Hi Newb with some questions.

[auroradiem]

I never had any intentions of letting her live on/in any of my properties. I am just gobsmacked at the idea that she would even ask. Thank you involveddad I will look into the options that you suggested.
I have my wife doing a lot of the research for this issue. She was uncomfortable with the information that the lawyer gave us, says that he looked at me and then didn't listen to anything I said.
I appreciate the feedback from you guys/ladies on the forum. I do pay attention and try to act on your advice.

[paris]

Nothing to offer at the moment, but I've read through the thread. You were commonlaw for a long time (15 year old son)?

You separated 8 months ago? No. It's a year now?

You now have a wife?

[auroradiem]

I have 4 children in total, my three oldest children 28, 26 and 25 (daughters) are my mine and my wife's. My son is the youngest and he is my ex CL and my son. My wife and I were separated for many years, we reconciled after I left my ex CL. We have always had a positive relationship. It has been just over a year now since the CL relationship ended.

[paris]

Wow. I just gave you positive reputation for that. Don't think I've ever done that.

[auroradiem]

Thank you Paris.

[auroradiem]

I have a few questions, is it possible that the courts will order the house sold to address any unjust enrichment claim? The house being titled in my and my mother's name with us as tenants in common. I am still trying to sort out from the Rules of Court if I wanted to bring banking records, OW payment history and CRA information for the applicant do i need to actually subpoena them or do i just make a request for them in my answer? I am concerned that I would not receive the whole of the information that would be sent to her?

[Mess]

The courts cannot order anything of anyone who is not party to the claim (unless it is a subpoena to testify.) That means that unless the ex is suing your mother, the courts cannot force you mother to do anything.

If your mother owns the property but your ex is suing you for unjust enrichment, on the surface I don't see it going anywhere, but there may be more to this.

[auroradiem]

So I just received a call from her, she wants me to draft a letter to her lawyer offering her 300.00/mth. She says "it doesn't have to be set in stone". She says that she needs it to get her lawyer off her back. I told her I would have to consult my lawyer and get back to her. Apparently this process is making me a little paranoid because to me something smells rotten in the state of Denmark.

[DowntroddenDad]

So I just received a call from her, she wants me to draft a letter to her lawyer offering her 300.00/mth. She says "it doesn't have to be set in stone". She says that she needs it to get her lawyer off her back. I told her I would have to consult my lawyer and get back to her. Apparently this process is making me a little paranoid because to me something smells rotten in the state of Denmark.

Her lawyer isn't on her back. Her lawyer works at her instruction.

If you want to make an offer, make one formally, or you are just wasting time. You would want all the standard paragraphs. No smart person offers $300 a month without conditions like review if there are material changes in cricumstances (yours or hers), without a time limit(unless the rule of 65 applies, which it sounds like it doesn't), without all the things that protect you both. But if you make a casual offer in an draft letter, and then refuse the conditions in the final version, she will take it to court to make it appear you are unco-operative.

[auroradiem]

The rule of 65 may apply. I am taking the forum's advice and not making any more offers until SS has been proven. She worked up until 2011 full time making pretty much the same amount that I did. This seems to be a game of nerves at this point.
I can't say that I like it much. I think if/when financial documents come to light things aren't going to be as black and white as she had assumed. She asked about mail at the house and I told her that everything is being sent back Return to Sender. She was looking for mail from ODSP.

[DowntroddenDad]

The rule of 65 may apply. I am taking the forum's advice and not making any more offers until SS has been proven. She worked up until 2011 full time making pretty much the same amount that I did. This seems to be a game of nerves at this point.
I can't say that I like it much. I think if/when financial documents come to light things aren't going to be as black and white as she had assumed. She asked about mail at the house and I told her that everything is being sent back Return to Sender. She was looking for mail from ODSP.

Are you sure about the rule of 65? How old is she, and how long were you together?

Clearly she didn't stop working to raise children - any reason why she stopped?

[auroradiem]

She did take time off work when our son was little, for about 3 years. That was of course years ago. He will be 16 next month. She will be 55 next month. The rule of 65 will apply.

[Links17]

I don't think you will get smacked with Long Term support but I believe you will get smacked with non-compensatory spousal support just because she has no income, regardless of everything else....

If I were you and I say this with a lot of doubt, I would accept to pay her 300$/mo for up to two years and settle everything with her. 300$ * 24 - (MAKE A VERY CLEAR END DATE)tax deductible is pocket change compared to legal fees.

I am saying this based on the bracklow case (similar except the wife got sick at the end of the marriage)..

[arabian]

Links17: How do you think the Braklow v Braklow case is relevant? This 1999 case gets cited many times, however, what is the relevance in your opinion?

[Links17]

Braklow case resulted in the establishment of non-compensatory spousal support - in that just the fact a spouse is in need gives rise to spousal support.