he says the house is his????

[Tim Cash]

well in her case I would think she is entitled to something , being a stay at home parent is tough work, and the child is 4 yrs old , regardless when the home was purchased, but with any relationship there is debt as well, so ....share the house share the debt....the house only being 1 yr old means no equity so prob not really worth the fight . She may in the end just get half the debt if theres no profit on the house.

[Mess]

Originally Posted by blinkandimgone

Probably because if the situation was exactly the same and they had a piece of paper saying they were married then she would be entitled to 50%.

The Supreme Court of Canada thought long and hard about this, and decided that when a couple decide to marry they have made a concious decision to live with the legal consequences, and people who decide not marry also make a decision. The Court refused to take away people's choices, which would be the effect of making common law and marriage the same.

Marriage is a legal and financial partnership. Common law means you are room-mates who have sex. The courts don't really care if you love each other or not. You can make your choice accordingly.

[dinkyface]

Originally Posted by Tim Cash

well in her case I would think she is entitled to something , being a stay at home parent is tough work, and the child is 4 yrs old , regardless when the home was purchased, but with any relationship there is debt as well, so ....share the house share the debt....the house only being 1 yr old means no equity so prob not really worth the fight . She may in the end just get half the debt if theres no profit on the house.

The CHILD has a right to CS.

And the poster MAY have a claim for SS, particularly if they put career on hold for 4 years.

But splitting assets/debts and marital home is only applicable to married couples.