More recently in Crawford v. Crawford,  B.C.J. No. 2370 (S.C.) Cooper J. ordered a 70/30 split of the family home due in part to the mother's future child-care obligations. In that case the father's employment was sporadic and he had not been able to make a substantial contribution to the support of the child. In ordering a reapportionment of the home, Cooper J. said at para. 23: Since the marriage trouble crystallised in July, 1993 the truck which the respondent [father] purchased against the wishes of the petitioner was seized by the creditor. A joint loan secured against that truck, which the petitioner only signed under pressure from the respondent, is now being sued upon. The petitioner has been forced to make payments on that loan as well as to keep the family home mortgage payments in good standing. She has, as well, had to support the child of the marriage with little contribution from the respondent, although he was ordered to make monthly support payments. The petitioner will have a continuing need to become and remain economically independent and to support the child of the marriage in the family home.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.