arrears. She did not remit payments received from Dixon clients to the insurers. When Engels regained control of Dixon there were arrears owing to insurers in an amount between $50,000 [and] $60,000. Engels was unable to borrow funds to pay the arrears. He had to either sell his book of business, or a portion thereof, or make arrangements with another insurance broker to pay off the pressing debt. A business acquaintance suggested he contact Merit as a potential solution to his problems. He sought out an arrangement with Merit. Engels and the principals of Merit did not know each other prior to 1994, although they had heard of each other.

Pearce v. Pittock, 1994 CanLII 7499 (ON S.C.)

[1] DUNN J.:—The interesting question presented to me by this motion, heard February 23, 1994, was whether the respondent’s obligation to pay his former wife pursuant to a term of a separation agreement was terminated by reason of his assignment in bankruptcy

Pottayil, Re, 2000 CanLII 22500 (ON S.C.)

[3] The bankrupt is 68 years of age and his income is in the form of a pension of $1,144 per month. He is divorced and claims to have lost his business, spouse and children as a result of his deteriorating financial condition over the years

Mott, Re, 2005 CanLII 38104 (ON S.C.)

[4] The Bankrupt is a 40-year-old man. He is divorced and has at least one child of the marriage for whom he has outstanding support obligations. The bankruptcy was by way of voluntary assignment, made February 8, 2001

[7] As a result of his marriage breakdown, it appears that the Bankrupt decided to attempt to start a commercial glazing business in the State of Florida, one of the United States of America.

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.

Hann (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 22949 (ON S.C.)

[2] Mr. Hann and his wife at that time May Hann (now May Young, the opposing creditor) purchased as partners the business of the Roy Young Fruit Market from her father Roy Young (also Leung Young) sometime prior to the relevant events.

[4] Mr. and Mrs. Hann separated and were divorced in the fall. Mr. Hann continued to operate the business, with the participation of Mrs. Hann for a period of time. As a result of an incident between them in October, charges were laid against Mrs. Hann (on which she was subsequently acquitted) and a court order was made requiring Mrs. Hann not to attend at the business premises. Mr. Hann continued to operate the business by himself, with assistance in the store frequently from his former sister-in-law.

Ledrew (Bankruptcy), Re, 2005 CanLII 23101 (ON S.C.)

[18] In the case at bar, submissions have been made by counsel for LeDrew that his inability to pay income tax installments when due arose from difficulties encountered by him in the dissolution of two law firms in which he was a partner and expenses and losses incurred by him in connection with his divorce and the sale of his first matrimonial home and that, accordingly, LeDrew should be regarded as an unfortunate debtor and this should impact on the conditions imposed on his discharge

Kenora Prospectors & Miners, Ltd. v. Duncan Green, 2003 CanLII 25496 (ON S.C.)

In this action, the plaintiff seeks $5,000,000 damages from the defendant Kerr for wrongful use of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, interference with, and conspiracy to interfere with economic relations, and other relief.

In his reasons, Farley J. also noted that the defendant Green and Suzanna Dobson (C.E.O. of the plaintiff and majority shareholder) were husband and wife, and that after their divorce bad feelings continued to consume them

Marshall Romaniuk v. Marshall Romaniuk, 2005 CanLII 14985 (ON S.C.)

[1] This was an application for spousal support by Randi Marshall Romaniuk against her husband Clifford Marshall. Clifford Marshall applied for a divorce judgment

[10] In February of 2004, Mr. Marshall declared bankruptcy ,despite the fact that negotiations were taking place between counsel with respect to how the parties were to divide the jointly held debts. The evidence disclosed that a large portion of the jointly held debt was on account of a truck purchased during the marriage for Ms. Romaniuk. The total bankruptcy indebtedness was approximately $43,000, and as of February 2004 Ms. Romaniuk was exclusively responsible

Sherman v. Sherman, 1999 CanLII 4102 (ON C.A.)

In other words, the loan was a

neutral factor at the time of the divorce and is no less so now

that the debt has been extinguished by virtue of Michael

Sherman’s declaration of bankruptcy.

Ristimaki, Re, 2000 CanLII 22486 (ON S.C.)

In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Ronald Allan Ristimaki of the State of Florida, in the United States of America

[3] CCRA and Mrs. Ristimaki are both creditors of Mr. Ristimaki. CCRA is owed about $9 million (about $7 million for principal plus interest) on account of the Mr. Ristimaki’s unpaid taxes. Mrs. Ristimaki is owed about $4.4 million (about $3.8 million for principal plus interest) pursuant to a judgment granted by Mr. Justice Beaulieu dated September 30, 1998.

Erinc (Re), 2008 CanLII 36523 (ON S.C.)

[2] The Bankrupt is a 57 year old man. He is divorced, and pays child support to his ex-wife, the Opposing Creditor, for the support of their younger son, of whom he has joint custody, but who resides with the Opposing Creditor.

Taylor v. Taylor, 2004 CanLII 42952 (ON S.C.)

The husband, although employed, stopped paying the household bills, and the wife drew upon her RRSPs to meet living expenses. A family business collapsed. The matrimonial home was sold in power of sale proceedings. The husband made an assignment in bankruptcy and took an early retirement from his employment.

McNally v. McNally, 2007 CanLII 9613 (ON S.C.)

[3] The applicant submits that he has endured tremendous financial hardship including bankruptcy, loss of his small business and four months of unemployment, while the respondent has made no effort to become economically self-sufficient since the order of Madame Justice Van Melle.

[4] The applicant submits that it has been more than eight years since the respondent left the matrimonial home. She is still not working or looking for work and has only applied for 10 jobs in eight years. He states that her retraining efforts consisted of globe trotting to California, Portland, Oregon and Peru, South America.

Currey v. Currey, 2003 CanLII 2090 (ON S.C.)

[2] Here the parties wished to arrange their affairs in the event of separation. Had the Respondent chosen to accept what she willingly and with good advice bargained for she would be in excellent financial health today. At her peril, she chose not to.

[3] The Applicant being not only successful throughout, having demonstrated a continuing willingness to compromise, as reflected by his offer, he is entitled to his costs throughout, which I fix at $236,766.43. While I accept there has been overpayment on the part of the Applicant, probably totaling something in excess of $130,000 with interest, I see no point, in view of the Respondent’s bankruptcy, in ordering a repayment. Suffice it to say the Respondent’s conduct throughout this litigation has not only unnecessarily protracted the proceedings, it borders on the contemptuous

Flewelling v. Flewelling, 2007 CanLII 8924 (ON S.C.)

This payment to FRO was with the agreement of the Trustee in bankruptcy for the husband

Harris v. 358207 Ontario Ltd., 2000 CanLII 22281 (ON C.A.)

[3] Mr. Harris argues that there have been material changes in circumstances since the 1991 judgment and that the spousal support should be varied pursuant to s. 17 of the Divorce Act, He relies upon two changes: his own reduced income and Mrs. Harris’s bankruptcy.

Selkirk Landscaping Ltd. v. Selkirk, 2004 CanLII 33015 (ON S.C.)

Alan Russell is the owner of the plaintiff and is named along with the plaintiff, as defendants to the counterclaim. Mr. Russell has not defended and has been noted in default.

Mark Craig Selkirk, a defendant and plaintiff by counter-claim, made an assignment in bankruptcy on June 20, 2003. He and the defendant Susan Dale Selkirk (also a plaintiff by counterclaim) were husband and wife but separated in 1997 and subsequently divorced

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

L.K. v. G.K., 2007 CanLII 9612 (ON S.C.)

On April 29, 2001, Mr. G.K. left the matrimonial home with the three children who were, at that time, 17, 15 and 11 years of age. He had planned this separation for some time but had not informed Mrs. L.K.. Immediately after separation, Mr. G.K. declared bankruptcy, indicating that he simply could not afford to maintain a household for himself and the three children without any child support and in the face of significant debt. He advised Mrs. L.K. of his intentions and recommended that she do the same. Nevertheless, based on advice from counsel, she decided to remain in the matrimonial home and did not declare bankruptcy. Matrimonial litigation began immediately and has continued ever since

Cook v. Plante, 2008 CanLII 46696 (ON S.C.)

[10] Roger denies any blameworthy conduct. It is agreed by all that the divorce judgment did not require him to provide ongoing financial disclosure.

In this case it must be recalled that by 2004 Roger had assumed a legal responsibility for the support of his new wife and her three children and that his debt load was such that he had made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Madruga v. Madruga, 2007 CanLII 51166 (ON S.C.)

[5] The respondent declared bankruptcy in June of 2006. He therefore has no debts. In his bankruptcy he listed a 2001 Ford Focus as an asset, and valued it at $4,700. I accept this figure as the value of the car on separation. Mr. Madruga kept the car.

Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada, 1995 CanLII 7247 (ON S.C.)

That litigation was settled in September of 1992 by way of a separation agreement for which she had received independent legal advice. The separation agreement confirmed that there were certain judgments outstanding against her then husband and that there was a potential for bankruptcy on his part.

Foster v. Foster, 2004 ONCJ 114 (CanLII)

SUPPORT ORDERS — Variation — Form of order — Reimbursement — Under terms of separation agreement, payor had duty to retire joint marital debt, but his bankruptcy forced that responsibility onto recipient wife's shoulders

Devitt v. Devitt, 2000 CanLII 22574 (ON S.C.)

[11] The applicant’s financial situation deteriorated after 1985 and he made an assignment in bankruptcy in 1986. The applicant said he was setting money aside awaiting contact from the Family Responsibility Office but heard nothing further. His separation from his second wife caused further deterioration of his financial position and he now claims to have no assets, although he is steadily employed and has only sufficient funds to support his current family unit

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

Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.)

[6] The petitioner filed an assignment in bankruptcy in October of 2000. At present, the arrears pursuant to the interim order of Justice Pardu amount to approximately $5, 800.00.

Sukhraj v. Narain-Sukhraj, 2002 CanLII 2816 (ON S.C.)

[12] I am satisfied that the Applicant father lost his employment due to the bankruptcy of his employer in 1999 and by no fault of his own. The evidence discloses that he has honestly and steadfastly tried to find employment and continues to do so. A reasonable business venture has not met with the expected success contemplated by the Applicant father. He continues to ardently look for work but given his age and very specialized skills in the garment industry, which has fallen upon hard times, his prospects appear bleak

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.

Jellison v. Jellison, 2008 CanLII 35682 (ON S.C.)

[3] In this proceeding the mother sought to vary the minutes of settlement. A divorce order was issued incorporating the relevant terms of the minutes of settlement. Now the mother now seeks to vary the divorce order which provided the parties have joint custody with the father to have the children in his care four days of each week to coincide with his days off. A trial date has been set for August of this year

Undertaking No. 20: Mr. Jellison has requested his bankruptcy file from the Trustee in Bankruptcy and shall produce it upon receipt. This undertaking is therefore answered.

Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2004 CanLII 39943 (ON S.C.)

After hearing evidence and submissions, I granted the divorce of the parties and reserved the issue of spousal support

There was no indication as to what if any profit the business was generating. Mr. Gauthier did indicate that he is on the verge of bankruptcy. This would be his third

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 not made reasonable efforts in this regard.

Couvillon v. Couvillon, 1996 CanLII 8075 (ON S.C.)

But cross-examination by Mr. Fulton revealed that these debts were not, in fact, completely paid by Mr. Couvillon. They were discharged by his subsequent bankruptcy in 1993

[7] The first of the causes of Mr. Couvillon’s present condition is the gross money mismanagement in which he and his new wife indulged after his divorce from the respondent.

Hill v. Hill, 2008 CanLII 43767 (ON S.C.)

[8] On September 11, 2007, the Wife commenced an Application for Relief under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act, seeking, among other things, spousal and child support and an equalization of the parties’ net family property

[11] On March 31, 2008, the Husband filed an Assignment in bankruptcy.

Kopaniak v. MacLellan, 2002 CanLII 44919 (ON C.A.)

[6] The next day, October 24, the father declared bankruptcy. Two days later, on October 26, he married Ms. Stubbs, his former matrimonial lawyer. The next day, October 27, without notice to anyone, the father and Ms. Stubbs took Jacqueline to Bermuda where Ms. Stubbs is a citizen. They have lived there ever since

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.

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.

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.

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2003 CanLII 2227 (ON S.C.)

[1] This situation is not entirely atypical in the Family Law courts. Briefly, the parties were married on October 10, 1986 and separated on February 3, 1993 when their daughter, Simone Rachel Rosenberg, was 10 years of age and their son, Samuel Jacob Rosenberg, was just over 2½ years old.

[2] The respondent, who was experiencing severe financial problems at the time, moved to Calgary, Alberta in 1994. He declared bankruptcy in 1995

Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2003 CanLII 2148 (ON S.C.)

Ms. Kimpton’s evidence, and that of third party witnesses, Kornylo and Lazar, supports that the husband has considered bankruptcy prior to trial.

This pattern of conduct, supported by the hostility Mr. Kimpton obviously feels towards his wife, persuades me he may well make an assignment in bankruptcy.

Dewar v. MacLean, 2006 CanLII 30588 (ON S.C.)

[4] The defendant Maclean was bankrupt twice and had credit problems.

[8] On October 19, 1998 Maclean was convicted of assaulting Lomas. On October 22, 1998, three days later, he issued a petition for divorce in which he claimed an interest in the property.

Trick v. Trick, 2003 CanLII 2260 (ON S.C.)

The parties were divorced on June 4, 1992

Ultimately the collapse was attributed to stress, anxiety and fatigue. She was off work for two weeks, and had to leave her job in February due to illness. In early 1997 she was diagnosed with pneumonia and severe emotional collapse. In about March 1997 she was prescribed Paxil for what her doctor termed severe anxiety and clinical depression. She received disability insurance benefits of $800 a month from June 1997 until fall of 2000, when the payments were terminated. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 1999 and continues to suffer intermittent episodes of systemic, chronic, debilitating pain and muscle dysfunction. She continues to take medication for this illness, as well as for depression and osteoarthritis. The applicant tried several part time positions of employment after her disability benefits ceased, with little success.

[26] In the meantime the applicant lost the house she had purchased in Oakville as a result of power of sale proceedings, which completely wiped out her equity in early 1999. She declared bankruptcy in the fall of the same year. The applicant and children now reside in an apartment, relatively close to their original neighbourhood in Oakville.

Miller v. Bouchard, 2001 CanLII 28173 (ON S.C.)

2 The separation was litigious. On February 27, 1997, just before the Guidelines came into force, Kruzic J. issued a comprehensive, detailed, consent order awarding custody of their two children to mother with access to father

5 When the order of Kruzic J. was made, father, a lawyer, had just made an assignment in bankruptcy. His financial affairs were in turmoil.

Risen v. Risen, 1998 CanLII 14571 (ON S.C.)

[7] Howard defaulted under that order. He failed to pay the arrears. He failed to pay monthly child support after December 1996.

Howard declared personal bankruptcy in October 1996

Webb v. Tomlinson, 2006 CanLII 18192 (ON S.C.)

[10] Reg also told Jean that he was trying to sell the business and he had a couple of offers that looked promising. He persuaded Jean to give him a bit more time so that he could sell the business and pay off the mortgage. As things turned out, he was unable to sell the business. In March, 2003, Reg Webb and his second wife, Nelly Webb, declared bankruptcy

Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)

(1) he failed to disclose that within weeks of the case conference and settlement he was moving permanently to Tennessee and re-marrying;

(2) he failed to disclose that he was declaring personal bankruptcy in Canada for debts of approximately $30,000

M. Al. O. v. Me. A. O., 2005 CanLII 2740 (ON S.C.)

[22] The petitioner claimed to have a number of debts. Initially, these were debts of the marriage and the petitioner testified these debts were used by the respondent to secure a substantial order for spousal support on the basis the respondent was making the payments on those debts. However, shortly after receiving the order, the respondent filed for bankruptcy and payment of the debts reverted to the petitioner. When he lost his job he was unable to keep these debts current and relied upon the income of S..

McGoey v. McGoey, 2003 CanLII 2179 (ON S.C.)

The respondent, however, has made an assignment in bankruptcy and the petitioner recognizes that the likelihood of recovery is negligible. The amount payable by the respondent to the petitioner by way of equalization of net family properties, had the petitioner pursued the matter to a judgment, would be one half of $74,178.34 or $37,089.17.

J.P. (Re), 2005 CanLII 57901 (ON C.C.B.)

Evidence provided by Dr. McCullagh to the Board indicated that Mr. J.P., who is now 55 years of age, is a divorced father of two who was, prior to his admission to hospital, living alone in the community in an apartment. Mr. J.P. has a “Bachelor’s level” education and for a time worked successfully as a stockbroker and businessman, including acting as Chairman of a large manufacturing company. Mr. J.P. was also involved in financing ventures in the film business. However, by 1992 he was experiencing significant financial difficulties relating to his investments and business ventures, culminating in bankruptcy and significant debt. Prior to his admission to hospital in early December 2004, Mr. J.P. was being supported by ODSP and, until very recently, received considerable assistance in the community from his ex-wife and other family members

Lynch v. Lynch, 1994 CanLII 3845 (ON C.J.)

[8] On 22 June 1981, Mrs. Lynch obtained a default judgment against her husband for unpaid support in the amount of $24,000 and costs. A writ of execution was filed against Mr. Lynch’s property. Mr. Lynch made an assignment in bankruptcy early in 1981 and the registrar in bankruptcy made an order on 20 July 1981 granting leave to Mrs. Lynch to continue her actions and to continue the garnishment proceedings that had been initiated on her behalf

N.L. v. B.P., 2000 CanLII 22516 (ON S.C.)

[7] Mr. P. argues that his financial demise began in August 1997 when the group home closed. Since that time, his income has been substantially reduced. In addition, he argues that he has significant debts and may be forced into bankruptcy in the near future. He argues, therefore, that the existing arrears, totaling over $22,000 should be rescinded and his child support should be varied.

Lane v. Lane, 2002 CanLII 2794 (ON S.C.)

That an example of this intimidation is a memo which he sent to the Petitioner (see Exhibit #14) and a further one filed as Exhibit #16, in which the Respondent sought settlement of their financial affairs before his possible requirements to go into bankruptcy

I do not consider these letters to be intimidating. In these letters I see the Respondent as frustrated by what he perceives as the slow and unresponsive actions of lawyers. At this time, the Respondent is genuinely concerned that he may be forced into bankruptcy by Revenue Canada, as well as about the obvious cost consequences for both parties

Okel v. Misheal, 2007 CanLII 7409 (ON S.C.)

[65] Mr. Misheal’s position is that this debt should be discounted to zero for two reasons. Firstly, his position is that Ms. Okel will resolve the debt with CRA. Secondly, he went bankrupt in 1997. He believes the debt went in the bankruptcy. I am not satisfied that Ms. Okel will not be called upon to pay the debt. She is being pursued approximately nine years post Mr. Misheal’s bankruptcy. Ms. Okel’s negotiations with CRA have not been successful to date - 4 years post separation. Enforcement efforts are current and real.

Lefebvre v. Strilchuck, 2007 CanLII 8019 (ON S.C.)

[6] During cross examinations held April 26, 2004, Ms. Lefebvre was questioned on her pay equity settlement. Ms. Lefebvre confirmed that she was discharged from her bankruptcy on June 19, 1999 and undertook to provide Mr. Strilchuck with proof that her lump sum pay equity and retroactive settlement cheque had been turned over to the trustee in bankruptcy

Hance v. Carbone, 2006 CanLII 38234 (ON S.C.)

[18] The applicant submits that she is in need of support and that her Financial Statement and Tax Returns indicate extremely modest earnings and extreme financial hardship. By contrast, the respondent’s circumstances have been unvarying since the separation and to he extent that he had any debts, these were forgiven in the context of his recent bankruptcy

Macropoulos v. Macropoulos, 2008 CanLII 58614 (ON S.C.)

[26] Both parties had roller coaster work histories throughout the marriage. They both described regular salaried employment, self-employment, unemployment, bankruptcy, and surviving on public assistance. At the present time, but for assistance of friends and family, both would be in desperate financial circumstances.

Stoate v. Stoate, 2005 CanLII 13820 (ON S.C.)

[14] In the past, Ms. Stoate has had to get food from the Ottawa food bank. Over the last year, she has received emergency help from the City for food, and the boys’ school has assisted as well. On occasion, the family has been threatened with the imminent discontinuation of hydro, gas and telephone services. In June 2000, Ms. Stoate declared personal bankruptcy.

[15] In Ms. Stoate’s current financial statement, she shows assets consisting of a car and insignificant bank account. She has debts of $5,300 consisting of rental arrears, personal loans, child tax credit overpayments and utility arrears.

[16] Ms. Stoate and the children are embarrassed and suffer as a result of their inability to pay the bills and live the way they see others living. Ms. Stoate is on antidepressants from time to time. Tiffany could not handle the stress in the home and again moved out. Eric has been so troubled that he was cutting his arms with a kitchen knife. He is now in counselling.

Sagl v. Sagl, 1997 CanLII 12248 (ON S.C.)

[2] Their substantial wealth, accumulated by Mr. Sagl before the marriage and by both of them during their cohabitation and marriage, has allegedly disappeared.

Mr. Sagl is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BEL. BEL is apparently insolvent by reason of very recent decisions which are either contrived by Mr. Sagl or are the legitimate response of the largest secured creditor of BEL, South Trust Bank of Georgia, N.A. (“South Trust”). On June 18, 1997 (the seventh day of trial), South Trust issued a Form 15 which is a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security under Subsection 244 (1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (U.S.).

Otis v. Gregoire, 2008 CanLII 50510 (ON S.C.)

He prefers to remain in Sault Ste. Marie to be able to be with the children and to re-establish his relationship with them. He also has the outstanding alcohol-related criminal charge to deal with and he intends to institute personal bankruptcy proceedings before the New Year.

Takis v. Takis, 2002 CanLII 2818 (ON S.C.)

[8] Gus is the owner/operator of a parking lot and is also a landlord. Tarace presently works in a retail store, her attempt at operating a clothing store not being successful with an assignment in bankruptcy occurring on 16 May 2002. Gus pays child support to Tarace, pursuant to the Federal Support Guidelines, in the full amount, notwithstanding the shared parenting regime

Duguay v. Thompson-Duguay, 2000 CanLII 22515 (ON S.C.)

Further, the evidence showed that the father was in financial difficulty in 1998 and he eventually filed for bankruptcy, which suggests to me that his estimated income in the spring of 1998 might have been less than $53,000. The father has not proved that the parties agreed to an amount that was intended only as child support. Even if he had, I question whether a court would give effect to an agreement intended to make non deductible child support deductible from the payor’s income.