Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?

2. He was paying mortgage for a couple years with the assistance of
her. Regardless of her assistance, does paying the monthly mortgage
on the house improve one's overall share contribution that was
initially invested in the house? So let's say his original
contribution was $27,000 but after a couple years mortgage payments
totalling $30,000, does this somehow affect his original share
holdings in the house improving it to a total of $57,000 or 57% share?
Or does the original amount invested remain fixed regardless of
mortgage payments made after the house purchase?

3. Now it was discovered that he is still married to another woman
throughout the 3 years of living together. It was also revealed that
he once had a home but due to failure to pay mortgage, the house was
seized from them. Could any of this information be useful during
separation negotiations or be beneficial if brought to the attention
of the possessions separation judge?

4. Finally, the home was appraised for a value significantly higher
than what any of the homes in the area have actually sold for. For
instance, a home nearby with similar area and specs was appraised at a
lower value and sold for much less. If one is able to gather
appraisal values and actual sold prices for similar homes in the area,
could the average selling price of similar homes be used as a more
accurate selling price for this home if negotiations came down to
purchasing back his shares of the home? Or is it a requirement to be
using unrealistic appraisal values? An additional 10% was also added
on top of the single, original appraisal value to compensate for real
estate agent/lawyer charges but the overall reason for the grossly
unrealistic price is so that a buyout of his percentage share on the
appraised + 10% value will be much more significant. If it is proper,
it would be nice if she could present a more realistic selling price.


That's it. Thank you for ANY answers to the above questions.

If it's possible, though not required, can you please email me
directly at:

Cheers.

wrote in message
...
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which makes
it *his* house)?
Why did he not have her evicted after she accused him of abuse? Why does the
woman think
the house should be hers or that she should live rent-free after she has
accused him of abuse (there is no contention
in the OP that the man actually commited any abuse toward the woman)?
Why has the woman continued to pay the mortgage (voluntarily) on a house
that is not hers?
Did the court give her possession of a house that is not hers? I can see no
connection between
his actions or previous relationships that indicate he has waived his
ownership of the property.
Is that how it's done in Canada? A man gets *accused* of abuse and the court
gives his (legal)
property to the accuser? In the US, there are two distinct legal
issues/processes here--domestic
abuse (accusation) and property rights and the two are decidedly different.
Absent "common law"
marriage and "community property state," these are two very different
matters of law. Precisely,
what case would "go before the judge?" Does the woman intend to try to get
the man's property by *accusing*
him of abuse just because he was accused of abuse in prior relationships?
There appears to be a lot left out of this picture. For instance, if a man
is
"barred" from his house (and the woman initiated the action so she is
responsible for his inability to come home, *not*
the "court system" as the OP contends), does that automatically convey
property rights?
Further, because the woman accused him of abuse, and he is prevented from
accessing his property, it is understandable that he would stop paying the
mortgage. Simply put (finally , has *this* man ever abused *this* woman?
====

wrote in message
...

Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

Your friend is out of luck. Current Ontario law on "domestic
violence," admittedly experimental (on trial since about 1998
but continuing), provides that, for the female's protection,
the man must be removed from the family home and stay
away until charges of domestic violence have been judged
(and the judge is then free to continue such an order, which
is a peace bond required for release from custody.) This
policy is applied regardless of who owns the family home.

This allows (encourages?) the female partner to go to
civil law (family court, not criminal court) to require the
husband to buy her off in order to get access to a home
that he may nominally own. In the case I knew, a neighbour
aged 75+, it cost him $25,000 cash and two building lots to
get back the house he had owned outright for some years
before the marriage (of 20+ years duration) even though
all "domestic violence" charges were dropped at (two) trials
4 and 8 months after the events that prompted his arrest
and expulsion from the house.

Whatever the original intention, that is the way the
trial DV system turned out in this jurisdiction.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

Your friend is out of luck. Current Ontario law on "domestic
violence," admittedly experimental (on trial since about 1998
but continuing), provides that, for the female's protection,
the man must be removed from the family home and stay
away until charges of domestic violence have been judged
(and the judge is then free to continue such an order, which
is a peace bond required for release from custody.) This
policy is applied regardless of who owns the family home.
====
That is absurd, especially since many claims of abuse (in the USA) are
unfounded.
Too, why would a woman want to stay in the man's house if he abused her and
what is
to prevent a woman from making false claims simply to deprive the man of
access to
his property?
====

In article Qbrhf.7956$MW6.7048@trndny08, Gini says...


wrote in message
.. .
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which makes
it *his* house)?

?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your post.

By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.

Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false allegations of
abuse.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Qbrhf.7956$MW6.7048@trndny08, Gini says...


wrote in message
. ..
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
makes
it *his* house)?

?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
post.

By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where
I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to
this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.

Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
allegations of
abuse.
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.
On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.
===

In article 9HFhf.4$iZ3.0@trndny03, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Qbrhf.7956$MW6.7048@trndny08, Gini says...


wrote in message
...
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
makes
it *his* house)?

?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
post.

By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where
I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to
this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.

Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
allegations of
abuse.
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.

I read it again - I see nothing to that effect. Please point out the "specific
term" that suggests to you that the house is not in her name. Indeed, the
original post rather explicitly deals with proportional shares of a jointly
owned house.

On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.

Alleged means there is no trial for conviction yet. There needs to be some
arrangment until the trial.

Look, there's a lot here not to have this guy look very good. Bad credit,
broken promises within the relationship with regards to paying the mortgage,
existing former marriages. If you're looking for a cause celebre, he ain't it.

But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 9HFhf.4$iZ3.0@trndny03, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Qbrhf.7956$MW6.7048@trndny08, Gini says...


wrote in message
m...
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to
ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
makes
it *his* house)?

?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall
this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
post.

By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title,
where
I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer
to
this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.

Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
allegations of
abuse.
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.

I read it again - I see nothing to that effect. Please point out the
"specific
term" that suggests to you that the house is not in her name. Indeed, the
original post rather explicitly deals with proportional shares of a
jointly
owned house.

On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction
with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original
post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.

Alleged means there is no trial for conviction yet. There needs to be
some
arrangment until the trial.

Look, there's a lot here not to have this guy look very good. Bad credit,
broken promises within the relationship with regards to paying the
mortgage,
existing former marriages. If you're looking for a cause celebre, he
ain't it.

But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.
===
Geeze, like I don't have anything better to do than research for you :-) :

OK,
1:" The mortgage bank account was in his name."
and 2 (which is the *entire crux* of her issue): "Because he has not lived
in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? "
She wants to know whether she will have to pay him rent for all the time
she's lived in his house. It was the
*whole* point of her post! She's wondering if his prior accusations of abuse
or his failure to pay the mortgage will relieve her
from having to pay him rent.
Now, the guy not "looking good" should *not* be a basis for denying him
access to his property (I'm guessing you aren't
a property owner). Nor should he be denied access to his property on the
basis of an *allegation.* If he's such a bad guy,
why the heck doesn't she leave? It's not like he doesn't know where she is
if he reallly
wished to do her harm. She even asserted he was bad because he quit paying
the mortgage several months after
he was denied access to his house. Does that make him not "look good" in
your eyes? Damn, would you pay for a house you
were denied access to? Sheesh! You can feel sorry for her if you wish. I'm
not that gullible and will
reserve my judgment until the OP fills the gaps in her story.
====

In article MiIhf.17$ob4.5@trndny02, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 9HFhf.4$iZ3.0@trndny03, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Qbrhf.7956$MW6.7048@trndny08, Gini says...


wrote in message
om...
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.

Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.

A few questions:

1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to
ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
makes
it *his* house)?

?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall
this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
post.

By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title,
where
I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer
to
this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.

Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
allegations of
abuse.
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.

I read it again - I see nothing to that effect. Please point out the
"specific
term" that suggests to you that the house is not in her name. Indeed, the
original post rather explicitly deals with proportional shares of a
jointly
owned house.

On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction
with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original
post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.

Alleged means there is no trial for conviction yet. There needs to be
some
arrangment until the trial.

Look, there's a lot here not to have this guy look very good. Bad credit,
broken promises within the relationship with regards to paying the
mortgage,
existing former marriages. If you're looking for a cause celebre, he
ain't it.

But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.
===
Geeze, like I don't have anything better to do than research for you :-) :

It's called backing up your statements.


OK,
1:" The mortgage bank account was in his name."

That does not mean he has the title. (It isn't even clear if this is referring
to the mortgage *loan* vs. an account set aside for the payments, although it's
probably the former.)

and 2 (which is the *entire crux* of her issue): "Because he has not lived
in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? "

Still does not mean only he has the title. Only means he used to live there.

She wants to know whether she will have to pay him rent for all the time
she's lived in his house. It was the
*whole* point of her post! She's wondering if his prior accusations of abuse
or his failure to pay the mortgage will relieve her
from having to pay him rent.

?? Pay *him* rent? I thought your whole complaint is that she resides in the
house.

Now, the guy not "looking good" should *not* be a basis for denying him
access to his property (I'm guessing you aren't
a property owner).

Of course I am a property owner. Believe it or not, people do form opinions
based on the case and the facts, and not because of perceived self-interest.
And why would it sit well with you to have the woman leave? She's also a
property owner.

Nor should he be denied access to his property on the
basis of an *allegation.* If he's such a bad guy,
why the heck doesn't she leave? It's not like he doesn't know where she is
if he reallly
wished to do her harm. She even asserted he was bad because he quit paying
the mortgage several months after
he was denied access to his house. Does that make him not "look good" in
your eyes? Damn, would you pay for a house you
were denied access to? Sheesh! You can feel sorry for her if you wish. I'm
not that gullible and will
reserve my judgment until the OP fills the gaps in her story.


They own the house together, apparently. Both cannot live there. It does not
make sense for both to leave. One has to, or the other. He is the one charged
with a crime, he leaves.

This is true regarding bail, this is true regarding many other things. Due
process has not occured to remove any rights permanently. But the law has to
make some determination about things like this, and there's no reason to
displace the victim. Even when the crime is still alleged.

Banty

"Banty" wrote
Gini says...
"Banty" wrote
Gini says...
................................................
wrote
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario.
..................................
The mortgage bank account was in his
name.
.................................................. ....
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do
not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.

I read it again - I see nothing to that effect. Please point out the
"specific
term" that suggests to you that the house is not in her name. Indeed,
the
original post rather explicitly deals with proportional shares of a
jointly
owned house.

On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case
was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by
the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction
with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original
post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the
man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it
appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.

Alleged means there is no trial for conviction yet. There needs to be
some
arrangment until the trial.

Look, there's a lot here not to have this guy look very good. Bad
credit,
broken promises within the relationship with regards to paying the
mortgage,
existing former marriages. If you're looking for a cause celebre, he
ain't it.

But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.
===
Geeze, like I don't have anything better to do than research for you :-) :

It's called backing up your statements.
====
To the contrary. It's called spoon-feeding. Your comprehension is clearly
limited so
it is pointless for me to continue attempting meaningful dialogue. You
apparently buy into the
notion that women are spineless and incapable of accomplishing anything
without a court order
and a man's coat-tails. I prefer to see strong women who stand on their own
two feet. But that's just me.
===

In article IQLhf.28$xQ3.4@trndny04, Gini says...

"Banty" wrote
Gini says...


But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.
===
Geeze, like I don't have anything better to do than research for you :-) :

It's called backing up your statements.
====
To the contrary. It's called spoon-feeding. Your comprehension is clearly
limited so
it is pointless for me to continue attempting meaningful dialogue. You
apparently buy into the
notion that women are spineless and incapable of accomplishing anything
without a court order
and a man's coat-tails. I prefer to see strong women who stand on their own
two feet. But that's just me.
===


I have expressed no opinion on court orders, women, etc. I only question your
presumption that she is not co-owner of the house that they bought together.

I note that you have not answered any of my points regarding the title.

This has been a pretty useless discussion as far as the original poster's
questions. But that's no real loss - the answers can really only be obtained
from an Ontario property lawyer.

Banty

Hi Don.

You were kind enough to respond to my usenet message about a
separation dispute. You brought up spmething inetersting, civil law,
to require the husband to buy her off in order to get access to the
home. Where can i go online to find more information on this?

Now I should mention the female in question is my mother but
unfortunately the domestic charges were dropped by her (baffling why).
However the assault charge is still pending and I'm confident she will
be going through with that. From the beginning I've always knew he
was a gold-digger and it would be sweet justice if he has to pay to
even step a foot back into this home for whatever reason.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:36:49 -0500, in misc.consumers.house you wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!

Your friend is out of luck. Current Ontario law on "domestic
violence," admittedly experimental (on trial since about 1998
but continuing), provides that, for the female's protection,
the man must be removed from the family home and stay
away until charges of domestic violence have been judged
(and the judge is then free to continue such an order, which
is a peace bond required for release from custody.) This
policy is applied regardless of who owns the family home.

This allows (encourages?) the female partner to go to
civil law (family court, not criminal court) to require the
husband to buy her off in order to get access to a home
that he may nominally own. In the case I knew, a neighbour
aged 75+, it cost him $25,000 cash and two building lots to
get back the house he had owned outright for some years
before the marriage (of 20+ years duration) even though
all "domestic violence" charges were dropped at (two) trials
4 and 8 months after the events that prompted his arrest
and expulsion from the house.

Whatever the original intention, that is the way the
trial DV system turned out in this jurisdiction.

In article JwDhf.22570$Lw6.16716@trndny02, says...

====
That is absurd, especially since many claims of abuse (in the USA) are
unfounded.
Too, why would a woman want to stay in the man's house if he abused her and
what is
to prevent a woman from making false claims simply to deprive the man of
access to
his property?

I know this thread is a good two weeks old...but you are one worthless
****tard.


-Tim