View Single Post
Old 12-11-2017, 04:47 PM
HalifaxGuy HalifaxGuy is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 17
HalifaxGuy is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by cigar7 View Post
My understanding is that common law spouses do not divide the equity built up during the relationship. Only in a legal marriage is the equity built up during the marriage divided equally. This is the most significant difference between common law and a legal marriage.
With marriage, marital assets get divided amongst the divorcees. What defines a marital asset depends on the family law in your province. Some provinces only consider assets acquired during the marriage as marital assets (Ontario). Other provinces include what was brought into the marriage PLUS what was acquired during the marriage as marital assets (Nova Scotia). Notwithstanding the above, some assets can be considered special and deemed a marital asset whether they were brought into the marriage or acquired during the marriage. An example would be the matrimonial home (most provinces). Other assets, such as a federal pension, have to follow federal pension rules, regardless of the province.

There are no marital assets in a common law relationship. Further, the Divorce Act doesnt apply, as there was no marriage. Most provinces have no division of property in common law relationships (BC is an exception). Last I checked, QC doesnt even recognize common law relationships. Under common law relationships the laws pertaining to property ownership apply the owner of the property owns it. If all your property is in your name only, then you own it 100%, and there is no division. If you have assets that are jointly owned, then the property is divided. It doesnt matter when it was acquired.

Being common law has nothing to do with the division of property, as assets would be divided up for any two or more people that jointly own an asset. That could be your friend, family member, co-worker, etc. What applies is that each person was a registered owner (i.e. names on a property deed or vehicle). The same would apply to debts (i.e. names on credit cards and loans).

With all this said, there can be exceptions. If the house is in your name only, but your partner contributed to it, then there could be an argument for unjust enrichment. A prime example of this is if the partner stayed home to raise the kids. Other examples could be that the partner helped pay for an asset that is solely in your name, or directly paid for other things that enabled you to be able to afford the asset in question.

Originally Posted by trinton View Post
not necessarily. not every women out there is after the mullah. and not every man out there is seeking a nurse maid. These are simply skewed perceptions of people following a divorce. I've caught myself guilty of this aswell. There are many great down to earth pleasant people out there. Not everyone is evil.

There is no universal law. Regardless we live in multicultural country. It all boils down to personal opinions and biases.
Not everyone is like that.can be said about everything. There are always exceptions to anything that can be said. This is particularly true of social sciences. However, an exception to a statement doesnt invalidate the statement.

I agree not everyone is evil. Further, a woman who wants a financially stable man is not automatically evil. Its perfectly fine and normal (in my opinion) for a woman to want a resourceful man to provide for her and their children. That doesnt make her a gold digger, nor only after the mullah.

You say there is no universal law; however, I suggest you read about hypergamy.
Reply With Quote