Soica Law

Family is at the heart of everything I do. I understand the importance of safeguarding relationships, ensuring the well-being of your children, and protecting the legacy that generations have built before you. Contact us at [email protected] for legal advice and don't forget to follow.👨‍👩‍👧🏡👩🏻‍⚖️

Shifting social norms: society’s perception of relationships and marriage has evolved over time resulting in decreased unions or couples among young adults.

🇨🇦 Celebrating Canada's Commitment to Love and Common Law! ❤️🏠✨
Did you know that Canada boasts the highest percentage of common law couples among the G7 nations? 📊🌍

Empowering clients through the journey of change and new beginnings.❤️Contact us at [email protected] and don't forget to follow!

Protecting what matters most- Family always comes first with our experienced legal team. Contact us today! [email protected]

Family law is not a game. It is your reality. Your present and future depends on how you plan and strategize your family situation. My team and I are passionate about our role in your life and we approach every situation with a high level of expertise and commitment. 🇨🇦

Welcome Michelle!

Michelle attended Wilfrid Laurier University where she obtained her Bachelor degree in psychology. Following this, she attended Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto for her Juris Doctorate and has worked at Soica Law since her second year.

Michelle is returning to the firm to complete her articles.

Michelle has worked extensively on family law cases and understands the process, substantive law, and the emotional component. She has a passion for helping individuals and families.

Every year, we partner up with the Canadian Free Wills Network and Free Wills Month.
For more information about obtaining a will, email us:
[email protected]

Chelsea Murphy, Associate Lawyer

Prior to completing her law degree, Chelsea obtained an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University where she delved into the study of human rights and transitional justice around the world.

Throughout her legal education at the University of Leeds, Chelsea was always most drawn to the areas of law that affected people and their day-to-day lives, hence her passion for family law. Upon returning to Canada and being called to the Bar, Chelsea began to grow her experience in the field of family law with Soica Law. She has experience in both the Ontario and Superior Courts of Justice in matters involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, spousal and child support, and property. She also has experience dealing with high conflict cases involving instances of domestic violence.

Chelsea values the importance of giving back to the community at large. She loves animals and volunteers much of her spare time to local animal shelters by fostering dogs in the interim period between their rescue and their adoption.

Chelsea can be contacted by phone at 416-723-6497 or by email: [email protected]

Vaccination of children in Ontario:

As of May 23rd, 2021, youths aged 12 and over in Ontario were eligible to schedule a COVID-19 vaccine appointment. While the anti-vaccination movement is not new, the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines has generated additional justifications for some parents on why their children should not be vaccinated. For some families, parents are now finding themselves at odds with one another over whether they should be getting their children vaccinated. They may be wondering how vaccination issues are dealt with within the context of family law.

In Ontario, parents with decision-making responsibility have the right to make important decisions about the care of a child. This right includes the ability to make decisions regarding a child’s health care. Parents with joint decision-making responsibility must get the approval of all other parents prior to making any important decisions regarding the child’s welfare. When parents are at an impasse over whether their child should be getting vaccinated and bring the matter to court, courts will consider the best interest of the child in making its decision. Generally speaking, courts tend to favour the pro-vaccination parents.

One case that deals with vaccination within the family law context is A.P v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150. In the case, the father wanted their children to receive routine vaccinations while the mother opposed. Ultimately, the court gave the father the sole responsibility over the vaccination decision for the children. The court also ordered the mother to not suggest, directly or indirectly, that vaccines are untested, unsafe, or ineffective.

Another case that deals with the vaccination issue is Tarkowski v. Lemieux, 2020 ONCJ 280. The court granted decision-making responsibility of the child to the mother, but gave the father the sole responsibility to make vaccination decisions for the child, including the COVID-19 vaccine. In making its decision, the court took into consideration the mother’s bias against vaccines and the father’s lack of bias against vaccinations in general.

In the case of B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2020 ONCJ 438, the father wanted the child to receive vaccinations, but the mother was opposed. The court granted the father the authority to decide whether the child should receive any of the vaccines the child was missing, but left the issue of whether the child should receive the COVID-19 vaccine for a future trial. In its decision, the court noted that, “Ontario’s publicly funded vaccines are safe and effective at preventing vaccine preventable diseases. Their widespread use has led to severe reductions or eradication of incidents of these diseases in our society,” and, “the harm to a child, flowing from contracting a vaccine preventable disease, may even include death.”

For legal advice in Ontario, contact Soica Law:
416-723-6497
[email protected]

The Matrimonial Home: what you should know

For many spouses, the home they lived in with their spouse during marriage will be one of the most significant financial assets they own. The home can also have a great deal of emotional and personal significance as well, thus making the question of how to split the home following separation an important one. In Ontario, the home, which is referred to as the matrimonial home, is given special treatment when compared to other assets.

Section 18(1) of the Family Law Act (FLA) defines the matrimonial home as, “every property in which a person has an interest and that is or, if the spouses have separated, was at the time of separation ordinarily occupied by the person and his or her spouse as their family residence is their matrimonial home.”

From this definition, spouses are allowed to have more than one matrimonial home. So long as the homes were ordinarily occupied by the person and that person’s spouse, the homes will be treated as their matrimonial homes. The designation of a home as a matrimonial home is significant due to the special treatment the home gets when spouses are equalizing their assets, as well as each spouse’s right to the home in the form of possession and interest, regardless of who bought or owns the home.

Below are some examples to show you how a matrimonial home may be treated:

Example 1: Amy and Jack are married and live together in a home that they both own. Up the road, Amy owns a farm that she bought with her inheritance money. Amy goes to her farm every week to take care of the agriculture. Jack has visited a couple of times. Is the farm a matrimonial home?

Amy will likely be deemed to have ordinarily occupied the farm so the answer to this example rests on whether Jack ordinarily occupied the farm as well. DaCosta v. DaCosta, 1990, 29 R.F.L. (3d) 422, suggests that the farm will not be a matrimonial home.

Example 2: Sera and Cara are married. Sera and her mother, Sam, own the home that Sera and Cara ordinarily live in. Sera dies. How is interest in the home divided?

Per section 26(1) of the FLA, “if a spouse dies owning an interest in a matrimonial home as a joint tenant with a third person and not with the other spouse, the joint tenancy shall be deemed to have been severed immediately before the time of death.” As a result, Sam will have a 50% interest in the property as tenant in common. The other 50% will go to Sera’s estate.

Example 3: Drew and Mike are married and live in a home that Drew bought. The home is the matrimonial home. Drew and Mike are having marital problems and Drew wants Mike to leave. Can Drew force Mike to move out?

Ownership of the home is different from who has the right to possess it. Section 19(1) of the FLA states that, “both spouses have an equal right to possession of a matrimonial home.” Section 19(2) of the FLA says that, “when only one of the spouses has an interest in a matrimonial home, the other spouse’s right of possession, (a) is personal as against the first spouse; and (b) ends when they cease to be spouses, unless a separation agreement or court order provides otherwise.”

Since Drew and Mike are still married. Mike has a right to possess the matrimonial home and thus Drew cannot force Mike to leave. Drew however can apply for exclusive possession of the home under section 24(1) of the FLA.

Example 4: Naomi and Will have been in a common law-relationship for 6 years. The two have been living in a house that Will bought and owns. Upon separation, does Naomi have a claim on the house?

Unlike married couples, there is no right to a home occupied by a common-law couple. The interest in the home remains with the person who holds legal title to the home. If Naomi wishes to have rights to the home, she will have to go through the courts and use the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which is based on the idea that it would be unfair to allow one partner to leave the relationship without a share in the property or monetary compensation, when that partner contributed to the property. However, even if Will involves the police, it is unlikely that they will force Naomi to move out.

For consultations in Ontario, contact:
[email protected]
416-723-6497

Below we discuss why the date of separation is the most important date for married couples. For more information, contact our lawyers at Soica Law for a consultation in Ontario: 416-723-6497, roxana@rsoicalaw,ca, www.rsoicalaw.ca

The date of separation from your spouse is important for several reasons. For one, the date of separation is the date whereby properties are to be valued in the case of divorce, and it is also called the valuation date. The exact date is important because the value of properties can fluctuate, and this in turn may have an effect on the net worth of you and your spouse. The date of separation is also important because spouses have a right to a share in the value of properties acquired during the marriage, with certain exception, but do not have a right to the value of properties after the separation date, unless the properties are jointly held.

The date of separation also informs how soon you can be granted a divorce. To be granted a divorce in Canada, you must show that there has been a breakdown in the marriage. The Divorce Act says that this can be established on three grounds: living separate and apart for at least one year, adultery, or cruelty. Most divorces happen based on separation, so the day the two of you separate is when the one-year period begins.

Note that to legally separate, spouses do not have to go through a formal process. Spouses are considered separated at the time when at least one spouse forms the intention to live separate and apart from the other. This means that the spouses have decided to end the marriage and are behaving in ways that show that they want to end the marriage. Spouses can also be considered separated even when residing under the same roof, but there might be evidentiary issues if there is no agreement.

Factors the court will look at when determining the separation date include: physical separation (e.g., moving into separate bedrooms), withdrawal of one or both spouses from matrimonial obligations with the intent of destroying the matrimonial consortium, absence of sexual relations, separation of social activities (e.g., attending social functions independently of one another) , separation of the performance of household tasks (e.g., cooking and eating separately), and changes in how parties communicate with one another (Oswell v. Oswell, 1990).

It is common for spouses to try reconciliating, and some wonder whether doing so resets the one-year period. The Divorce Act contains clauses that promote reconciliation so spouses can cohabit again for up to 90 day. If they reconcile for more than ninety days, then this may affect the separation date; otherwise, the separate date remains the same.

For more information, contact our lawyers at Soica Law for a consultation in Ontario: 416-723-6497, roxana@rsoicalaw,ca, www.rsoicalaw.ca

Roxana Soica - Barrister & Solicitor Barrister & Solicitor

On March 1st, 2021, the government of Canada’s changes to the Divorce Act came into effect. Among these changes includes the change in terminology from “custody” to “decision-making”, and from “access” to “parenting time”.

Decision-making responsibility is the right to make important decisions about the care of a child. A parent with decision-making responsibility can make decisions about a child’s significant extra-curricular activities, religion, health care, and education. Decision-making responsibility is distinct from who the child lives with and is also distinct from how much time a child spends with each of the parents.

Parents can agree between themselves who is to have decision-making responsibility. Alternatively, the court can make an order regarding the determination. Sole decision-making responsibility gives a parent the right to make decisions about the care of a child without requiring the approval of any other parent of the child. Joint decision-making responsibility gives all parents the right to make decisions about the care of a child. With joint decision-making responsibility, all parents must agree with any important decisions regarding the child’s welfare. Bifurcated decision-making responsibility gives parents separate responsibilities. For example, one parent can have the right to make decisions regarding health care and the other parent can have the right to make decisions regarding education.

When determining who should have decision-making responsibility, the court will look at what
is in the best interest of the child. Factors the court will consider include whether any of the parents are controlling or abusive, whether the parents are able to work together, the relationship between each parent and the child, and the child’s well-being.

For consultations in Ontario, contact Soica Law:
Tel: 416-723-6497
[email protected]

Unjust enrichment and family law
For consultations, contact Soica Law at 416-723-6497 or [email protected], www.rsoicalaw.ca

How does unjust enrichment work?

At the end of a relationship, married spouses are entitled to an equalization of their net family property barring a domestic agreement that states otherwise. For unmarried partners in Ontario, this same right does not apply. Ontario’s Family Law Act, which spells out the rules for property division after the breakdown of a relationship, does not apply to unmarried partners. For unmarried partners, properties belong to the legal owner, and only when properties are jointly held, do they get divided.

However, unmarried partners can turn to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which is based on the idea that it would be unfair to allow one partner to leave the relationship without a share in the property or monetary compensation, when that partner contributed to the property. There are three requirements for unjust enrichment: (1) an enrichment, (2) a corresponding deprivation, and (3) an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment (Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10).

For there to be an enrichment, there must be evidence of the plaintiff giving the defendant a tangible benefit that the defendant received and retained. There must also be a deprivation on the part of the plaintiff that corresponds with the benefit conferred. Per Kerr v. Baranow, the provision of domestic services can constitute both an enrichment as well as a deprivation. The benefit conferred can also be in the form of sparing the defendant an expense that he or she would have otherwise had to bear.

In Kerr v. Baranow, the court also held that a “joint family venture” may form the basis for an unjust enrichment claim. To obtain an award for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture, the applicant must demonstrate that: (1) A joint family venture existed; and (2) there was a link between the plaintiff’s contribution to the joint family venture and the accumulation of assets.

Some factors the court may consider when determining whether a joint family venture exists include:
(1) Mutual effort of the parties (e.g., whether the parties worked collaboratively towards common goals)
(2) Economic integration of the parties’ finances (e.g., to what extent did the parties integrate their finances)
(3) Actual intent of the parties (e.g., did the parties intend to share wealth that they accumulated together)
(4) Priority of the family (e.g., did the parties prioritize the family in their decision-making)
The remedy for unjust enrichment is either a monetary award or a proprietary award (i.e., an interest in the property). A monetary award must always be considered first, and only when it is not sufficient, will a proprietary award be given.

For consultations, contact Soica Law at 416-723-6497 or [email protected], www.rsoicalaw.ca

Property division between married spouses. We break down the myth of "what is yours is mine because we are married" and we provide a simple calculation to explain how property division actually works.
For consultation in Ontario and to speak with one of our lawyers, contact:
Soica Law
Tel: 416-723-6497
[email protected]
https://youtu.be/zr_5Y1kmqwg

How is property divided between married couples? In this video, we simplify the process of property division for married parties and break down some myths regarding this. Simply, the parties get to divide t...

Read more: https://rsoicalaw.ca/blog-2/page/4

Contact Soica Law:
[email protected]
416-723-6497

https://youtu.be/f6BuiIYNbtk

The fight for custody is over.

The laws concerning divorce in Canada have not been updated for more than 20 years. This has led to criticism from the legal profession and wider community that the Divorce Act is outdated. In response, Bill C-78 was designed to amend Canada’s federal family laws relating to divorce, parenting and the enforcement of family obligations in order to make Canadian law more responsive and accessible to Canadian families. The amended Divorce Act will come into effect on March 1, 2021.
The most important changes involve the language of the Act for the care of a child following separation, how the court addresses cases involving family violence and what happens when one party wants to relocate following separation.

Divorce Act Divorce Act in 2021

Although the scope of redress is narrow, there are a number of solutions that a client may opt to pursue both in regular family proceedings and child protection proceedings if they have concerns that their former partner’s behaviour may have a negative impact on the child.
Read more: https://rsoicalaw.ca/new-partners-and-family-law/

Soica Law updated their address.

Did you know how an early retirement can impact spousal support?

An “early” retirement is either retirement with a reduced pension or retirement with a full or unreduced pension before the age of 65, in the absence of health issues or other special circumstances. If the court sees the early retirement as “voluntary” and not necessary or reasonable, then it is likely that quantum of spousal support will not be changed.

https://rsoicalaw.ca/retirement-and-spousal-support/

Toronto moving to COVID-19 RED ZONE starting this Saturday, Nov 14 for 28 days. Check out this news article as it is very important. Do you agree with it?

Retirement and Spousal Support!
❗ Make sure you read the full article on our website. ❗

❗❗❗www.RSOICALAW.ca❗❗❗

Learn more by checking out our website!!! WWW.RSOICALAW.CA

WE HAVE MOVED OUR OFFICE!

245 FAIRVIEW MALL DRIVE, TORONTO SUITE 500

FREE PARKING FOR OUR CLIENTS.