Canadian Betrayal + $$$$ ALIMONY$$$

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Canadian Betrayal + $$$$ ALIMONY$$$
1
Thu, 06-22-2006 - 10:50pm

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150889645658&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Trauma relevant in divorce
Court separates marital misconduct from its debilitating fallout
Jun. 21, 2006. 07:33 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — The “pure H-E double L” of D-I-V-O-R-C-E, as Tammy Wynette once sang, has its price after all.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday that the emotional devastation wrought by a cheatin’ heart can be factored into a wronged spouse’s ability to earn a livelihood, and thus her (or his) need for ongoing spousal support.

As a result, Gary Leskun must continue paying his ex-wife Sherry — a woman who lower courts found was “bitter to the point of obsession” — some $2,250 a month, almost eight years after he dumped her for another woman.

Yet the same 20-page Supreme Court ruling upholds the no-fault provisions in the 1985 Divorce Act and urges self-sufficiency, a delicate balancing act that attempts to separate marital misconduct, in and of itself, from its debilitating fall-out.

It is that emotional trauma — whatever its source — that may be considered by trial judges as one of many factors in a person’s financial outlook, wrote Justice Ian Binnie.

“If, for example, spousal abuse triggered a depression so serious as to make a claimant spouse unemployable, the consequences of the misconduct would be highly relevant,” — just as they are in the Leskun case, noted Binnie — “in determining the right to support, its duration and its amount.”

In Sherry Leskun’s case, the late 1990s had all the personal trials of a Tammy Wynette ballad.

She suffered a chronic back injury in 1995, her bank job was declared redundant in 1998, and her father, brother and sister-in-law all died in 1999. She was denied a longterm disability claim, had a sister diagnosed with cancer, and her eldest child from a previous relationship was suffering from multiple sclerosis.

In the middle of this, her husband of 20 years — some seven years her junior — returned to Vancouver from his new job posting in Chicago to say he’d met another woman, planned to marry her and wanted a divorce.

Sherry, who had dipped into her RRSPs and pension contributions to support her husband while he acquired his MBA and became a Certified General Accountant, was awarded half the family assets and monthly spousal support of $2,250.

When Gary, having lost his US $200,000-a-year job, attempted to get the support payments reduced or ended in 2003, successive B.C. courts ruled against him.

The B.C. Court of Appeal ruling was particularly incendiary.

“Parliament, in its wisdom or lack thereof, has said the court must give no weight to what the husband did here,” wrote Justice Mary Southin.

“That is, by carrying on behind his wife’s back when it suited him, walking out on his wife of 20 years who had borne him a child and contributed substantially to his financial well-being.”

Southin ruled that Sherry Leskun’s inability to provide for herself was “a failure resulting at least in part from the emotional devastation of misconduct by the other spouse.”

Binnie, in the Supreme Court response, chided Southin’s language while upholding her decision.

“Misconduct, as such, is off the table as a relevant consideration,” wrote Binnie.

“There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself,” he continued.

“The consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse’s misconduct.”

Gary Leskun’s lawyer, Lorne MacLean, said the impact of the high court ruling may depend on how lower courts interpret it.

“It remains to be seen if misconduct can somehow come in through the consequences argument, when it’s not allowed to be considered under the Divorce Act,” MacLean said outside the court.

His client, who lives in the United States with his second wife and their pre-school child, may still seek to revise the amount of monthly support payments in light of the ruling and his current financial circumstances, said the lawyer.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 06-30-2006 - 11:38pm

Interesting!


Thanks for sharing that.

Karen ~ wildlucky4me

Karen ~ wildlucky4me ~