After twenty-eight years together, and two children, was it really necessary for the couple to make it official? Has anything really changed legally for them now that they are married to one another? In Ontario, the answer is yes. Although both married and common law spouses enjoy many of the same rights with regards to almost every aspect of their conjugal relationship, there are still some differences between the rights of cohabiting and married couples in Canada.

When it comes to spousal support, married and cohabiting couples have virtually the same rights under Ontario Law. For example, under s. 29 of the Family Law Act, and for the purposes of spousal support, spouse is defined as follows:

“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1(1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each and have cohabited,

(a) Continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
(b) In a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

Therefore, pursuant to this definition, individuals who are not married, but have lived together for a period in excess of three years or together parented a child can make a viable claim for spousal support. In the case of Gene and Shannon, who have been together for approximately twenty-eight years, it would be quite possible that spousal support would be ordered for an indefinite period time. Therefore, despite the fact that they were not married to one another, they may have been be financially tied to one another for the remainder of their lives.

Unlike spousal support, property rights for married couples are different from those of cohabiting couples. Pursuant to the Family Law Act, married couples are entitled to a division of property via an Equalization Payment, while cohabiting couples are not usually entitled to same. However, case law has stepped in and filled the gaps left by the Legislature thereby ensuring that common law spouses who have spent a significant amount of time, money and effort building a life together and accumulating assets in the name of either one or the other, do not miss out on the opportunity to share in the value of same.

Therefore, despite the fact that under s. 1(1) of the Family Law Act, a spouse is defined as:

“spouse” means either of two persons who,

(a) Are married to each other, or
(b) Have together entered into a marriage that is voidable or void, in good faith on the part of a person relying on this clause to assert any right,

Cohabiting couples are still able to make claims for a constructive trust thus granting either individual an interest in or compensation for any contributions made to the acquisition, preservation or maintenance of property.

To clarify, a constructive trust allows an individual to share in the value of property (or acquire an interest therein) even though he or she does not hold legal title. This could be due to the fact that said individual has contributed to the value of the property through work, money, etc. which would make it unfair to deprive him or her from a share in the value, or increase in value, of the property.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that courts will only impose a constructive trust once the following test is satisfied:

First, the principles of unjust enrichment must be satisfied:

1. There must be the enrichment of one of the spouses
2. A corresponding deprivation of the other spouse, and
3. No juristic or legal reason for the enrichment, such as:

• Making a gift or
• The presence of a contract

Once these principles are satisfied, a causal connection must be found between the contribution made and the property. If a connection is proved, then a constructive trust will result. More details regarding the law of constructive trusts and family law can be found in the recently released cases Kerr v. Baranow and Vanasse v. Seguin.

Lastly, and if all else fails, an attempt at a claim for unjust enrichment may be made. Here, the courts will simply apply the above mentioned test and then if unjust enrichment is found, the individual who was wrongly deprived of a benefit will get the value of his or her contribution.

Although legislation denies cohabiting spouses the automatic right to the division of property upon separation, the courts have founds way to ensure that they are still able to retain a benefit in cases where they have significantly contributed towards the assets or the accumulation of multiple assets.

While not married, the couple may be considered to be in a common law relationship.  A common law relationship is when two people live together in a marriage-like relationship.  The two people can be of the same sex or of the opposite sex.  No legal formalities are required.  The period of time two persons must cohabit before being considered to be in a common law relationship depends on whether the issue that needs to be resolved falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.  Matters that fall within federal jurisdiction include federal government pensions and division of the Canada Pension Plan upon separation.  Property division is determined by provincial law and each province has its own definition of what a common law spouse is.

For Ontario family law purposes, to be considered a common law couple, two persons must cohabit 3 years, or have a child and a relationship of some permanence and cohabitated for a period of less than three years.

The judiciary considers a number of factors when determining whether a couple falls within the definition of a common law relationship.  Generally, a judge will look at the lifestyle of the parties in a common law relationship. In Ontario, the case Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980) (Ont. Dist.Ct.), sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship.  Such characteristics include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.  However, in this decision it was also recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are required for the finding of a common law relationship.

Although the details of Bradley and Renee’s relationship are unknown, assuming the couple is found to be in a common law relationship, certain rights and obligations may arise.

While persons in common law relationships do not have the same property rights as married persons, common law partners are entitled to make claims for unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is general equitable principle that states that no person should be allowed to profit at another’s expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.  As such, a person in a common law relationship may claim that their common law partner was unjustly enriched by their contributions during the course of the relationship and they must be compensated accordingly.

Despite the differential treatment of married and common law couples with respect to property upon dissolution of the relationship, common law couples have the same entitlement to spousal support as married couples.  That is, if your common law relationship ends, and you do not have the means to sustain yourself, like married persons, you may seek spousal support from your former partner.  The quantum of support can be decided by negotiation, mediation, collaborative law or arbitration.  If the parties are unable to agree to quantum on their own, they may go to the court and ask a judge to make a determination in this regard.

As common law relationships are the fastest growing family structure in Canada, couples in common law relationships should sign a cohabitation agreement to protect their rights.  A cohabitation agreement can outline matters such as financial arrangements, the amount of support payable and who will move out of the couple’s home upon separation.  This agreement cannot, however, make determinations with respect to custody or access.

Again, while it is unclear whether Bradley and Renee’s  would be considered a common law couple, the above summarizes the issues they may be forced to tackle if found to be common law spouses as their three year relationship has now come to an end.

While not married, the couple may be considered to be in a common law relationship.  A common law relationship is when two people live together in a marriage-like relationship.  The two people can be of the same sex or of the opposite sex.  No legal formalities are required.  The period of time two persons must cohabit before being considered to be in a common law relationship depends on whether the issue that needs to be resolved falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.  Matters that fall within federal jurisdiction include federal government pensions and division of the Canada Pension Plan upon separation.  Property division is determined by provincial law and each province has its own definition of what a common law spouse is.

For Ontario family law purposes, to be considered a common law couple, two persons must cohabit 3 years, or have a child and a relationship of some permanence.

The judiciary considers a number of factors when determining whether a couple falls within the definition of a common law relationship.  Generally, a judge will look at the lifestyle of the parties in a common law relationship. In Ontario, the case Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980) (Ont. Dist.Ct.), sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship.  Such characteristics include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.  However, in this decision it was also recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are required for the finding of a common law relationship.

Although the details of Mila and Macaulay’s relationship are unknown, assuming the couple is found to be in a common law relationship, certain rights and obligations may arise.

While persons in common law relationships do not have the same property rights as married persons, common law partners are entitled to make claims for unjust enrichment.  Unjust enrichment is general equitable principle that states that no person should be allowed to profit at another’s expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.  As such, a person in a common law relationship may claim that their common law partner was unjustly enriched by their contributions during the course of the relationship and they must be compensated accordingly.

Despite the differential treatment of married and common law couples with respect to property upon dissolution of the relationship, common law couples have the same entitlement to spousal support as married couples.  That is, if your common law relationship ends, and you do not have the means to sustain yourself, like married persons, you may seek spousal support from your former partner.  The quantum of support can be decided by negotiation, mediation, collaborative law or arbitration.  If the parties are unable to agree to quantum on their own, they may go to the court and ask a judge to make a determination in this regard.

As common law relationships are the fastest growing family structure in Canada, couples in common law relationships should sign a cohabitation agreement to protect their rights.  A cohabitation agreement can outline matters such as financial arrangements, the amount of support payable and who will move out of the couple’s home upon separation.  This agreement cannot, however, make determinations with respect to custody or access.

Again, while it is unclear whether Mila and Macaulay would be considered a common law couple, the above summarizes the issues they may be forced to tackle if found to be common law spouses as their eight year relationship has now come to an end.

Two of Oksana’s lawyers, Dan O’Malley and Daniel Horowitz, reportedly stated that this amount might be considered to be very high for the majority of the population, but since Mel Gibson’s personal worth is estimated to be over $1 billion dollars, “it’s a very modest award by Hollywood standards.”

Would this award be the same if Mel and Oksana lived in Ontario?

In Ontario, the Child Support Guidelines presumptively determine the amount that is to be paid in support obligations. The determination of the quantum of support payable, as per the Guidelines is generally based on the following:

1. The number of “children of the marriage”; as defined by the Divorce Act, or the dependants to be cared for when the Divorce Act does not apply; and
2. The payor parent’s line 150 income as per their annual Income Tax Return.

In this case, the child has been determined to be Mel’s child as he is not disputing that he is the biological father. Also, the child is living primarily with Oksana, thus making Mel is the payor parent and as such, he has an obligation to pay a monthly amount in support to her for the purposes of caring for the child.

It should be noted that the Courts do have some discretion to vary the amount of monthly child support to be paid if one of the following applies:

1. The child is over the age of majority;
2. The payor parent earns more than $150,000.00 per year;
3. Where the child resides with each parent for more than 40% of the time; or
4. If the amount to be paid would cause an undue hardship on the payor parent;

As noted above, Mel’s net worth is currently estimated to be over $1 billion dollars. Again, as a starting point for the purposes of utilizing the Guidelines Table, his annual income as stated on line 150 of his Income Tax Return would be used. Since it is likely that his annual income on his Income Tax Return is well over $150,000.00, if the court considered that the amount as determined by the Guidelines Table is inappropriate in the circumstances they may order an amount that encompasses:

1. the amount as outlined by the Guidelines Table for the first $150,000.00 of income;
2. the amount the Court considers to be appropriate having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each parent to contribute to the support of the child; and
3. the amount for any special and extraordinary expenses for the child.

As it is likely that Mel makes grossly in excess of $150,000.00 per year, a Court might consider, as the Court in California did, that $20,000.00 per month is an appropriate amount for the support of the child taking all of the above into consideration. It is difficult to estimate the figure that an Ontario court would consider appropriate in this situation, however, in light of the circumstances, it would probably award an amount that is much higher than an average Order would be.

What would happen if Halle and Gabriel lived in Ontario?

Nahla’s Best Interest:

Ontario judges would likely approve of the couples’ approach to their separation. Berry and Aubry are focused on what is best for their daughter, which is exactly what the courts focus on when determining Custody and Access, pursuant to the legislated Best Interest of the Child test.

Negotiation:

Berry and Aubry are trying to negotiate the issues and avoid the courts, which is very common in Ontario.

Custody:

The couple appears to have agreed upon joint custody, which will likely suit Halle, Gabriel and most importantly Nahla. Joint Custody requires the parents to be able to make important decisions regarding their children together. As Halle and Gabriel appear to get along well, they should be capable of making important decisions regarding Nahla together.

Property:

Equalization of Berry and Aubry’s property is not an issue because the parties are not married and, in Ontario, only married couples are required to equalize their property.

Child Support and Access:

The parties have yet to determine a final access schedule, which will, in turn, determine the issue of child support.

If Nahla spends at least 40% of her time with each parent, then a set off approach to child support may be used. This means that the courts would determine how much child support each parent must pay based on their income and the number of children. Once this amount is determined for each parent, the amounts would be subtracted from one another, and the party who earns more would pay the difference to the other.

For example, if Halle earned $14,000.000.00 (as salary-money.com reports), she would be required to pay roughly $105,000.00 per month in Child Support. If Gabriel earned $11,000,000.00 (as reported by www.zimbo.com), he would be required to pay roughly $82,000.00 per month in Child Support. So, on the set-off approach, Halle would be required to pay Gabriel roughly $23,000.00 ($105,000.00 – $82,000.00) in Child Support per month. However, the courts in Ontario have discretion to depart from this approach and it is possible that no child support would be ordered.

If Nahla spends less than 40% of her time with one parent, that parent would have to pay the full child support amount to the other parent, subject to an argument that the quantum of child support is unreasonable based on each of the parties’ high incomes. Fortunately, Berry and Aubry appear to care far more about Nahla than they do about money.

Spousal Support:

Spousal support is awarded in Ontario when (a) one party needs support and/or (b) one party should be compensated for work done during the relationship.

As both parties are capable of supporting themselves, it is highly unlikely that either party would be entitled to spousal support based on need.

However, if either Berry or Aubry did more work to support the other during their relationship (e.g. taking care of Nahla or supporting the other’s career), then that party might be entitled to spousal support on a compensatory basis.

In Ontario, in order to be considered common law partners, parties must either be in a continuous relationship for a period of not less than three years or parties must have been in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

Although the parties in this case are not married, they meet the definition of a common law relationship as they have a child together. If the parties had ended their relationship in Ontario, the following legal issues would need to be addressed:

Custody/Access

Custody involves the right to make important decisions affecting Lucia’s overall welfare. Decisions with respect to Lucia’s healthcare, education, religion, general upbringing and her best interests will be considered by the court. Oksana has stated that the parties’ split was amicable and that they intend to jointly parent Lucia. Ontario courts are more likely to award joint custody where the parties have an amicable relationship. This occurs in situations where it can be shown that the parties are able to co-operate with one another and make decisions about the child jointly. If Oksana is being truthful to the media and Mel and Oksana have a good relationship, it is likely that the court will award joint custody of Lucia.

Where Lucia will primary reside may be decided based on who primarily cared for her during the relationship and after the parties separated. Oksana has stated that Lucia is currently residing with her mother in Los Angeles. Assuming that Oksana was the primary caregiver during the parties’ relationship, then it is likely that the court will award primary residency of Lucia to Oksana. Since the parties have an amicable relationship, it is also likely that Mel will have generous access with Lucia and Oksana will consent to same.

Child Support

In Ontario, the courts are bound by the Ontario Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines include a table that shows the child support owed based on the income of the payor and the amount of children. The parties must first determine with whom Lucia will primarily reside with. As noted above, if Lucia will primarily reside with Oksana, Oksana will be entitled to receive child support. Given Mel’s hectic and busy career, we can assume that he will most likely agree to this and he will therefore pay Oksana child support pursuant to the Guidelines.

Assuming that Mel earns $5,000,000.00 per year, Oksana would be entitled to $37,144.00 per month in support. If Mel earned $10,000,000.00 per month, Oksana would be entitled to $74,144.00 per month in support. Given that these numbers are so astronomically high, it may affect Oksana’s entitlement to spousal support (discussed below).

Given that the amount of child support is so high, the court may use their discretion in determining whether the amounts noted above are appropriate. If the courts are of the view that the amounts are excessive, (which, we believe are excessively high), the court has the discretion to lower the amount owed in child support per month to an amount they deem to be fair.

Spousal Support

Spousal support claims depend on whether one partner (in this case, most probably Oskana) can demonstrate a need for spousal support. Some of the factors that the court considers in order to grant spousal support are: the length of the relationship, the economic position of the parties as a result of the separation and the roles that the parties played during the course of their relationship. In circumstances where the amount of child support paid is astronomically high due to the payor’s income, the court will take the child support amount into account when determining spousal support and the need for same. Here, assuming that the court awards Oksana with either of the amounts of child support noted above, it is unlikely that the court will also award Oksana with spousal support as it will be very difficult for her to argue that she is in need of same.

For example, if Oksana was awarded the lower amount of $37,144.00 per month in child support, she would be receiving $445,728.00 in child support per year. This amount can definitely cover the child’s needs as well as any needs Oksana may have.

Equalization

An Equalization Payments is the payment that one spouse can be required to make to the other spouse in order to equalize the assets that were acquired during the course of the marriage. Since Mel and Oksana were never married, equalization does not apply to them. For more information on equalization, please click here.

Had Jim Carrey ended his common law relationship with Jenny in Ontario, the following legal issues should be considered:

Custody and Access

Arguably, Jim may be considered in loco parentis to Jenny’s 7 year old son. This means that Jim is “in place of a parent.” The factors the Court would look at to determine whether Jim is in the role of a parent include:

• whether Jim provided financially for Jenny’s son;
• whether Jim had a role in disciplining Jenny’s son as a parent;
• whether Jim has represented to the world (i.e.: family, friends, etc…) that he is responsible as a parent for Jenny’s son; and
• the nature of Jenny’s son’s relationship with the absent parent.

If Jim is seen as in loco parentis to Jenny’s son, the Court would then proceed to determining which parent(s) could better make decisions that would serve the child’s best interests. Moreover, the Court will look at what type of custody regime (e.g. sole custody, joint/shared custody, etc…) would be in the child’s best interests.

According to section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Court will determine the child’s best interests by considering:

1. the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,
   1. each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,
   2. other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and
   3. persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;
2. the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;
3. the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;
4. the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;
5. the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;
6. the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;
7. the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and
8. the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

These factors are looked at holistically and, as such, a decision regarding what type of arrangement would serve a child’s best interests is a subjective one. It is therefore difficult to predict what a Judge would Order in any given case.

It is important to note the difference between the term custody and access. Custody is about allocating major decision making authority between the parent(s). Whereas, access deals with the amount of time a non-custodial parent has with the child.

Child Support

If Jim were considered a parent to Jenny’s son and if Jenny’s son were primarily residing with her, Jim would be paying child support. The amount of child support payable is based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that considers the payor’s income and the number of children the payor supports. There are special rules and considerations that apply to a payor who earns greater than $150,000.00 per annum, and these rules would likely apply to Jim.

Spousal Support

Given both actors are financially prosperous due to their respective careers, a spousal support claim would depend on whether one of the party’s can show a need for spousal support. Some of the factors to be considered for a court to grant spousal support include:

• the length of the relationship;
• the need for financial support;
• the need to compensate a partner for the economic hardship they endured from the relationship;
• a partner’s contributions to enhance the other’s career; and
• the need to maintain the same standard of living when the partners lived together.

Based on both of the parties’ net worth and their ability to earn an income, it is unlikely one can establish a need for spousal support.

The most pressing issues for Jim and Jenny in a Canadian family law context would include whether Jim is considered a parent to Jenny’s son, and if so, all the obligations that flow from being a parent to a child (e.g. establishing a custody and access regime that reflects the child’s best interests and child support obligations). There is no equalization payment involved or property division as Jim and Jenny were not married. For more information on the concept of equalization, please visit http://www.familylawnews.ca/familylaw/property-division.php.

Now, Gary is known for his role as Warwick on CSI. The media reports that he was recently assaulted by his girlfriend, Maria Asis del Alamo. It is reported that Maria was arrested for misdemeanour domestic battery after police found Gary “scratched up”. Maria was released on bail and the criminal trial is scheduled for April 6, 2010.

What would happen to this couple if Gary and Maria lived in Ontario?

This depends on several factors. This first of which is whether Ontario family law applies. Ontario family law does not apply to every couple. For the most part, it only applies if (i) the parties are married, (ii) the parties have children, or (iii) the parties cohabited (which means lived together in a conjugal relationship) for three years or more. However, there is one provision that applies to couples who do not meet these criteria. Pursuant to the Ontario Family Law Act, the courts can make a Restraining Order against someone if they have lived with the other party for any period of time. This Restraining Order can ban someone from contacting the other party, coming within a certain distance of certain places, and anything else that the court considers appropriate.

Reports of this domestic violence incident state that Maria was arrested outside a home in Venice, California, but do not state whether Maria and Gary lived together in this home, or elsewhere. This means that Ontario family law may not apply to this couple at all, although criminal law clearly would.

As explained above, if Maria and Gary lived together for any period of time, an Ontario family court judge could make an Order restraining Maria from communicating with Gary and even restraining her from going within a certain distance of his home, his place of work, or any other place the court feels is appropriate.

Had Maria and Gary been married, this incident of domestic violence might have affected:

1. their right to occupy the Matrimonial Home
   • The term ‘Matrimonial Home’ is no misnomer. You must be married in order for the home you live in to be considered a Matrimonial Home.
   • Maria and Gary are not married so they have no Matrimonial Home, even if they did live together.
2. their grounds for Divorce
   • Cruelty is a ground for Divorce in Canada. In order for cruelty to be used as the grounds for divorce, the cruelty must be grave, weighty, and so intolerable that the parties are no longer able to cohabit.
   • If this incident of domestic violence was grave, weighty, and made it intolerable for Maria and Gary to live together, it could be their ground for Divorce if they were married. They are not married, so they obviously cannot get divorced.
3. AND their entitlement to an Equalization Payment
   • An Equalization Payments is the payment that one spouse can be required to make to the other spouse in order to equalize their assets acquired during the marriage
   • There is no Equalization Payment if the parties are not married, so this does not apply to Gary and Maria.

Had Maria and Gary had children, this incident of domestic violence would likely have affected who had custody of and access with the children. But, since Gary and Maria have no children, custody and access are clearly not relevant.

Many fans may be curious as to not only who the new mystery man is in Theron’s life, but what legal implications this common law couple would face had they lived in Ontario.

Properties from Relationship

In Theron and Townsend’s case, there are two known homes of the relationship. After the split up, Theron is said to be residing in Hollywood Hills and Townsend is living in the couple’s Malibu beach home. In common law separations, the person(s) on title is important for determining who has ownership and possessory rights to the home.

If both parties jointly are on title to the properties, they will divide their interests accordingly. However, if one partner is the only one on title to the home(s) the couple resided in, the partner on title would be able to claim a sole interest in the home (e.g. not have to divide the value of the home with their partner) and the owner partner may also ask the other partner to leave the home. Unfortunately, the non-owner partner would have to vacate the home.

Although in Ontario there is no legal recourse for common law partners to claim possessory rights in the home, the non-owner partner can claim an interest in the home that both parties resided in. The non-owner partner would make a trust claim. For instance, the non-owner partner could claim a constructive trust. This type of trust is used as a remedy for the non-owning partner who feels that they have contributed financially or through their labour towards the home and have not derived any benefit. The non-owner partner is essentially seeking compensation for their contribution either through damages or an interest in the home. Through a constructive trust, the non-owner partner has to show that their partner is being unjustly enriched through the fruits of the non-owner’s labour or funds.

The following is a three part test that has to be met in order to show unjust enrichment:

1. One partner has been enriched (e.g. the owner partner);
2. There is a corresponding deprivation to the other partner (e.g. non-owner partner); and
3. There is no legal reason for such enrichment.

In Theron and Townsend’s case, the non-owner partner would have to show that they have contributed to the home and deserve compensation via a trust claim. Examples of meaningful contributions include: repairing parts of the home, decorating or renovating the home, or financially contributing to the mortgage or maintenance of the home.

Spousal Support

Given that both actors are financially well-off, a spousal support claim would depend on whether one partner can show a need for spousal support. Some of the factors to be considered for a court to grant spousal support include: the length of the relationship, the need to compensate a partner for the economic hardship they endured from the relationship, to name a few. Based on both parties’ net worth, and their ability to earn an income, it is improbable that either can establish a need for spousal support. The Court will encourage a “clean-break” between the parties if they are financially self-sufficient, as in this case. Theron purportedly is no longer wearing her commitment ring that Townsend had given her, exemplifying Theron’s personal effort of a “clean-break”.

In Theron and Townsend’s case, there is no equalization of property to consider as they were not married. More information on equalization can be found  here.

If Sarandon and Robbins were living in Ontario as a common law couple, and decided to commence their separation in Ontario, the following is plausible.

Spousal Support

Given both actors are financially prosperous due to their acting career, a spousal support claim would depend on whether one of the party’s can show a need for spousal support. Some of the factors to be considered for a court to grant spousal support are: the length of the relationship, the need for financial support, the need to compensate a partner for the economic hardship they endured from the relationship, a partner’s contributions to enhance the other’s career, and the need to maintain the same standard of living when the partners lived together. Based on both of the parties net worth and their ability to earn an income it is unlikely one can establish a need for spousal support. The Court will not provide a windfall to couples who are self-sufficient.

Custody and Access

There would not be an issue of access for the children, namely Miles and Jack because both children are old enough and mature enough to independently decide how much time (if any) they want to spend with each parent, and who they want to live with.

Child Support

Given that child support is the right of the child and the funds for child support are meant to foster the status quo for the child, the Courts are bound by the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The Guidelines include a table that shows the child support owed based on the income of the payor and the amount of children. In Sarandon and Robbins situation, the parent with whom the child primarily resides would be entitled to receive child support for Miles as he is only 17 years old and considered a dependent child. Sarandon and Robbins child Jack who is 20 years old may be granted child support if Jack can show he is not a self-supporting child. This means that Jack would show that either he has an illness/disability or he is a full-time student working towards a first post-secondary degree or diploma who has his primary residence with his parent.

Extraordinary Expenses

In addition to paying child support, extraordinarily expenses are to be split proportionately between the parents, based on their respective incomes. Although there is no hard and fast rule of how to exactly determine what is an extraordinary expense, section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines states that such expenses include: child care expenses, expenses of post-secondary education, and expenses for extracurricular activities, to name a few. In order to add on an extraordinary expense to child support, one is to look at the expense itself and compare it to the family’s income in order to consider it extraordinary. It is important to note that if Sarandon or Robbins was to claim a $20.00 sporting activity fee as an extraordinary expense, this would not likely be considered an extraordinary expense given they are both high earning parents and such an expense is a nominal amount in comparison to their respective incomes.

At the end of the day, the most pressing issues for Sarandon and Robbins in a Canadian family law context would include child support and the extraordinary expenses. There is no equalization payment involved or property division as they were not married.