As I said before, it should not matter how much he makes. Courts have
this nasty propensity to award the woman money simply because the man
has it - especially if he is loaded.

THEN, lower courts point to that ruling and use it as justification
for sticking it to the rest of us! Hey If I made that kind of money,
then at least I could aford to pay!

But I don't and likely never will earn any where near that.

In my case, I was riding the bus while my ex drove around in a
spanking new car - bought and paid for with  MY MONEY given to her for
"spousal support". If she can aford a new car with my spousal support
payment, then the payments should have been stopped immediately! We
live in an urban area, if I have to take the bus, then so should she!
For chrissake! I was the one with a "real" job! And there was a 4
month transit strike here! If it had not been for the graces of my
coworkers taking pity on me and giving me rides for 4 months, then I
would have lost my job! Where would we have been then??? I can imagine
I would have been in jail, and she would have been out of that new car
pretty quick.

You have to look not only at the case at hand, but the implications of
the ruling on exisiting and future cases. You put blinders on and try
to judge the case in isolation, then some hair-brained idiiot of a
judge will find a way to bastardize the decision and use it to his own
ends. Happens all the time.

Ever since the idiot in "Bracklow" stated "need alone may be
enough"
to justify support, there is not a judge in the country to have given
a rats behind about if the man can aford to pay support or not! All
they do is grab some guideline document, and order the man to pay. If
he can't pay, then he goes to jail.

All this despite the fact that HARD BLACK AND WHITE LAW - "THE LAW" as
enacted by parlement states the opposite! The "ability to pay" is
explicitly written as a factor in the published law. But because of
some asshole judges "interprtation" in the nebulous "case
law", the
men of this country are doomed until someone either forces Parlement
to change the law (AGAIN), or until someone manages to get the ruling
struct done by the femminist dominated left wing Supreme Court of
Canada. Good bloody luck.

SO again I say, what does HIS imcome have to do with the fact that SHE
started an affair?

The entire scenario is rediculous.

On 12 Feb 2005 22:15:43 -0800, Doug Anderson
 wrote:

>mshlomb{at}yahoo.com (Raul) writes:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4t7ne
>>
>> "The couple lived together for 9 years after being wed in a Jewish
>> religious ceremony in 1987, but remained together for just 14 months
>> after they were legally married in 1994.
>>
>> In 1994, Graham, upset with what she felt was a lack of emotional
>> support, began an affair with the contractor renovating the cottage"
>
>How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual
>income was $5.5 million, and that he lied about this to the court?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/16/05 1:24:20 PM ---