Source: http://familyllb.com/2018/01/02/top-10-blogs-of-2017/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:44:18+00:00

Document:
As we embrace the New Year, we’d like to take the opportunity to thank our readers for their continued interest and support. We would also like to recap some of our most popular posts from yet another busy year.
In his written endorsement of a consent order in Abdulaali v. Salih, Justice Pazaratz characteristically drew attention to the perceived waste of public funds in the case before him. He unapologetically chastised both Legal Aid Ontario and the parties for “squandering scarce judicial and community resources.” He bluntly stated that the case should not have been dragged out so long, and should not have been funded by public coffers so indiscriminately.
With unpaid cost awards of $10,000 and $25,000 from prior decisions, a husband sought an extension for appealing yet another judgment. In Schwilgin v. Szivy, the Court of Appeal for Ontario yielded the wife’s cries for justice in a situation where successive cost awards in her favor ironically left her with an empty wallet. The Court disapproved of the husband’s use of court procedure to delay payment of arrears, effectively, restoring wife’s faith in justice and putting husband on ice.
Would you end a marriage of 22 years over politics? Not “politics” in the colloquial sense—actual governmental politics. 73-year old Gayle McCormick of the U.S. did exactly that. After learning of her husband’s intention to vote for Donald Trump, the retired Californian prison guard was “in shock.” Although Gayle’s husband never ended up voting for Trump, the damage was already done—she became “totally undid” after she saw his true Republican colors. Not even the adhesive backing of a toupee could hold them together after his revelation.
This post recapped the importance of achieving a “meeting of the minds” at the bargaining table. In Stevens v. Stevens, the husband sought to enforce a marriage contract drafted by his wife’s lawyer apportioning the whole value of the matrimonial home to him. The husband and his lawyer’s attempt to take advantage of the drafting error were met with harsh criticism as the Court found in favor of the wife. The Court declined literal interpretation of the contract as the wife clearly intended only a half interest.
Number 6: Calling Someone a “Liar” Online: Is that Defamation, or Merely “Comment”?
From 2008-2010, Levant, an outspoken political commentator, posted nine blogs each bearing a headline calling Awan, a law student, a “liar.” Levant’s digital tirade was prompted by Awan’s testimony at a human rights tribunal in which Awan and fellow law students alleged a Mclean’s magazine cover story titled “The Future Belongs to Islam” had an Islamophobic tone. Levant argued his remarks were merely comments and not defamation in the ordinary sense.
The question is this: Is calling someone a “liar” merely a “comment” made as part of an online discourse, and therefore, not defamatory?
No. The usual defences to defamation do not prevail where there is evidence of malice, as in the case of Awan v. Levant. Levant was ordered to pay Awan $50,000 in general damages and $30,000 in aggravated damages.
Does justice favour the party with the biggest legal bill? In Jordan v. Stewart, we commented on a case where a father paid $400K in legal fees seeking to terminate child support.
The Judge denied the father’s request and chastised him for the logic-defying extent he was willing to go in satisfaction of that end. Ultimately, the father’s wanton disregard for the financial consequences and refusal to accept reasonable offers by his ex-wife, resulted in the somewhat ironic outcome of a costs award to the wife.
Number 4: If a Biological Parent is Paying Child Support, Does a Step-Parent Still Have to Pay?
This blog post explored the interesting legal issue of whether a step-parent should pay child support. The legal test is whether the step-parent whom an order for child support is sought against “stands in the place of a parent for a child.” Such determination cannot be made without consideration of all the material circumstances.
In Stetler v. Stetler, a step-father who provided financial support to his partner’s child over the duration of their 8-year relationship refused to pay child support as the child’s biological father had been paying child support all along. The Court found the circumstances of the step-father’s relationship to the child clearly met the legal test.
Few would dispute that legal fees can be expensive. This becomes painfully more obvious when a family law lawyer charges a “premium” for achieving positive results. In Ontario, section 28.1(3) of the Solicitors Act prohibits contingency fee agreements in a family law matter.
The case of Jackson v. Stephen Durbin and Associates serves as a clear reminder to prospective clients with a family law matter: Read the fine print and always ask your lawyer clarifying questions about fees you suspect may be a contingency fee disguised as something else.
It pays to be a well prepared self-represented litigant – literally. In the decision of McMurter v. McMurter, a self-represented litigant successfully opposed her husband’s motion to terminate spousal support obligations in a trial that lasted 15 days.
The wife’s request for costs was met with an unusual turn of events – it was improved by the Judge. She requested costs in the amount of $18,000, but ended up receiving $30,000. The quality of her written submissions and oral representation at Court were credited for the irregular increase.
This post continues to be popular, and has been our most viewed blog entry this year. In this post we explored the scandalous topic of privacy invasion inside the bedroom. As if separation and divorce weren’t already difficult enough, the wife in the case of Patel v. Sheth became the star of her husband’s hidden camera during a brief period of reconciliation and resumed cohabitation.
The wife sought $50,000 in damages against her husband for intruding upon her seclusion, a new common law tort introduced to redress privacy invasion. The Court found in her favor and awarded her $15,000 in damages. While she did not receive damages to the extent she had been hoping, she undoubtedly walked away feeling vindicated.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.