Volume 23, Number 2, 2007
Articles
- Recalculating D.B.S.: Envisioning a Child Support Recalculation Scheme for Ontario - Dena Bonnet
This paper explores child support recalculation options for Ontario in light of the recent Supreme Court cases D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra (D.B.S.). Because Ontario lacks a public recalculation service, and because D.B.S. puts the onus on recipient parents to request increased support, individual parents are currently forced to renegotiate child support arrangements in the private sphere. The author suggests that this leaves recipient parents vulnerable to ongoing threats of domestic violence. As potential alternatives, she examines the recalculation regimes implemented in two Canadian jurisdictions. While Newfoundland has implemented an administrative scheme, Manitoba's formalized process relies heavily upon the courts. Ultimately, the author suggests that the administrative process offers the most potential for reconciling public policy considerations, such as the risk of domestic violence, with society's interest in a more efficient process. To conclude, the author emphasizes that a comprehensive recalculation scheme in Ontario would shift the burden of ensuring that child support payments reflect a payor's correct income from the private sphere to the public sphere.
- Uncertainty and Indecision in the Legal Regulation of Children: The Albertan Experience - Lucinda Ferguson
- La garde partagée dans la presse scientifique: symphonie ou cacophonie? - Rodrigue Otis et Catherine Otis
Case Comment
- Dickie v. Dickie: Smells Like Family Law - Gillian Calder & E. Llana Nakonechny
Allan Falconer Memorial Student Essay Contest Winner
- Striking Back: The Tort Action for Spousal Violence - Laura Buckingham
Spousal violence is shockingly common in Canada, but rare as a basis for tort liability. The elements of assault and battery are easily established in spousal violence cases, yet only a handful of claims have been successfully advanced in Canada, all within the last twenty years.
This article explores the emergence of the tort action for spousal violence from two perspectives. First, it explores conditions that make such actions possible. It has not been necessary to recognize a new tort, but there were other barriers to overcome. Abolition of the common-law rule that prevented spouses from suing each other, changing attitudes to spousal violence, and awareness about legal options have all played a role in bringing these actions to the courts.
Tort is plaintiff-driven, so plaintiffs’ motives are central to understanding the emergence of a new kind of action. An empirical survey of reported decisions reveals some similarities between spousal violence cases and other tort actions, but also some interesting differences. Most tort actions for spousal violence arise as couples separate or divorce, and context is important. Tort provides benefits otherwise unavailable in modern family law: unequal division of marital assets and assignment of blame for relationship breakdown. The tort action for spousal violence illustrates both the flexibility of tort and the changing nature of family law.
Book Review
- The International Survey of Family Law 2006 edited by Dr. Andrew Bainham - Michel Tétrault