Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 02:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 70
Kinso is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I don't think that's how constructive trusts work (although I guess it's open to argument). I'd want to see some caselaw where the court applied that type of approach to RRSPs as Janus proposed.

I still think it's worth a second opinion for a few hundred dollars, before signing over almost 30K of value.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 02:53 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,143
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

haha, i hope my ex-wife find somebody like this sap.... nothing like having another guy pay for my kids - survival of the fittest....
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 03:02 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16
HalifaxGuy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinso View Post
I don't think that's how constructive trusts work (although I guess it's open to argument). I'd want to see some case law where the court applied that type of approach to RRSPs as Janus proposed.

I'd love to see some case law in this regard too.

I'd have to check, but it is possible that my friend shared his bank account with her. If the RRSPs were funded through a jointly owned bank account, she has a valid argument to get her share without the need for a constructive trust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
haha, i hope my ex-wife find somebody like this sap.... nothing like having another guy pay for my kids - survival of the fittest....
If your ex-wife does find someone to pay for your kids, you'll still pay for them too. Your ex-wife could marry a billionaire and have mulitple millionaire boyfriends on the side, and you'll still pay CS based on your ability to pay.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 10:11 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,231
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalifaxGuy View Post
It’s not a stretch to say that her career suffered because of her child, which gave him the opportunity to advance his career.
Her career suffered because of a child he had nothing to do with creating, and would have suffered just the same, if not more, had they never met.

He has nothing to do with her career damage. He should not be required to compensate her for it.

If anything, he probably made life much better for her during the time they were together than she would have had on her own. But nobody expects her to compensate him.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 10:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 76
magic3 is on a distinguished road
Default

I have to say that 95k my seem like a lot, if you live in Nowhere, Ontario. However if you live in Toronto, that's not enough at all. The average price of a detached house in Toronto (416) is now over a Million dollars. Semi detached houses aren't far behind. If you work downtown, your affordable housing choices are non-existent, and the commute from the 905 is crazy. 95k is laughable, especially if you have kids.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2016, 10:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 76
magic3 is on a distinguished road
Default

Oh, and I work full-time and take all the sick days for my kids, and unpaid days when we've had childcare issues. I take every PA day off for the kids. STBX - nothing, never. I took 13 unpaid days in 2015, as well as about 10 sick days, at least half of which were for the kids. So, someone has to make the sacrifice and it does affect work.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-30-2016, 09:23 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16
HalifaxGuy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Her career suffered because of a child he had nothing to do with creating, and would have suffered just the same, if not more, had they never met.

He has nothing to do with her career damage. He should not be required to compensate her for it.

If anything, he probably made life much better for her during the time they were together than she would have had on her own. But nobody expects her to compensate him.
Common sense says you're correct; however, the fact that he acted in place of a parent (locus parentis) likely throws a horseshoe into your assessment. I'm not saying I disagree with you in principle, but the courts would likely treat my friend as if he were the biological father.

In regard to making her life better, wouldn't that be grounds to pay SS? Specifically, SS in order to continue with the life (or as close as feasible) that she's accustomed to? Again, I'm not saying I support this, but I'm trying to gauge how the family court would assess it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you marry to avoid common law marriage? involveddad75 Divorce & Family Law 6 12-30-2013 10:46 AM
Common Law and Child Support (His child previous marriage) Truetome Common Law Issues 4 08-31-2011 03:58 PM
Unfaithful spouse in common law marriage? amdfanatic Common Law Issues 9 06-28-2011 04:59 PM
common law break up with kids of previous marriage lookingforadvise Common Law Issues 11 06-26-2006 11:26 AM
Couple of quick questions... Les Financial Issues 8 02-06-2006 01:50 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 AM.