Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You don't need to cohabit to be common law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kinso
    replied
    What will it take for change?
    People always have the right to enter into cohabitation/marriage contracts to limit the role of the state in their lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mom2414
    replied
    There’s an entire sub-culture happening of common-law or married partners that choose to live apart. Just because you haven’t educated yourselves on different living arrangements doesn’t make it less of a reality for some blended families who prioritize their under age children’s needs and wants until they launch. What’s wrong with our society is not the open-mindedness of changing times of the judge but of those of you who can’t accept different relationship dynamics out there. Society is changing and relationships are changing and just bc it doesn’t fulfill your narrow mindedness of what a common-law relationship is, thankfully doesn’t mean anything in a court of law.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Newfie76
    replied
    New Precedent Set

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/national...3205f50a6/amp/

    Why won’t society just wake up to this madness? So here we have a self entitled judge (one of many) who took it upon themselves to decide that a couple no longer need to live together to be considered common-law. Thousands of cases previous to this one had solidified the basis of common-law relationships on approx 3 years (36 months) of living at the same address under the same roof. But the almighty unelected, “unbiased” and under no form of repercussion judge just up and decided on loosely presented unrelated facts to set the new basis for all future cases needing a definition on common law.

    This legal system is broken. Lawyers and judges will make a lot of money on this decision. I feel for every hard working father out there unable to support his children due to the slavery and ownership conditions this legal system imposed onto them. Deadbeat mothers, underemployed mothers and now non live in girlfriends will surely enjoy their new found male slaves the government has assigned to them.

    What will it take for change? A full overhaul without interference from feminists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janus
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff View Post
    I think this decision extends the law regarding what cohabitation is much further than expected.
    Unusual cases make for bad case law.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkHouses
    replied
    Well the woman did quit her job and the guy did support her, take her on vacations, they were a couple etc.
    One would have to be rich to be able to take on that type of relationship.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff
    started a topic You don't need to cohabit to be common law

    You don't need to cohabit to be common law

    Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court rules

    In Ontario, being common-law spouses doesn't necessarily mean having lived in the same home, the court found
    From:

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-e5e3205f50a6/

    The sums of money involved are astonishing...

    Here's a link to the case on CANLII

    https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...20onca554.html

    I think this decision extends the law regarding what cohabitation is much further than expected.
Our Divorce Forums
Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
Working...
X