Hovasse v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1115 [at at 622], 2011 TCC 143 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Support Amount

By services, 28 November, 2015

When a married couple separated, the husband's support payments made pursuant to their "summary of mediated agreements" were deductible. The summary was enough to satisfy the requirement in s. 56.1(4) for an agreement in writing, given that mediated agreements had been finalized and adhered to. Hogan J. stated at para. 11:

The [Minister] also argued that the mediated agreement contained a warning that it could not be construed as a contract or court judgment, meaning it was not intended to be binding. This does not necessarily mean that the parties could not have intended or did not intend to be bound by the agreement. The statement seems to be more of a notification that further steps were required in order for the agreement to be enforceable in a court of law. The parties may not have filed the agreement with a court having jurisdiction in that regard, as advised, but the Appellant gave a reasonable explanation for not doing so, stating that he and his former spouse wanted to avoid legal costs.

Hogan J. attached little weight to the lack of a signature, given that Shaw (2007 TCC 148) and Foley (2000 UDTC 174, [2000] 4 C.T.C. 2016 (TCC)) clearly establish that a signature is not required.

Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338313
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Hovasse\"></a>Hovasse v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2011 DTC 1115 [at 622], 2011 TCC 143 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}