Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I still love him...........

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I still love him...........

    I've been browsing Jeff's web page and this forum and it's all been good reading...
    But here is my situation in Ontario:

    I left my ex husband for this man that I have been living with since 1991.

    We've been engaged since 1992 and just never got married. He took us on. (two daughters like his own, one was 7 and the other was 3 at the time,) they are now 21 and 18) We've lived together in apartments and finally bought a house 8 years ago. (It's in his name as I had to go bankrupt with the first Ex)

    Now he says he isn't happy and wants me to leave. Just like that!

    He told me I can take the furniture.(which is all mine btw., he had nothing when we moved in..nothing except his tools and the clothes on his back)
    We've never had a joint bank account, He's paid the mortage and bills. I've paid the insurances (house,cars atv) and all groceries and clothes and lots of renovations to the house. I've incresed the property value but thousands just in gardenning alone, not to mention kitchen flooring ect ect...
    Now..we still owe about 70,000 on HIS house, and he informs me that he will give me just half of the equity in the home..which would be about 15,000 if I am lucky...
    15,000 for a lifetime of memories and hard work.. and to boot I still love this man desperately.

    What are my rights??? What am I really intittled to???? Help me..please..this is heartbreaking to me....

    Thanks

  • #2
    Just~Me,

    welcome to the forum,

    What are my rights??? What am I really intittled to???? Help me..please..this is heartbreaking to me....
    On the face of it, you may be entitled to some spousal support depending on the facts. Technically if the house is in his name it belongs to him. However, I suspect you could bring forth an unjust enrichment claim.

    For a successful unjust enrichment claim, the leading SCC case refers to three prime elements are satisfied

    as per McLachlin J in Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980

    http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...3rcs1-980.html

    "The basic notions are simple enough. An action for unjust enrichment arises when three elements are satisfied: (1) an enrichment; (2) a corresponding deprivation; and (3) the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment. These proven, the action is established and the right to claim relief made out. At this point, a second doctrinal concern arises: the nature of the remedy. "Unjust enrichment" in equity permitted a number of remedies, depending on the circumstances. At this point, a second doctrinal concern arises: the nature of the remedy. "Unjust enrichment" in equity permitted a number of remedies, depending on the circumstances. One was a payment for services rendered on the basis of quantum meruit or quantum valebat. Another equitable remedy, available traditionally where one person was possessed of legal title to property in which another had an interest, was the constructive trust. While the first remedy to be considered was a monetary award, the Canadian jurisprudence recognized that in some cases it might be insufficient. This may occur, to quote La Forest J. in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574, at p. 678, "if there is reason to grant to the plaintiff the additional rights that flow from recognition of a right of property". Or to quote Dickson J., as he then was, in Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, at p. 852, where there is a "contribution [to the property] sufficiently substantial and direct as to entitle [the plaintiff] to a portion of the profits realized upon sale of [the property]." In other words, the remedy of constructive trust arises, where monetary damages are inadequate and where there is a link between the contribution that founds the action and the property in which the constructive trust is claimed."

    CPP Pension credits that each party contributed to their respective CPP plan during the time of cohabitation would also be up for division.

    If either party made contribution to other government pensions, amounts, along with employer contributions would also be up for division.

    if you children are enrolled in a fulltime post secondary education program, you might be able to bring forth a claim of child support on behalf of them if the individual acted as a parent to your children. I suspect you could also bring forth a claim of applicable section 7 extraordinary expenses such as tuition on behalf of your children.

    It appears on the face of it that you have a considerable history together and as such have you attempted any type of marital counseling to assist and get beyond this difficult time in your relationship?

    lv
    Last edited by logicalvelocity; 10-31-2006, 11:01 PM.

    Comment

    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