Spousal Support Formulas: The Basics

Determining Factors for Spousal Support Entitlement

The Supreme Court of Canada in Bracklow v. Bracklow identified three bases for spousal support entitlement: contractual, compensatory, and non-compensatory, Contractual support would be support based on any agreement that existed between the parties. Compensatory support is meant to reimburse the spouse for choice’s they made during the marriage that required them to sacrifice professional success in favour of the marriage. Non-compensatory is based on the need of the spouse, determined according to the economic interdependency created during the marriage. The longer the marriage, the greater the amount of interdependency, and the longer that may be required to unravel it.

Formulas

There are generally two different methods used to determine both the amount and duration of spousal support: the with child support formula, and the without child support formula. Regardless of the formula applied, both calculations originate from s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act. The Divorce Act sets out, that in making a spousal support order the Court shall consider the means needs and other circumstances of each spouse including:

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

These considerations are further supplemented by s. 33(9) of the Family Law Act which provides a long list of considerations to be made when the court is addressing both amount and duration of spousal support. The Court weighs these issues in light of the objectives of spousal support, which the Divorce Act sets out as follows:

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

 

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAGs”) set out two formulas and the method for determining the amount and duration of spousal support.

While the SSAGs do not need to be strictly adhered to, and contain several exceptions, they have become a valuable tool for the courts in determining duration. In fact, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Fisher v. Fisher held that when Judges deviate from the SSAGs, after being referred to them by counsel, they must provide a reason as to why the SSAGs should not be relied upon.

In the SSAGs, calculations regarding the duration of spousal support rely heavily on the duration of marriage. The amount or ‘quantum’ of support is calculated differently based upon whether child support is being paid.

 

The Without Child Support Formula

The without child support formula proposes two occasions when a spouse is entitled to indefinite support. First, when the marriage has been 20 years or longer in length. Second, indefinite support may be awarded where the marriage has lasted five years or longer if the years of marriage plus the age of the support recipient at the time of separation equals or exceeds 65. This is known as the “rule of 65”. Indefinite support does not mean permanent support; it simply means that there is no set date of termination.

When the situation does not fit one of these two scenarios, the duration is generally within the range of, at minimum, half the length of the marriage and, at a maximum, the entire duration of the marriage.

In regards to amount, it ranges from 1.5 to 2 percent of the difference between the spouses’ gross incomes for each year of marriage, up to a maximum of 50 percent. For marriages of 25 years or longer the maximum percentage that will be granted is between 37.5 and 50 percent.

The With Child Support Formula

The Guidelines establish that any initial orders when a spouse is also receiving child support should be indefinite. The SSAGs simply suggest that the original order not have an end date but allow for it to be established subsequently. To do this, the Guidelines further include a duration with an upper and lower limit. The minimum being the longer of one half the length of marriage or the date the youngest child starts full time school and the maximum being the longer of the length of the marriage or the date the last or youngest child finished high school.

Under the basic calculation of this formula, the amount is based on a spouse’s individual net disposable income (INDI), which for the paying spouse is essentially their income after removing child support and taxes. The recipient’s spouse’s INDI is their income adjusted for child support, taxes, and, government benefits. The spousal support amount is then calculated based on the recipient spouse receiving between 40 and 46 percent of the spouses’ combined INDI.

How these factors are to be assessed in determining the amount and duration of spousal support will always be a matter to be determined by a judge. A properly prepared and experienced lawyer will have the knowledge to explain the situation to a court in a thorough and persuasive manner regardless of the type of spousal support order being sought.

— Daniel Pinsky for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

To Be or Not To Be (Married)

Introduction

Today, more couples are choosing to live together in a relationship resembling marriage, without the formalities of marriage. There are many different reasons why a couple may choose not to get married; however, just as choosing to get married has legal implications, so does choosing not to get married. One of the most notable legal implications of not getting married relates to the division of property when the relationship breaks down. So, if you make the decision not to get married, do you really know what you are (not) buying into?

Division of Property for Unmarried Couples

Division of property is dealt with in Part I of the Family Law Act. When married couples separate, generally speaking they are entitled to divide their property equally between the two spouses, regardless of who legally owns the property.[1] Under the Family Law Act, “spouses” are entitled to divide their property on the breakdown of the marriage. “Spouse” is defined as either (1) two people who are married to each other, or, (2) two people who entered into a marriage that is either void or voidable, in good faith. It does not include “common law couples” – even couples who have lived together for more than least 3 years, or are living together and are the parents of a child. So, what does that mean exactly? It means that common law couples cannot look to the Family Law Act to make a claim to a share of property that they do not own. Let’s look at an example:

Jack and Jill have been living together for the past 15 years. They are not married. They live in a quaint house owed by Jill that they both spent time furnishing, decorating and renovating. They have two cars. Both vehicles are jointly owned. Jack and Jill each have their own chequing account. They also have a joint savings account in which they both deposit money to save for a vacation. Jill has a fairly substantial pension with the federal government. Jack only has a modest RRSP. Jack was never worried about his retirement because he knew Jill had a large pension that could support them both. They never had any children. Suddenly, Jill tells Jack she is no longer happy and wishes to end the relationship.

Dividing Jack and Jill’s Property

When common law couples break up, lawyers look to the title, or ownership of the property to determine how it will be shared. If the title is held jointly, the parties can share the value of the asset equally. If the title is held by only one person, only that person is legally entitled to the asset, with only limited exceptions.

What Jack and Jill Can Share

Jack and Jill will be able to share in the value of both vehicles, as well as the joint savings account. This is because these assets are held jointly. Both parties are automatically entitled to share in the value of those assets.

What Jack and Jill Can’t Share

Jack and Jill would each keep their own bank accounts. Unfortunately for Jack, the title to the house is in Jill’s name alone. While Jack and Jill have been living in the house together for the last 15 years, and both put time and money into renovating and decorating the house, Jack has no automatic entitlement to half the value of the house. Jack is also not entitled to exclusive possession of the home. If Jack and Jill were married, the treatment of the house would be very different.

Jack would be entitled to keep his RRSP. Jill would keep her pension; quite unfortunately for Jack, as he was hoping to share in Jill’s pension to fund his retirement. Now that Jack and Jill are no longer together, Jack is likely going to have to come up with an alternative retirement plan.

The Exception

While the law for dividing property on the break down of the relationship for common law couples follows the title of the asset, it may be possible to make a claim for an equitable share in an asset that is in the other person’s name. The best means of doing this is to claim a Constructive Trust[2]  based on equitable principles. Be forewarned that such a process is expensive and protracted. And the threshold for establishing a claim is high.

Conclusion

When asking the question: to get married or not, it is important to understand the legal implications of your decision. The best way to do this is to consult with a lawyer to better understand how the law will apply to you. A lawyer can advise you as to what you can do to protect yourself, and your assets, prior to entering into either a marriage, or a common law relationship with your partner. A lawyer can draft a domestic contract that can set out what will happen if the relationship breaks down and can address the equal sharing of assets, whether you marry or do not marry. This will help to save you from ending up as Jack did: a victim of the fact that common law spouses are not included in the division of property provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act.

- Mary Jane Binks Q.C. and Lauren M. Angle for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

--------------------------------

[1] There are exceptions when it comes to dividing property between married couples, such as gifts or inheritances received by one spouse during the marriage, among other things. For more information on what can and cannot be equalized on separation, consult with a lawyer.

[2] A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that the court will impose if they believe the person retaining the asset will be unjustly enriched, to the detriment of the other, by being able to keep the entire asset.

Understanding Separation & Divorce

The term “divorce” has a very distinct legal meaning, yet many people fail to understand the difference between separation and divorce. Often the meanings of the two concepts are blurred together.

To illustrate, a conversation around a water cooler somewhere in Ontario might go as follows:

     MAURICE:   Did you hear the news? Moe from marketing and
                         Sylvie from accounting are separating!

     MARTHA:    That’s funny, I heard they got a divorce.

     MAURICE:   What’s the difference, all I know is that
                          she’s getting the house and he’s getting  
                          a lawnmower.

     MARTHA:    I don’t know the difference either…
                         at least it was one of those new cordless
                         mowers…

To alleviate the confusion between the terms ‘separation’ and ‘divorce,’ it is helpful to begin with section 8 of the Divorce Act, which allows either or both spouses to apply to the Court for a divorce when there has been a “breakdown of the marriage.”

Parties must apply to the court if they want to be divorced. So, if Moe and Sylvie are separating but are not applying to court, then it would be appropriate to say they are “separated” but not “divorced.”

To obtain a divorce, the parties must first be “spouses” within the meaning of the Divorce Act. This definition excludes people merely living together and “common law” spouses and means that the two persons must be legally married to one another. The issue of whether two people are legally married is an entirely separate, and sometimes complex, issue that will be canvassed in a future blog.

The Divorce Act also states that to be granted a divorce order, there must be a “breakdown of the marriage.”

According to the Divorce Act, a “breakdown of the marriage” can only be established where:

1. the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year immediately preceding the determination of the divorce proceeding and were living separate and apart at the commencement of the proceeding;

or

2. the spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has, since celebration of the marriage,

(i) committed adultery, or

(ii) treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty of such a kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses.

It is not possible to be divorced unless the parties fit into one of the above three categories.

While separation is necessary to establish first ground of marital breakdown, it is not relevant to the less commonly used grounds of adultery or cruelty.

“Separation" under the Divorce Act doesn’t just mean physical separation. The Act states that “spouses shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart for any period during which they lived apart and either of them had the intention to live separate and apart from the other…”.

Therefore, in addition to living apart for one year, the Divorce Act adds the additional element that at least one of the parties must have had the intention to live separate and apart from the other.*

Of interest, subsection 8(3)(ii) of the Divorce Act allows spouses to resume living together with the intention of trying to resolve their marital differences without interrupting the 1 year period, so long as it doesn’t last longer than 90 days. This subsection is consistent with other sections of the Divorce Act designed to encourage the spouses to reconcile. For example, the Divorce Act places duties on legal advisors and the courts to advise and assist spouses in reconciliation where appropriate.

The distinction between separation and divorce can also be relevant to the division of family property. In fact, determining the date of separation is often crucial for dividing marital property under the Family Law Act.

“Separation” is given the following meaning by the Family Law Act:

     The date the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect

     that they will resume cohabitation.

This definition implies that equalization of family property can occur whether or not the spouses are divorced. Going back to the water cooler conversation, just because Moe and Sylvie seem to have sorted out their property issues doesn’t necessarily mean that they are divorced or that they will ever get divorced in the future. Perhaps the two had settled all of the issues stemming from their separation in a separation agreement and were content not to apply for a divorce.

It is helpful to remember that while the concept of separation is often relevant to obtaining a divorce and to the determination of the valuation date for the purposes of equalization, it is legally distinct from divorce.

Who knows when this distinction might come in handy around the water cooler!

*[While there is an entire body of case law examining what constitutes living separate and apart for the purpose of establishing marital breakdown, a review of such law is outside the ambit of this blog posting. For an extensive review of the factors courts in Ontario use to determine whether parties are living separate and apart, the decision of Greaves v. Greaves [2004] CanLII 25489 (ON SC) provides a helpful starting point.]

- Michael D. Heikkinen for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

Grandparent Rights in Custody Cases

When we talk about access, which includes the right to see a child, we tend to think only in terms of the rights of the child’s parents. However, as the number of families affected by divorce increases, extended family members, including grandparents, begin to worry about their relationship with their grandchildren and whether or not they will play a meaningful role in their grandchildren’s lives. This becomes a very real concern for grandparents if their own child is not the custodial parent.

In the Province of Ontario, there are two pieces of legislation that govern the issue of access – the Divorce Act (which applies only to children of a marriage) and the Children’s Law Reform Act. There is no language in either Act that specifically refers to grandparents. However, the Divorce Act states that a court may make an order for custody or access on the application of either of the spouses, or by any other person. A grandparent would fall into this category, but they must first seek the court’s permission to bring an application for custody of or access to their grandchild. The Children’s Law Reform Act allows a parent of a child or “any other person” to apply for an order respecting custody of or access to a child (permission from the court to bring an application is not a prerequisite under the Children’s Law Reform Act.)

In Ontario, there is no presumptive right to access for grandparents or other people outside of the children’s own parents. The courts have taken the position that a child’s relationship with their grandparents is expected to be fostered and maintained through the grandparent’s own child.

Since 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated it is up to the children’s parents to decide if and when certain people should have access to their children. So long as there is no evidence the parents are behaving in a manner which demonstrates an inability to act in accordance with the best interests of their children, their wishes will be respected.

While the Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledges their approach may seem insensitive to the needs of grandparents, it is not the grandparents’ needs (or even the grandparents’ wishes) that must be viewed and examined. These cases are about the needs and interests of the children and the merits of a grandparents’ application for access to their grandchildren will hinge on the children’s best interests. There are a number of factors to consider when determining what those best interests are, including:

• the wishes of the custodial parent, especially if there is no obvious benefit to the child from ongoing contact with the grandparent;

• whether or not there is an established, ongoing and positive relationship between the grandparent and grandchild;

• whether the grandparent has or will act in such a way as to undermine the child’s parent(s) or the child’s relationship with their parent(s);

• the severity of any conflict between a grandparent and the child’s parent;

• whether the grandparent has something special to offer the child, particularly from a family or cultural point of view; and

• whether the child will experience a sense of loss and/or abandonment if the grandparent is prevented from being part of the child’s life.

In 2012 the Ontario government introduced a new Bill that aims to promote the relationship between children and their grandparents, primarily in situations where the children’s parents are separated or divorced. Bill 67, titled “An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act with respect to the relationship between a child and the child’s grandparents” received its first reading on April 17, 2012. If passed, the Bill will amend those provisions in the existing Children’s Law Reform Act which govern custody and access by prohibiting parents (or anyone else entitled to custody) from creating or maintaining unreasonable barriers to the formation and continuation of a personal relationship between the child and the child’s grandparents. In fact, Bill 67 would add the child-grandparent relationship to the list of considerations the court must consider when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. Further, in applications for custody, the court would be required to consider whether the parent applying for custody is willing to facilitate contact with the child’s grandparents. Bill 67, if passed, would not automatically give grandparents the right to access to their grandchildren. They would still have to apply to the courts.

Until we have change to Ontario legislation, grandparents are still considered legal strangers when it comes to access. To have their case for access heard in court, grandparents must file an Application and an Affidavit in support of their claim for access. In addition, they must provide a police clearance certificate and a Children’s Aid Society clearance. The outcome of these cases are very dependent on the specific facts of each case, however, any person applying for custody or access to a child can be certain that, in all cases, the children’s needs will be the paramount consideration.

- Amanda M. Hall for abblaw.ca 

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

Wills and Estates 101 Mini-Series Part IV: Did He Die or Did He Separate?

In Ontario there is a family property regime set out in the Family Law Act (FLA) which provides for the equal sharing of property accumulated by married parties during their marriage. Note, this provision does not apply to common-law spouses. What happens if, after the death of one married spouse, it is discovered that the deceased spouse has given all of his or her wealth to someone other than his or her surviving spouse?

Suppose Harold was married to Wendy for 42 years. After his death his last will and testament left most of his estate to his “close friend” Susan. Harold left Wendy $50,000.00. Wendy feels betrayed (especially if her will left everything to Harold). What can Wendy do?

In Ontario the FLA permits the surviving married spouse of the deceased to elect to take either under the will or to make a claim against the estate for an equalization of net family property (NFP) pursuant to Part I of the FLA.

Assuming Harold had a NFP greater than Wendy, Wendy may wish to elect to make a claim for a monetary payment equal to one-half the difference her NFP and Harold’s NFP. For a more thorough discussion of NFP equalization, please click here to read a post by Philip W. Augustine.

When spouses separate, the valuation date is typically the date of separation. This means that the assets and liabilities of each spouse would be calculated based on their value at the date of separation. But, where one of the spouses has died, the FLA deems the valuation date to be the day before the date of death.

The surviving spouse has six months from the date of death to elect to take an equalization payment pursuant to the FLA rather than taking pursuant to the will of the deceased.

An example will illustrate how this election works.

At the date of his death Harold had Net Family Property of $600,000.00

At the date of Harold’s death Wendy had Net Family Property of $300,000.00.

Pursuant to the FLA Wendy is entitled to $150,000.00 calculated as follows: $600,000.00 - $300,000.00= $300,000.00

$300,000.00 /2 = $150,000.00

Pursuant to the will Wendy is entitled to $50,000.00 (see facts above)

Unless Jim’s will had expressly provided that Sally could both make the election under the FLA and take under the will, Sally would be forced to choose only one of the two options.

If forced to choose, it is obviously more beneficial for Wendy to take pursuant to the FLA ($150,000.00) than pursuant to the Will ($50,000.00). Wendy would be well advised to make an election to take pursuant to FLA. Wendy has 6 months to make that election, failing which she shall be deemed to take pursuant to the will.

Should a surviving married spouse feel that he or she has not received a proper division of property upon the death of their spouse they should promptly seek out legal advice so they are in a position to make the necessary election should it be in their interests to do so.

     – Michael D. Heikkinen and Philip W. Augustine for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about making an FLA election or would like Augustine Bater Binks to prepare your will, please email us at info@abblaw.ca or call 613-569-9500 to speak to one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

Matrimonial Home a Trap for the Unwary: Issue #1

The “matrimonial home” is given special treatment in the Family Law Act and that special treatment can involve huge unfairness to one of the parties to a marriage following marriage breakdown. One way in which this unfairness can arise involves a provision in the Family Law Act (paragraph 4(1)(b)) which defines “net family property” –a fundamental legal concept which is used to equalize property upon the breakdown of a marriage.

When equalizing property accumulated by the parties during the marriage, the parties are each allowed to deduct from the value of their property at date of separation the value of the property which each of them brought into the marriage. However, (and this is where the unfairness comes in) a party is not allowed to deduct the value of the “matrimonial home” if a party owned it at the time of the marriage.

The easiest way to illustrate this issue is by a series of examples.

Example Number 1

Harold has $400,000.00 in cash when he gets married. Wendy has $0.00 at the date of marriage. The parties are married for 10 years and then separate. At the end of the marriage Harold has a net worth of $1,100,000.00 and Wendy has a net worth of $600,000.00. In this case Harold would be entitled to deduct the $400,000.00 he had at the date of marriage. That would reduce his net family property to $700,000.00. Harold would then pay Wendy ($700,000.00 - $600,000.00 = $100,000.00 / 2 = $50,000.00. Harold would then have ($1,100,000.00 - $50,000.00 =) $1,050,000.00 and Wendy would have ($600,000.00 + $50,000.00 =) $650,000.00. In other words, Harold would end the marriage with $400,000.00 more than Wendy and Harold and Wendy would both have shared equally in the wealth accumulated during the marriage. The parties would be in exactly the same relative property position property at the end of the marriage as when they started the marriage (i.e. Harold would have $400,000.00 more than Wendy). That is considered fair by most people.

Example Number 2

Now consider the same facts as in Example number 1, except, the day before getting married Harold purchased 123 Elm Street so that the happy couple would have a nice home to which to return after their honeymoon. The parties live in the home for 10 years and Harold still owns the same home at the date of separation. In this case Harold is not entitled to deduct the value of the home from his Net Family Property. The math in this example would be as follows:

     Harold $1,100,000.00 - $0.00 = $1,100,000.00

     Wendy $600,000.00 - $0.00 = $ 600,000.00

     Harold pays Wendy ($1,100,000.00 - $600,000.00 =)

     $500,000.00 / 2 = $250,000.00

     Wendy and Harold both end up with $850,000.00.

In example number 2 Harold lost half of the $400,000.00 which he brought into the marriage because he purchased a home prior to the wedding day and owned that home at the date of separation. Had Harold waited until after the wedding to purchase the home and brought cash into the marriage he would have been entitled to keep all of the $400,000.00 following marriage breakdown. Most people consider this result to be unfair.

As couples marry later in life or marry for a second time it is increasingly likely that one party to the marriage will bring a home into the marriage in which the parties will reside until the breakdown of the marriage. The treatment of the matrimonial home on separation has many traps for the unwary. More to follow.

— Philip W. Augustine for abblaw.ca

Full & Honest Disclosure Integral in Family Law Disputes

Subrule 13(6) of Ontario’s Family Law Rules states that any party serving a financial statement must make “full and frank disclosure of the party’s financial situation.” Financial statements must also be fully complete and submitted with supporting documentation.

Despite the fact that full and accurate disclosure from both sides is an essential component to the swift resolution of virtually any family law matter, the rule can sometimes be loosely adhered to or disregarded in its entirety by litigants.

As the following case illustrates, a failure to make open and honest disclosure can lead to extreme delays, inflated legal costs and a very undesirable outcome for the party failing to disclose.

In Oelbaum v. Oelbaum, 2010 ONSC 4874 (CanLII), a husband and wife separated after 22 years of marriage. The litigation began in October of 1996. Throughout the 14 years of litigation, the husband refused to provide meaningful financial disclosure.

Although having been warned that not making disclosure would lead to his Answer being struck, the husband continued to disregard the rules. His Answer was eventually stuck, and the trial proceeded on an uncontested basis.

One month after the issuing of the trial judgment in favour of the wife (which included an order of $183,158 in costs) the husband filed a financial statement and brought a motion for the reinstatement of his Answer. Unfortunately for Mr. Olebaum, Murray J. found the new financial statement to be both incomplete and inadequate. In the end, the Court dismissed the motion, noting that the Respondent’s latest attempt at disclosure was “too little and too late.”

After a thorough review of the history of the husband’s failure to disclose his finances, Murray J. stated the following:

[21] … It is fair to conclude that Mr. Oelbaum elected to treat court orders and the applicant with complete disdain behaving as if the Court and the applicant had no business knowing the details of his financial situation. He refused to provide accurate financial information that was of fundamental importance in fairly determining issues of property allocation and child and spousal support in accordance with the applicable legal principles.

In his endorsement, Murray J. highlighted some of the broader policy considerations weighing against a decision in favour of the Respondent. On the importance of full disclosure to the administration of justice, his Honour stated:

[38] What would be the effect of any order the motions judge might make on the overall integrity of the administration of justice? Without meaning to trivialize the importance of candour and honesty in uncontested proceedings, I conclude that the overall integrity of the administration of justice would be tainted by granting the respondent's motion in this case. The respondent has bullied this applicant for years. The respondent's refusal to provide accurate and complete financial information was intended to be, and was, a barrier to the applicant's ability to obtain relief.

And later,

[47] … If the respondent were to be successful in this case, it would be an invitation to like-minded spouses in other matrimonial cases to stonewall, not to pay interim child and spousal support, to refuse financial disclosure and to be extremely contentious in litigation. It would encourage “gaming the process.” Such a result would be antithetical to the notion of fair and efficient dispute resolution in matrimonial cases.

The respondent was finally ordered to make payments to his wife for support arrears, costs and ongoing support totaling well in excess of $1.5 million.

One can’t help but wonder how much time and money could have been saved had the husband simply adhered to subrule 13(6).

— Michael D. Heikkinen for abblaw.ca