Top 4 Things NOT To Do If You Need to Dismiss an Employee

Small and larger business owners need to make difficult decisions everyday: acquire new clients, build relationships with interested stakeholders, pay invoices, redefine their brand and ensure staff are completing all assigned tasks. Given that an employer-employee relationship evolves over time, managers sometimes must make the difficult decision of terminating a person’s employment. There is no perfect way to dismiss an employee but there are some things managers should simply not do when letting an employee go.

Mislead Employees About their Rights

The Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, is meant to protect both employers and employees alike. While management can certainly put an end to the employer-employee relationship, it has a duty to remain honest to the employee. Employers should never misinform employees about the amount of money they are entitled to under the Act.

An employee is entitled to notice of termination if he or she has been continuously employed for at least three months. Rather than giving an employee notice, employers can also pay termination pay. The amount of notice to give to an employee depends on the period of employment of that person. More information on the required notice can be found here

If an employee has specific questions about their rights and amount of notice they are entitled to, it is good practice for employers to encourage employees to seek independent legal advice on the matter.

Force the Employee to Sign a Release the Day of Termination

Whether employees choose to exercise their right to get legal advice, employers should always make sure employees have had reasonable time to review their termination package. Particularly because managers are in a position of power, in order for any signed release to remain binding and enforceable, it is beneficial not to rush the process of termination. There will always be time to sign a release at a later date. Releases signed under pressure may be set aside in certain circumstances by courts.

Prevent an Employee From Retrieving Personal Belongings

When an employee finds out they have just been fired, they generally feel very vulnerable. Expect them to be emotional, argumentative and sometimes even irrational. Whatever you do, do not add fuel to the fire. Keep the meeting short and brief. Know exactly what you are going to say, invite only those who need to be present and always make sure you have done the necessary steps to protect sensitive information.

This may entail coordinating with your IT department to disconnect any digital access the employee has to certain databases, store files away and changing certain codes or passwords. While it is important to make sure that any client or third-party file be kept safe, it is bad practice to give the employee the walk of shame by having a security guard escort them out of the building in front of other employees. The employee is already hurting from the employer’s decision, let them keep their dignity. Allow them to retrieve their personal belongings after work hours when most staff have left them office.

It is however reasonable to ask for them to return any keys, cards or parking pass to reduce access to the building. If the employee was provided with a business credit card, make the necessary arrangements to have the card returned and contact your financial institution right away to inform them the employee in question no longer has authorization to make any transactions on the business’ behalf.

Discuss the Termination With Others

Many people in businesses, especially larger ones, enjoy gossiping – that includes those in management positions too! As tempting as it is to discuss an employee’s termination with others, resist the urge. As an employer, if you decide to dismiss an employee, it is safer to send a brief general e-mail letting others know that the terminated employee will no longer be with your business. Leave any other details out. If employees ask questions, respectfully decline to comment. Also avoid discussing these matters outside the workplace. It generally makes the employer look worse than the employee. In the worst of scenarios, this may entice a disgruntled employee to commence a lawsuit for defamation against you.

Karen Kernisant is a lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean and practices Employment and Family Law as well as Civil Litigation.

Faut-il toujours exiger un état financier de son ex-conjoint lors d’un divorce?

Lorsque deux époux décident de mettre un terme à leur mariage, la séparation des biens matrimoniaux devient souvent une source de conflits. C’est une des raisons pour lesquelles la Loi sur le droit de la famille, L.R.O., 1990, c. F.3 prévoit que les époux doivent mutuellement échanger leurs états financiers pour faciliter une séparation juste et équitable.

Qu’est-ce qu’un état financier?

L’état financier est un formulaire rempli par chaque époux où chaque partie divulgue à l’autre son salaire et toute autre source de revenu, ses dépenses, ses dettes et la totalité des biens matrimoniaux. Sauf certaines exceptions, la Loi sur le droit de la famille édicte que chaque époux à droit à la moitié de la valeur des biens accumulés pendant le mariage jusqu’à la date de séparation. La divulgation financière constitue donc une étape cruciale du divorce.

Les époux doivent-ils divulguer d’autres documents financiers?

Chaque époux peut aussi exiger de recevoir des documents supplémentaires pour vérifier la véracité des renseignements indiqués par l’autre partie dans son état financier. Il peut aussi d’être une bonne idée de demander une copie des reçus pour les dépenses du foyer conjugal, les relevés d’impôts et relevés bancaires de l’autre époux, les détails sur une police d’assurance de l’autre époux, un rapport d’expert sur la valeur d’un bien ou toute documentation qui permet à l’époux d’effectuer des choix éclairés sur la séparation des biens matrimoniaux.

L’échange d’états financiers est-il toujours obligatoire?

L’échange des états financiers n’est pas obligatoire dans les cas suivants:

• La demande de divorce ne comporte aucune demande de pension alimentaire et aucune séparation des biens ;

• Le montant de pension alimentaire pour l’enfant demandé est celui prévu par les Lignes directrices fédérales ou provinciales sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants ; et

• Les deux époux ont soumis une motion en modification de la pension alimentaire et sont d’accord de ne pas divulguer leurs états financiers.

En cas de doute, il est toujours mieux de demander le plus des précisions sur les actifs et les dettes d’un époux afin de pouvoir négocier un accord de séparation qui est juste. Néanmoins, il existe certaines situations où la divulgation financière n’est pas importante, voire même inutile.

Les époux ont des biens qui ont peu de valeur

L’obligation de divulguer un état financier permet de rétablir un équilibre économique entre les époux, notamment lorsqu’il y a une disparité considérable entre leurs salaires. Dans les cas où les deux époux ne travaillent pas, leur unique source de revenu provient souvent des programmes d’assistance sociale prévus par le gouvernement provincial.

Puisque cette source de revenu est faible, les époux se retrouvent dans une situation où ils ne peuvent se permettre de se procurer une grande quantité de biens. Par ailleurs, les personnes à revenu faible n’ont habituellement pas les moyens d’acheter une maison ou un autre type d’habitation. Le foyer conjugal est, pour la majorité des ménages, le bien de plus grande valeur. Dans la mesure où le couple n’est pas propriétaire de leur foyer conjugal, que les meubles ont peu de valeur et que le couple n’a pas de véhicule, la nécessité d’obtenir un état financier devient moins importante.

Un des époux possède des biens à l’international

Chaque partie a l’obligation d’affirmer de façon solennelle que toutes ses déclarations dans l’état financiers sont vraies. Pour vérifier la véracité d’une déclaration, un époux peut demander à l’autre époux de joindre des documents supplémentaires pour appuyer la déclaration. Cela dit, il incombe à celui qui demande des renseignements additionnels de vérifier la véracité de l’information donnée.

Si un des époux est propriétaire de biens ou de sommes monétaires situés à l’international, il est très difficile et dispendieux pour l’autre époux de faire les enquêtes nécessaires pour vérifier la véracité de l’état financier. S’il n’est pas possible pour une partie de vérifier l’exactitude des déclarations de la partie adverse, l’état financier est alors inutile.

Les époux ont conclu un accord sur la séparation des biens

Les époux devraient essayer de se mettre d’accord sur le plus de points possibles lorsqu’ils décident de mettre fin à leur mariage. Si les époux sont satisfaits qu’ils ont suffisamment d’information sur l’un l’autre et trouvent qu’il n’est pas nécessaire pour eux d’échanger leurs états financiers pour prendre des décisions financières à propos de la séparation de leurs biens, il est possible pour eux de signer un contrat de séparation sans avoir plus d’information sur la situation économique de leur époux.Les époux peuvent envisager cette option dans les cas où la valeur de leurs biens et de leurs dettes est plus ou moins égale et qu’ils sont certains que la divulgation d’un état financier n’aura aucune incidence sur leurs décisions pour séparer les biens matrimoniaux.

Même si vous pensez avoir obtenu tous les détails financiers de votre ancien époux, assurez-vous toujours d’obtenir des conseils juridiques d’un avocat avant de signer un contrat de séparation ou de finaliser votre divorce pour être certain que vos intérêts économiques sont protégés.

Karen Kernisant est avocate à Aubry Campbell MacLean et pratique le droit partout en Ontario dans les domaines suivants: droit de la famille, droit de l’emploi, contentieux civil, droit de l’immigration et droit criminel.

Top 5 Things NOT to Do If You Learn You're Being Investigated by the Police

I used to believe that only the guilty were investigated by the police. And that police investigations were only launched after a process of careful deliberation. But then I spent the last 23 years first as a Federal Crown Prosecutor, and later as criminal defence counsel. 

I learned that police investigations are sometimes started based on false (or legitimate) complaints by people who don’t like other people, or by mere police hunches that may or may not be justified, or sometimes just by plain chance. In many cases, the police have a duty to investigate complaints, even if they themselves don’t put much weight on the complaints. At other times, the police are trying to target particular behaviour - drug dealing, Internet-based offences - and go out looking for people to target, which means innocents could get caught up in a drag net with the guilty. 

So never make the fatal mistake of thinking that just because in your opinion you’ve done nothing wrong, you should do whatever the police ask of you because that will best terminate their investigation and exonerate you as quickly as possible. In fact, the opposite may be true. Here are my top 5 things NOT to do if you learn you’re being investigated by the police. 

1. Speak to the police before speaking to a lawyer

In my experience, most people just want to be helpful. Yes, there are lots of difficult people in the world, but mostly if you ask for directions, you’ll get an answer, even if it’s the wrong answer. When asked by an authority figure like the police to be helpful, there’s even more pressure. So I’ve found both those I’ve prosecuted and those I’ve defended are keen to spill their guts to the police, hoping that whatever they say will put police questions to an end. 

I’ve got three words for you in response to a request to chat with the police: just say no. Seriously. Now I know saying no is not as easy as it sounds. It’s going to take a lot of will power. You might feel guilty about it. You might get worn down if they keep politiely telling you it will be far better if you help them out, as then they can eliminate you from their investigation. But don’t do it. 

Nothing you ever say to the police is going to help you. Rather, it will later be used against you, even if you deny everything. Trust me, as a prosecutor at trial I always used things people had said to the police years before to contradict what they were saying now at the trial, even if the earlier statements were denials. Save what you’re going to say for a judge, or at least for your own lawyer.  

It doesn’t matter if you think you’re persuasive enough to talk the police into dropping their investigation, and believing all your explanations. The officer you talk to may have very little role in the ultimate charge making decision. She might just be there to take your statement, which will later be picked over by other officers, lawyers, and judges. 

Of course any strict rule like this has exceptions. That’s why you need legal advice. Your lawyer might tell you that answering certain questions could be best. Your lawyer might even be able to get written questions in advance. Your lawyer could come with you to the interview to help you answers the questions. Occasionally for non-criminal matters, you may be under a statutory obligation to provide certain information to the authorities - like for tax or automobile insurance enquiries - but you’re still going to need legal advice on how much information you should be sharing. 

2. Admit to anything

As obvious as this might seem, all sorts of people confess to things they didn’t do because of becoming worn down by questioning, or because of the way leading questions are posed to them. Part of not admitting to anything is not agreeing with anything. And no need to become trapped by yes or no questions. If you’re asked if the grass is green or the sky is blue, there is no need to agree. Likewise, you don’t want to be agreeing with suggestions about times, or activities, or people known, or conversations. Just decline to talk about things. You have no duty to help the police (subject to those few exceptions, where you need legal advice). 

I’ve worked with the police for a long time. I’ve come to appreciate that the vast majority of officers don’t want to elicit a false confession. They just want to get at the truth. But if what you’re telling them doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions, they might keep trying to wear you down into agreeing with what they believe is the truth, rather than what you know to be the truth. 

3. Deny anything

You might think you’re safe denying everything, because you’re complying with the don’t admit to anything rule. But you’re not safe.

If you deny you ever met someone before, or visited a place before, and it turns out you’ve forgotten about one meeting or visit, then you’re later going to have a credibility problem. We all forget things, or are mistaken about things.

So don’t deny. Just don’t say anything. Not even “No comment” since that sounds too much like a denial of the guilty. 

4. Destroy anything or obstruct the investigation

You risk being accused of obstructing justice, even if that isn’t your intent, if you unintentionally destroy material during an investigation that the police believe is relevant evidence, or make statements that have the effect of misdirecting the police. And then, even if you weren’t guilty of anything before, you might be found guilty of something just because of the way you acted during the investigation.

Been planning on cleaning up your computer hard drive for years by deleting a lot of files? Don’t during an investigation, or you might be charged with obstructing justice. Thinking of recyling the contents of all those file cabinets to do your part for the environment? Don’t during an investigation. 

You might even be accused of obstructing by misremembering names and dates when giving a statement to the police, with the accusation being that you were intentionally misleading the police so as to frustrate the investigation. So saying nothing is the only safe thing to do. 

5. Give the police permission to search your house, vehicle or person

Either the police have sufficient grounds and legal authority to search, or they don’t. It’s not your job to make their job either eaiser or harder than it should be. So either they can or can’t search for things, but you don’t need to insert yourself into that equation. 

Maybe they need a warrant to search, maybe they don’t. Not your problem. It will later be your lawyer’s problem.

So if they show up at your door, and ask if you mind if they step in side, don’t agree they can come in. I know this might be difficult to do. That it seems rude. But once inside, they might wander around. The law can be vague on what can happen once the police are inside your house and courts come to inconsistent results when searches are later challenged. But if they show up with a search warrant, or otherwise claim legal authority to enter, then of course don’t stop them from attempting to enter. Just don't give them permission. 

Same with your car. Maybe you’ve transported other people in it lately, and someone else left contraband behind? Think the court will believe you when you say the drugs don’t below to you? That you don’t do drugs? Uh, huh. So no need to tell the police that you don’t mind if they take a quick peek in your trunk, or you glove box. If they have the power to search, they won’t need your permission. 

And last, the same principles apply to your person. If the police arrest you for something, they do have a right to search your clothing, and maybe a bag you are holding. But without an arrest, you don’t need to be turning out pockets, or opening bags. 

You might be saying to yourself, I’ll never need these tips. I’ll never be investigated. And even if I am investigated, I’ll just tell the truth, and everything will turn out fine. But you need to believe me when I say I’ve been involved in hundreds of cases, and written three books on the law of investigations, and perverse things do happen. So protect yourself, and your family, and don’t say, or admit, or deny, or destroy, or agree to anything - at least without first talking to a lawyer. A little bit of lawyer advice is cheap, a criminal defence won’t be such a bargain. 

Gordon S. Campbell advises individuals and organizations subject to investigations on their rights and duties, and can provide legal support right from the start of an investigation until its conclusion.

Top 7 Mistakes of Self-Represented Parties in Small Claims Court

If you are involved in a dispute with someone and can’t resolve your dispute amicably, you may have to go before the courts to enforce your rights. In Ontario, the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to award damages up to $25,000 or order the return of property worth $25,000 or less. A quick and efficient resolution of matters, less formal procedural rules and the possibility of representing one’s self are a few of the many benefits of commencing an action in Small Claims Court rather than before the Superior Court of Justice. If you intend to commence an action in Small Claims Court, below are seven tips to help you navigate through this process.

1) Having no standing

This may seem obvious, but before commencing an action the first question you should ask yourself is: “am I allowed to do this?” It is imperative to find out if you have standing. A party has standing if he or she can demonstrate to the court a sufficient connection to the case and the alleged harm. To put this into context, read the following example.

Alberto and Bernadette are married. Bernadette lent $15,000 to Charlie, a friend of hers, on October 30, 2016. She took those funds out of her personal bank account. Charlie agreed to pay back the loan by the following year. It is now past October 30, 2017. Bernadette has contacted Charlie numerous times to inquire about payment of the loan. Charlie keeps avoiding her calls as he does not have the means to pay her back yet. Alberto and Bernadette decide to sue Charlie in Small Claims Court for the amount owed.

While Bernadette may have a claim against Charlie, the same cannot be said about Alberto. The fact that Alberto and Bernadette are married does not automatically make him a proper plaintiff. Because Bernadette withdrew the funds out of her personal account and because the agreement was specifically between Bernadette and Charlie, Alberto has no connection to this lawsuit. Thus, Alberto has no standing in these proceedings.

Naming the proper is plaintiff is crucial as a defendant may seek and obtain costs against a party who is uselessly named as a plaintiff in an action.

2) Naming the wrong defendant

One of the most common mistakes is to write the wrong name of the parties involved in the lawsuit. If you are suing a corporation, be mindful that it may be operating under a business name rather its actual legal name. You may have to obtain a business name report to get the corporation’s full legal name. If you fail to name the correct business in your pleadings, you may be commencing an action against a corporation that has nothing to do with your dispute. This may result in your action being dismissed right off the bat.

Also, keep in mind that a corporation is a separate person than its directors and officers for the purposes of an action. In certain cases, if directors or officers act outside the scope of their duties, they may be personally liable for your loss. In that case, you should put both their names and the name of the corporation in your claim. However, keep in mind the first mistake discussed in this article: do not add directors and officers as defendants for no reason.

3) Not keeping track of dates and deadlines

If you are thinking of suing, don’t procrastinate to deal with your matter – otherwise, it may be too late for you to do anything. In Ontario, under the Limitations Act, 2002, the general deadline to commence an action against someone is two years from the date of the wrongdoing. Take the above-noted example for instance. If Bernadette had lent money to Charlie on October 30, 2015 and had waited until after October 30, 2017 to sue Charlie, Bernadette’s action would unfortunately be statute-barred.

If you are being sued, you also need to keep track of steps in the legal proceedings. As a defendant, you have twenty calendar days from the day you were served with pleadings to provide a copy of your defence to the plaintiff and file it with the court. If the twentieth day falls on the week-end or any statutory holiday, the last due date to serve and file your defence is the next business day. Failing to file your pleadings on time may result in you being noted in default. This means that you can no longer file a defence and are no longer entitled to receive a copy of any other pleading in the suit. As such, the plaintiff could seek a judgment against you for the full claim without notifying you.

4) Not having any relevant evidence

Evidence is the cornerstone of any lawsuit – no evidence, no case: it’s that simple. As the plaintiff, it is incumbent upon you to provide the court with all the information necessary to support your claim. Written agreements, e-mails, text messages, receipts, photographs and videos are generally a good place to start when gathering information to support your allegations.

When putting together evidence, remember quality trumps quantity. Coming into a courtroom with a stack of papers may intimidate the other party; however, the information you have compiled may not prove anything. When looking at a piece of evidence, ask yourself the following questions: • How is this relevant to my case?

• Is this piece of information reliable?

• Is my source of information objective?

• How is this information supporting my position on this case?

If you are defending an action, while the burden of proof does not fall on your shoulders, you should always prepare to rebut the plaintiff’s arguments. As such, take the time to gather evidence of your own and ask yourself the questions outlined above.

5) Refusing to settle

It is often said that there are three sides to every story: the plaintiff’s version of the events, the defendant’s version of the events and finally, whatever the judge decides! While our legislatures have enacted a plethora of statutes, regulations and by-laws to ensure fairness and equality in the legal system, at times, judgments may seem unfair. Therefore, even in the face of what appears to be a “winner case”, it is never a bad idea to try and resolve the dispute before trial. Parties involved in legal proceedings tend to get caught up in the idea of going to trial. Quite often, lawyers hear: “it’s not about the money, it’s a matter of principle!”

Let’s be honest, if you are in court and your goal is something other than to dispute money or property, you are wasting your time (and money for that matter). Rather than relying on a judge to make a decision on your case, take matters into your own hands and come to a resolution with the other party to get some sense of finality of the dispute even if it means cutting way back on your expectations. This will allow you to move on to better things.

6) Expecting the wrong remedy

Remedies other than money or the return of property are not available in Small Claims Court. The maximum amount of damages the plaintiff will be awarded is $25,000 for a single claim. The plaintiff can also request that any agreed upon interest be applied to the damages claimed or have the interest rate stipulated in the Courts of Justice Act (generally around two percent) apply.

Orders that cannot be awarded to you if you are suing in Small Claims Court include:

• Taking down a negative review from a website;

• Releasing confidential documents;

• Freezing assets;

• Moving a fence; and

• Not playing loud music at night.

7) Not getting independent legal advice

One of the benefits of commencing an action in Small Claims Court is the ability to be self-represented. This can be a good option for those with modest means or for claims where the amount in dispute is minor. Regardless of the amount of the claim and the complexity of the matter, it is always a good idea to obtain legal advice from a lawyer to determine your rights and obligations. You should also consult a lawyer to get a better understanding of the Small Claims Court process and ensure you are doing everything necessary to protect your interests. If there’s anything you should be doing, it’s just that.

Karen Kernisant is a lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean and practices in the areas of civil litigation, family, employment and immigration law. For more information, please visit our website: acmlawfirm.ca.

WHAT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES NEED TO KNOW REGARDING OVERTIME PAY

In Ontario, under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 an employee is entitled to receive one and a half time their hourly wage for every additional hour he or she works over a regular forty-four hour work week. Employers and employees should be mindful of their rights and obligations when it comes to overtime pay.

Which employees are entitled to overtime pay?

Not all employees can claim overtime pay even if they work more than 44 hours in a single week. Generally, overtime pay is reserved for part-time and full-time employees who do not fall under the following positions:

• managers and supervisors;

• superintendents providing services in the building where they live; and

• duly qualified or registered professionals¹ .

Where there is doubt about a person’s status as an employee, it should be noted that courts are not bound by that employee’s title. Rather, courts focus on the employee’s actual daily tasks to determine whether or not a statutory exclusion applies.

Do overtime hours need to be approved?

Many sources of conflicts between employers and employees come from a lack of information and awareness with regards to overtime pay. Policies should be developed by management and made accessible to employees to inform them about procedures for overtime hours to be approved and paid. While these policies are not fully determinative in establishing the right to receive overtime pay, they may help in protecting both the employers and employees’ interests.

Pre-emptive steps to protect both employers and employees’ interests Where there are no policies in place, employees can take the following steps when working overtime hours:

• ask their supervisor to work additional hours;

• keep copies of receipts for services provided;

• document work performed;

• save e-mails sent to third parties;

• take notes of phones calls made or received; and

• docket all hours in software used by employers.

Employers can manage an employee’s overtime pay by:

• having employees sign written agreements detailing the circumstances in which they can request overtime pay, including receiving prior written authorization by the employee’s supervisor;

• requesting that the employees track their hours in a software set up by the employer; and

• limiting the amount of work given to employees after work hours.

If you are an employee and aren’t sure if you are owed overtime pay, it can be helpful to consult a lawyer to know your rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and applicable by-laws. Employers should also seek independent legal advice to avoid any potential liability for failing to pay employees who worked more than forty-four hours in a week.

1 These professions include but are not limited to: architects, engineers, lawyers, accountants, surveyors, veterinarians, chiropractors, dentists, message therapists, physicians, pharmacists and psychologists.

Karen Kernisant is a lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean and practices in the areas of employment and family law as well as civil litigation. For more information, please visit our website: www.acmlawfirm.ca.

UNE SOIRÉE DE PLAISIR, UNE VIE DE RESPONSABILITÉS : LES CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES DE LA FRAUDE SEXUELLE SUR L’OBLIGATION DE PAYER UNE PENSION ALIMENTAIRE

Travail, école, épicerie, ménage, cuisine et j’en passe : chacun a de quoi se sentir débordé par ses occupations quotidiennes. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que chacun cherche à se détendre pour oublier ses soucis, même si ce n’est que pour une nuit.

Après une longue semaine de travail, Alex¹ s’est rendu à son bar préféré. Arrivé là-bas, il a fait la rencontre de Sara. Après avoir consommé quelques verres, Alex et Sara ont quitté le bar et ont terminé leur soirée dans un endroit plus intime. Alex et Sara ont continué à se fréquenter pendant quelques semaines jusqu’au jour où Sara a annoncé à Alex qu’elle était enceinte. Pourtant Sara avait insisté qu’elle ne souhaitait pas avoir d’enfant et que, de toute façon, elle prenait la pilule contraceptive tous les jours. Alex, n’étant pas prêt à être père, s’est senti désemparé et trahi.

Quelles sont les obligations alimentaires des parents?

Le droit à la pension alimentaire est un droit qui appartient à l’enfant. Les circonstances dans lesquelles un enfant naît n’a aucune incidence sur le droit de recevoir des aliments. Dans la mesure où les moyens de contraception s’avèrent inefficaces, ils n’éteignent pas l’obligation du parent de pourvoir à son enfant par voie de pension alimentaire. Cette obligation existe même si un des deux partenaires ment intentionnellement à l’autre relativement à son utilisation de moyens de contraception, le désir d’avoir un enfant ou la possibilité de féconder.

Quel est l’impact des obligations alimentaires sur les parents?

L’obligation de payer une pension alimentaire à l’enfant peut être perçu par certains parents comme un fardeau, notamment lorsque l’enfant est le résultat d’une grossesse non désirée. Cela dit, l’impact de la naissance de l’enfant sur le style de vie, la carrière et le revenu du payeur n’ont aucune incidence sur le montant à payer.

Comment calcule-t-on le montant de la pension alimentaire à payer?

Le montant de la pension alimentaire à payer varie en fonction de plusieurs éléments :

• le nombre d’enfants
• l’âge de l’enfant
• le revenu des parents

En plus du montant de base de pension alimentaire, les parents ont l’obligation de contribuer aux dépenses suivantes :

• les frais de garderie
• les dépenses médicales et dentaires
• les frais associés à l’éducation de l’enfant
• le coût des activités parascolaires

L’importance de connaître ses droits et ses devoirs

Le devoir de payer une pension alimentaire juste et équitable En cas de doute, il peut être prudent de consulter un avocat pour connaître ses droits et ses devoirs relativement à l’obligation de payer une pension alimentaire à son enfant. Enfin, pour ceux et celles qui ne sont pas prêt à être parent, choisissez vos loisirs judicieusement.

Karen Kernisant est avocate à Aubry Campbell MacLean et pratique dans le domaine du droit de la famille, du droit de l’emploi et du contentieux civil. Pour de plus amples renseignements, prière de consulter le site Web suivant: www.acmlawfirm.ca.

1 Tous les noms ont été modifiés pour protéger l'identité des parties.