Common In Law Property/House Confusion .

[Trekenk]

Hello from Kingston Ontario, hope all are fairing well with the snow.
I have done a lot of reading on Common in law and property/house rights for Ontario. I also understand unjust enrichment but keep in mind this has nothing to do with this question..
My brother just sold his house in which he has lived in for a while and is the sole owner. He is now in the midst of buy our father’s home for the price he got for his older home. He will be the sole owner. He is in a common in law relationship but she is not contributing anything towards the purchase. . He went to a lawyer and explained what he was doing. This lawyer told him that his common in law partner would not of had any rights to his old home but because they are together when he is purchasing this house based solely on that she would have rights to make a claim on this house if they did separate. This is contradicting to all I have read. Is this lawyer wrong?
Thanks for any help.

[representingself]

If you are worried about it, advise your brother to have a comprehensive co-habitation agreement drafted by a good Lawyer.

It is the only way to be safe!

[Mess]

Ask the lawyer to quote the respective legislation or cite the court decisions that back up his statements. Then post the answer here so we can have a laugh. Was this a divorce lawyer or a real estate lawyer?

[Trekenk]

He did ask about this situation to the real estate lawyer who was doing the paper work selling his old house. This lawyer refered him to another lawyer to talk with. I don't know what the other lawyer specialized in but will investigate further and fine out.

[Max22258]

Well I kept my house we bought it when we were together, but it was only in my name. The judge agreed to kick her out of the house as it solely belong to me. This without any agreement of cohabitation. But my lawyer said that next time get an agreement that will specifically mentionned that the house belong to the title holder is there is a separation. Unjust enrichment was tried and she never had any receipt so the judge throw that out. Equity build-up and any renovation must be mentionned. Tell your lawyer that I can write something for less then he charge to refer you to another lawyer, if he is your lawyer ditch him/her.

[microcrashboy]

To my understanding she/he would have to put in a claim and prove she contributed to the purchase of the house (part of down payment, help with fees etc.) and any major repairs renovations. She/he would have to prove they contributed.
So basically common-law is NOT the same as marriage - people always make that mistake. To my understanding this was put in place so people could get benifets like other families (GST/CTBHTB, etc.) also for the government to benifet from them to! in the case of welfare, total household income instead of individual

It is a simple understanding but watch two things
1. laws
2. caselaw

In the little I have learned of law, it almost makes me feel we should be electing judges as they are just as powerul and in some cases maybe more so than politicians (I know politicians acountable sort of yeah - but we are not like Cuba not the weather the politicians) yet have little accountability to us!
Another topic

[dadtotheend]

For all my supposed financial expertise here, I admit that I'm still unsure about division of common-law spousal homes.

I continue to think that increases in equity of the home while together accrue equally to both spouses. The only difference from a matrimonial home is that the the equity at marriage/co-hab date is not deducted from NFP.

But I keep seeing folks saying that the common law home is completely excluded from property division.

If that's true, can someone please clarify?

And if so, why is growth in other assets, like pensions included?

[Mess]

Originally Posted by microcrashboy

In the little I have learned of law, it almost makes me feel we should be electing judges as they are just as powerul and in some cases maybe more so than politicians (I know politicians acountable sort of yeah - but we are not like Cuba not the weather the politicians) yet have little accountability to us!
Another topic

Politicians aren't the least bit accountable, they run campaigns on BS, pass laws with rhetoric and lies and then complain when legislation is struck down because it's a violation of the constitution. Then they retire with a gold plated pension and directorships to a dozen corporations. Judges running on campaigns directed to the lowest common denominator wouldn't give us any better laws.

I think we would see better legislation if politicians were required to answer questions about the laws they want to pass under cross examination, if they had to present facts to back up their assertions and claims in the first place. The same thing the legislation faces under a court challenge, it should face in the first place when it goes through parliament.

[microcrashboy]

While I am not in support of our politicians - our system is still better than most and that I give them/us. There is accountability with politicians and partys remember we almost lost the conservative party a few years back (they had only 2 seats when Jean Charest was party leader), and the NDP got in in Ontario. The point is change does come about and people do respond in voting. With these guys we do have a say - with judges we do not! is my ultimate point.

[Max22258]

Ok lets make that clear, In my case pension not touchable, house was mine as well as all vehicles, equity was not an issue with the judge, furnioture I had receipt was mine. hmm geese what a good lawyer that I had!!!