It is alleged that Kutcher invested $1 million dollars towards A-Grade in 2010, when he and Moore were still together. It is also alleged that he owns 20% of the business, so $20 million.

So what claim does Moore have to Kutcher’s portion of the investment? Moore’s lawyers have said he is now entitled to $10 million.

Applying Canadian law, equalization involves the division of the value of marital assets, which are assets acquired during marriage. The value that gets divided between the parties is determined on the date of separation. Simply put: Moore is entitled to half of Kutcher’s portion of the value of the investment as of November 2011, which is their date of separation.

In Ontario’s Family Law Act, spouses are not entitled to any increase post-separation. Therefore, Moore would have no claim to any of the accrued value after November 2011.

Conversely, if Kutcher’s investments had gone down in value after the date of separation, he would have to take the loss and still pay Moore her portion of the investment.

In the event that the investments resulted in a loss as of the date of separation, any associated liability would factor into Kutcher’s net family property calculation, effectively lowering any potential equalization payment he may or may not owe. However, all signs are currently pointing towards anything but a loss on this investment.

Sounds like the Two and Half Men star, where he ironically plays an eccentric billionaire investor, will have to share with two and a half business partners!

In February of 2011, Michelle Ghent, (then) wife of Terrence Howard, filed for divorce after just one year of marriage. Shocking allegations were flung by the couple at each other, Ghent claiming Howard was viciously abusive, and Howard alleging the Ghent is a disgusting racist (with such terrible allegations, no wonder their marriage was short-lived!).

The ex-couple are now formally divorced, and one can confidently guess that Howard is well pleased with how this tale came to an end. According to the court order, Howard is to pay Ghent $5,800.00 per month in spousal support for the next three years-an award which is not too costly, when considering that Howard is worth an estimated $30 million. The modest three-year duration of support, is likely due to the extremely short length of the marriage. In Canada, applying these facts to the Spousal Support Guidelines, spousal support would likely be for a maximum of one year.

In terms of the division of net family property, Howard is keeping two houses, the full amount of all funds in his accounts, as well as other high-value items. Ghent, on the other hand, is getting only one of several cars…and a bicycle.

Why does Ghent get so little from her multi-million dollar ex-spouse?

In Canada, the Family Law Act states that a marriage, whereby the parties lived together for less than five years, provides grounds for the un-equal division of net family property. This means that Ghent would not be entitled to half of the value of Howard’s assets. The reasoning behind this is that, with short marriages, the assets were not acquired thanks to the other spouse, and even more so, the assets would likely have been acquired whether or not the marriage had occurred.

Lastly, with certain exceptions, you get to deduct the value of all assets you came into the marriage with, because the other spouse is not entitled to share the value of pre-marital assets.

With facts as set out in the Howard-Ghent divorce, one can suppose that in very specific circumstances, there may just be ‘winning’ in family law.

The young starlet filed for divorce from actor Jamie Freitas on April 16, citing irreconcilable difference. The pair married in March 2011 and had separated by October of that year. They have no children.

According to online reports, Levy’s filing states that she does not wish to pay Mr.  Freitas spousal support, though her career has been the more successful of the two to- date.

In Ontario, the determination of spousal support is a two stage process. The first stage involves a balancing by the court of four main objectives of spousal support:

1. To recognize any economic advantage or disadvantage to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
2. To apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the car of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
3. To relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
4. In so far as practicable, to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the factors must be considered within the specific context of each case, and that no one factor is to dominate the others.

If entitlement to spousal support is proven, the court will then move to a determination of the amount and duration of the spousal support that is payable. In this regard, the court will refer to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, which suggest appropriate ranges of support in a variety of situations for entitled spouses.

In determining the range of support, the short length of a couple’s cohabitation will be considered, and may tip the scale in favour of a low-range payment as opposed to a mid-range or high-range payment.

If you need advice about your own situation, give us a call at (905) 415-1636 today for a consultation.

Well, if Jurica has anything to say on the matter, he’d say that the Wicked Witch of this story comes in the form of Tutera’s alleged sex addiction. There’s another twist: the couple is currently awaiting the arrival of their twins who are to be born this year by a surrogate. Jurica is currently seeking sole custody of the twins.

Adultery plays the bad guy in many divorce proceedings. The trouble is that this bad guy often wears a disguise that makes it very tricky to factor into a dissolving marriage.

According to Canada’s Divorce Act, adultery is grounds for divorce, but is not the smoking gun many may think. The Divorce Act establishes that parties may be divorced upon a finding of adultery or cruelty. Absent a finding of adultery or cruelty, parties can only be divorced after one year of separation—living “separate and apart.”

The problem with adultery, however, is in the proof (or in many instances, lack thereof). If a party is basing the divorce on adultery, the court will hold the Applicant to the burden of proving the adultery. As one can imagine, adulterers are very reluctant to open up and admit to same in a court of law-often out of fear of repercussions that may not even exist.

For all practical purposes, adultery is difficult to prove in Canada. In the end, it changes very little for married couples. Further, there is no legal mechanism to punish bad behaviour such as adultery. The bottom line is that the marriage has broken down and the couple now have to deal with practical issues of division of assets, equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, as well as custody and access to children.

Therefore, in Canada, Jurica would be held to strict proof of Tutera’s adultery. Case law in Canada has suggested that circumstantial evidence will suffice. However, the court will seek to determine whether the evidence lends itself to any other reasonable explanation. As such, adultery can be very hard to prove. Even more so, by the time parties are actually able to prove the adultery, the year of separation is just around the corner.

With regard to Jurica’s custody claim, Canadian courts determine custody based upon the best interests of the child, and unfortunately for Jurica this analysis does not presume that a bad partner equates to a bad parent.

No one yet knows how this story will play out, but what we do know is that Tutera is not living happily ever after.

Sources dish that Kris walked away with NOTHING! As we know, Kris was demanding approximately $7 million in settlement from Kim, he is set to receive a whopping zero dollars. Kris also dropped his claim for an annulment based on fraud. Both parties are also set to pay their own attorney’s fees.

As detailed in our previous blog, Kris never showed up to his previous court date. Apparently the Judge was about to penalize him for being a no-show, but Kim asked the court to drop it. It seems as if Kim can now have the closure she has been desperately seeking and focus on the birth of her hip-hop royalty baby, fathered by Kanye West.

As it turns out, both Kim and Kris have saved themselves a large sum of money by settling their matter prior to Trial.

In Ontario, prior to going to trial, there are several court appearances that the parties must attend. First, fittingly, is the First Appearance which can sometimes be waived by both parties. Here the parties usually meet with a court clerk to set a date for a Case Conference.

Second is a Case Conference. Here, the parties’ lawyers prepare a Case Conference Brief that summarizes the issues of the case. The purpose of a Case Conference is to create an open dialogue between parties in the hopes that they may reach a settlement. It can also be used to create a timeline and/or a schedule to exchange documents, etc.

The Judge at a Case Conference is not allowed to make any substantive Court Orders, but can make procedural Orders. For example, a Judge can order the production (in other words, demand) of a certain document to be exchanged by a certain date. A Case Conference is also a prerequisite to bringing a Motion.
The third appearance is the Settlement Conference. Here, Judges play an active role in attempting to bring the parties to a resolution. Like the Case Conference, a Settlement Conference Brief is also prepared.

The Trial Management Conference is the last stage before a Trial. Again, parties are required to submit a Trial Management Conference Brief in advance of the Conference. Here, the parties inform the court of who they intend to call as witnesses and how much time they anticipate spending on each part of the Trial. Again, Judges will typically try and encourage efforts to prompt a settlement between the parties.

The final step is the Trial which is very rare in family law. The likelihood of having a Trial in your case is fairly slim because the Conferences we have just discussed are designed to attempt to bring the parties to settlement.

Also, Trials, although they make good film plots, are actually very expensive for litigants. For this reason, less than one per cent of separation and divorce cases go to trial.

For more information about any of the above mentioned court appearances please visit our website.

According to sources close to the couple, the “Prince of Darkness” has moved into a rented mansion, and his wife has been living in a nearby hotel since the beginning of April, while her new own mansion is undergoing renovations. To add fuel to the fire, the past year has also seen the couple divest itself of two of its California properties.

Since rumours of the couple’s split began to circulate, Ozzy has issued a statement admitting to a relapse in his struggle with sobriety, but adamantly denying that he and Sharon are divorcing. The couple’s son Jack has also taken to Twitter to defend his parents’ 31-year marriage and to refute suggestions that their separation is a permanent state of affairs.

In Ontario, living separate and apart for one year constitutes a ground for divorce. However, what people often do not realize is that they do not necessarily have to be living in separate residences to be considered as living separate and apart. Rather, it is possible for parties to be living separate and apart under the same roof.

The determination in this regard is based on the unique circumstances of each case. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has defined a number of factors to consider in deciding if parties are living separate and apart. In the case of Greaves v. Greaves, the court articulated these factors as:

1. Physical separation;
2. Withdrawal by one or both of the spouses from the matrimonial obligation with the intent of destroying the matrimonial consortium;
3. Absence of sexual relations is not conclusive, but is a factor to consider;
4. Lack of communication between the spouses and discussion of family problems;
5. Absence of joint social activities;
6. Meal pattern;
7. Performance of household tasks;
8. Making plans for his or her assets as a separated person;
9. The relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties;
10. The financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.).

Clearly, the determination of living “separate and apart” will turn on a consideration of each couple’s particular situation.

If you need advice about your own separation, call us today at (905) 415-1636 to schedule a consultation.

Fleetwood is seeking joint custody of the couple’s 11-year-old twin daughters. He is, however, conceding that primary physical custody should be with Frankel Fleetwood (maybe he’s not quite ready to give up the rocker lifestyle?).

Under Canada’s Divorce Act, Fleetwood’s claim would mean that he would jointly make all major decisions regarding the children, with their mother, however, the children would primarily reside with her.

Due to the long-standing nature of Fleetwood’s career, equalization of net family property may be an area where his soon-to-be-ex may not be too pleased with how the cookie crumbles. In Canada, equalization involves the division of the value of the net family property acquired during the course of the marriage, and owned on the date of separation.

Unfortunately for Frankel Fleetwood, however, Fleetwood Mac was formed in 1967, and therefore a good chunk of his assets, such as music royalties, concert revenues and marketing memorabilia, were acquired before their marriage.

What does that mean?

Subject to certain exceptions, Fleetwood would not have to share the value of those assets as of the date of marriage!

All in all, Frankel Fleetwood is probably now wishing she was not the third ex-wife.

The deposition took place at Kim’s lawyer’s (Laura Wasser) office and lasted approximately 9 hours. Kris is trying to have the couples’ 72-day marriage annulled based on fraud. The Hump’s lawyer probed for evidence that Kim defrauded Kris, trying to prove that Kim only married him for the purposes of her reality show. Sources confirm that the deposition did not help Kris’s case. Kris did not even show up to the deposition and he did not even have a b-ball game that day.

Kim testified that her reality show, Keeping up with the Kardashians, played no part in her decision to marry Kris.

The parties have been going at it for almost a year and half. Their trial is set for May 6.

In Ontario, a deposition is also known as a “questioning”. Questionings can be conducted at any point during the family law process. The purpose of questioning is for either lawyer to question the other party regarding any issues of the case.

If the questioning is related to a Financial Statement, the other party must serve a “Request for Information” Form.

Questioning about any other issue can only take place with the consent of both parties or if the court orders that a questioning be conducted. The first step is for the party who requested the questioning to serve the other party with a Notice of Questioning. This Notice will set out where and when the questioning will take place. Usually, a questioning is done at a Court Reporter’s Office and is transcribed.

During a questioning, the opposing counsel will question the opposite party. Once the questioning is complete, either party may request a copy of the transcript from the Reporter. Once the parties have the transcript, it can be filed with the court so that some or all of it can be used as evidence.

Questioning can be a helpful tool in terms of settling some issues in a case. Once the lawyers have some of the evidence that would be use during Trial, it gives them a better idea of how a Judge may decide some of the facts in the case. This often brings parties closer to a resolution.

With Trial in just over a month away, it will be interesting to see how this matter turns out and what other information will come out of the deposition.

Since news of the split broke, the parties have been reportedly feuding over the family’s considerable wealth. In January 2013, Radar Online reported that Tina had attempted to settle the divorce by offering Joe $100 million of her $300 million fortune. According to the report, Joe refused this settlement and was holding out for more, particularly a bigger share of the profits from the extremely profitable Jessica Simpson Collection.

According to Radar, Tina has made another attempt to settle the divorce amicably, offering Joe an equal split of the family businesses, including the lucrative Jessica Simpson Collection.

In Ontario, an Offer to Settle may be made at any point during the negotiation or litigation process, and are in fact required during certain stages of court proceedings.

According to Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules,

“’offer’ means an offer to settle one or more claims in a case, motion appeal or enforcement, and includes a counter-offer”.

The Rule further stipulates that an offer must be signed by the party making it, and their lawyer, if any.

These attempts at settlement boast a number of advantages to parties involved in family law disputes, such as:

1. Clarifying each party’s position on the issues;
2. Narrowing the issues that may require litigation;
3. Encouraging negotiation as a means of resolution;
4. Achieving a costs award – subject to the court’s discretion, if your result in court is equally as or more favourable than your Offer to Settle, you may be awarded your legal costs.

If you are involved in a family law dispute and require assistance in negotiating a resolution, call us today at (905) 415-1636 to schedule a consultation.

Could this have anything to do with his budding new romance with the much younger Mila Kunis?

Regardless of Demi’s reasoning, in Canada, once one can show entitlement to support, motivating factors such as jealously or spite will not negate a claim for support.

In Canada, the Divorce Act sets out that on an Application the courts may order support in a manner that the courts find to be reasonable, upon a finding of entitlement.

The Divorce Act also stipulates that in reviewing entitlement to support, the court will consider such factors as:  the length of time the spouses cohabitated, the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation, as well as any order, agreement or arrangement the parties may have entered into on the matter. Other relevant factors the court will consider are such things as the age, health and status of both spouses.

The age gap between Ashton and Demi originally attracted public attention when their relationship began to blossom in 2003. Many marveled at Demi snagging a guy not much older than one of her daughters. Ironically however, this same age gap may now pose a relevant factor in establishing Demi’s entitlement to support. She may likely argue that her employability and earning capacity have significantly diminished.

In regard to her health, who can forget her trip to rehab, soon following the split? There were also many rumours that she had suffered an emotional breakdown.

Meanwhile, Ashton has been a successful investor in internet start-ups Skype and Foursquare. And his deal on the show “Two and a Half Men” pays him $20 million a year.

Once entitlement is established, the amount of support can then be determined using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG), which are non-mandatory and unlegislated guidelines used to set out the duration or support, and the dollar amount to be paid.

Unfortunately for Ashton, ‘a woman scorned’ is not listed as a relevant factor for diminishing entitlement to support. Using the factors outlined above, if Demi can show entitlement, Ashton may have no choice but to pay up!