Levine v. Mcgrath
1.
Against For
She could stay with her sister It is what Sarah wanted She could see her school friends and grow up in the same neighbourhood she had before
2. Separating the sisters was not the main concern in this case as Sarah wanted to move herself, and they would still be able to see each other on alternating weekends if they wished to.
3. I believe the father’s application succeeded as he was in a stable financial position, Sarah grew up in the neighbourhood he lived in (all her friends lived there), and most of all, Sarah wanted to move in with him.
4. I agree with the court’s decision, as from what the case details it seems like both parents are competent, and if Sarah lives with her dad she doesn’t have to adapt to …show more content…
Miglin
1. The basis for Linda’s case is that the couple’s initial agreement did not take into consideration the difficulty of raising four children by herself, and that as her ex-husband was now making significantly more money, he could afford to support her and her children.
2. The basis of Eric’s appeal was that each spouse had received legal advice and the fact that their agreement hadn’t considered the difficulty of raising four children was Linda’s own fault. They had both agreed on the agreement, so it should stand as while Eric’s circumstances have changed, Linda’s were exactly as outlined in the agreement; she had custody of the kids.
3. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgement because each spouse had received independent legal advice over a length period, and had fairly divided their assets.
4. I support the thought that a major change in circumstances does not warrant a change in agreement when it comes to spousal support, but not child support. This is because anything that happens concerning the spouse after the divorce does not concern the other spouse. The children should still remain supported however so if an increase in child support is necessary, so be
1.
Against For
She could stay with her sister It is what Sarah wanted She could see her school friends and grow up in the same neighbourhood she had before
2. Separating the sisters was not the main concern in this case as Sarah wanted to move herself, and they would still be able to see each other on alternating weekends if they wished to.
3. I believe the father’s application succeeded as he was in a stable financial position, Sarah grew up in the neighbourhood he lived in (all her friends lived there), and most of all, Sarah wanted to move in with him.
4. I agree with the court’s decision, as from what the case details it seems like both parents are competent, and if Sarah lives with her dad she doesn’t have to adapt to …show more content…
Miglin
1. The basis for Linda’s case is that the couple’s initial agreement did not take into consideration the difficulty of raising four children by herself, and that as her ex-husband was now making significantly more money, he could afford to support her and her children.
2. The basis of Eric’s appeal was that each spouse had received legal advice and the fact that their agreement hadn’t considered the difficulty of raising four children was Linda’s own fault. They had both agreed on the agreement, so it should stand as while Eric’s circumstances have changed, Linda’s were exactly as outlined in the agreement; she had custody of the kids.
3. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgement because each spouse had received independent legal advice over a length period, and had fairly divided their assets.
4. I support the thought that a major change in circumstances does not warrant a change in agreement when it comes to spousal support, but not child support. This is because anything that happens concerning the spouse after the divorce does not concern the other spouse. The children should still remain supported however so if an increase in child support is necessary, so be