The parent who does not have primary physical residence of the child will generally have to pay, however, the amount of support that will be paid may be less if the child spends at least 40% of his or her time with an access parent.
Since the child is spending almost equal amounts of time with both parents then the expenses that they may have, that are associated with taking care of the child, will be more or less the same and as a result they should not have to pay an excessive amount of support which could then result in a windfall gain to one parent and undue hardship to the other.
It seems as though, however, the courts are most concerned with the standard of living of the child involved and will probably try to award an amount that will allow the parents to maintain that standard of living.
Establishing the 40% threshold requirement may be difficult as courts have been inconsistent with the factors used in order to make this determination. Some judges include weekends, holidays and overnight stays (i.e. the hours during which the child is sleeping) in the calculation of the 40% whereas others do not. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule dictating what is required in order to meet the threshold.
Social media is more popular than ever now, however, it can create opportunities for abuse and can bring out the worst in people, often without thought as to the consequences. When something is posted on social media sites, it is considered “published” and is therefore subject to the laws applicable to traditional media, such as newspapers. Accordingly, claims for defamation and hate speech as well as dismissal or disciplinary action for social media misconduct become very real possibilities.
Defamation is the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person which has the effect of injuring that person’s good name or reputation.
The courts recently granted a Facebook user an interdict preventing a friend from posting about his personal life on the platform after she defamed him thereon. In another case a woman was awarded damages after claiming that her former husband and his new wife were bad-mouthing her on Facebook.
Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is prohibited because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
Although freedom of expression is a constitutional right, it is not an absolute right. If what you say, or publish via social media platforms, has a negative impact on the rights of another, then your right to freedom of expression may be limited.
Dismissal from Employment
Disciplinary action, including dismissal for social media conduct have increased drastically over the past few years often following on the heels of comments made or posted on social media sites by employees.
Some of the grounds for dismissals have included derogatory Facebook status updates, an employee criticizing management, criticizing the employer, employees using social media to convey internal matters of the business to former employees, etc.
Avoid Problems Altogether
To avoid legal or disciplinary action arising from your conduct on these social platforms, you should consider the following:
The defence against defamation is that the publication was true and in the public interest. Make sure you can back your comments with substantiating evidence and factual information. Accordingly, making a comment about a friend on a matter that is not in public interest could be defamatory even if it is true.
Regularly check your social media profiles to ensure that your name is not being linked to defamatory statements of others.
Do not post anything which could be regarded as incitement to cause harm based on race, religion, ethnic background, gender, sexual preference etc.
Adhere to the social media strategy and policies of your workplace. Find out what these are, and if these are not in place, keep the following guidelines in mind:
Keep posts ethical and respectful.
Do not engage in online activities which could harm the reputation of the company.
Do not disclose any confidential or business information of the company.
Do not discuss colleagues, managers or information pertaining to the company.
On June 1, 2017, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, which proposes significant amendments to Ontario’s employment and labour legislation. The Bill was introduced following the publication of the final report from the Changing Workplaces Review, which recommended extensive changes to modernize Ontario’s workplace laws.
If passed, Bill 148 would make a number of modifications to the leaves of absence provisions in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”). In particular, the personal emergency leave provision, which currently provides up to 10 days’ unpaid leave per year for employees of employers who employ at least 50 employees, would be modified to:
(a) remove the 50-employee threshold, thereby granting personal emergency leave to all employees covered by the ESA;
(b) provide that an employee’s first two days of personal emergency leave in each calendar year shall be paid at his or her regular rate;
(c) expand the circumstances for which an employee may take personal emergency leave to include sexual or domestic violence, or the threat of sexual or domestic violence, experienced by the employee or a family member; and
(d) prohibit employers from requiring an employee to provide a medical certificate to verify his or her request for personal leave (although an employer would still be permitted to ask an employee to provide “evidence reasonable in the circumstances”).
In addition, the maximum duration of family medical leave would be increased from eight weeks in a 26-week period to 27 weeks in a 52-week period, and the existing crime-related child death or disappearance leave would be split into two separate unpaid leaves—child death leave and crime-related child disappearance leave—of up to 104 weeks each. The entitlement to child death leave would no longer be limited to circumstances where an employee’s child has died as a result of crime, but instead would be available whenever an employee’s child (under 18 years of age) has died for any reason.