Looking for some friendly advice

[In the dark]

I just need a bit of info. I have been in a common-law relationship for 29 years, had two children early in the relationship, they are now 22 and 23, our relationship is now about to end as my partner has been unfaithful, he has a pension through his employment, and I have also worked full-time for most of the 29 years except for the two years after having our children and will have no pension through work, we both have RRSP's and the home is in both of our names, his earnings are twice what I make. I am not out to take him for everything I can but just want to know what is fair and what I should be entitled to since the demise of our relationship is his doing. I would like to end this as easily as possible and feel that if I am informed that may be very helpful. If anyone can help with the basic info or let me know what to prepare for I would be very grateful, I am getting some real horror stories from some people and would like to hear from the pros or anyone who has already been through this sad situation.
Thanks to anyone who can help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wondering50]

While I am no pro I think I can offer the following general comments:

1- Your children at ages 22 and 23 are beyond the age of usual child support unless there is some exceptional circumstance
2 - In a Common Law scenario, property belongs to the person to whom it is registered, unless you have some agreement to the contrary. Thus the house is a joint asset. His pension plan and RRSP's are his alone and your RRSP is yours alone. Any other property belongs to whomever can show ownership.
3 - Probably most difficult for you will be the fact that while the demise of the relationship may be his doing, and is no doubt emotionally devasting, it will be irrelevant to these discussions.

Good luck

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

The hurdle that you need to get past is that you were not married. And as such you do not enjoy the automatic laws that govern the union upon it's dissolution. IE all property/assets become joint and equally when you marry, however, in CL that simply is not true, and actual ownership is necessary to gain any assets save for the house where by you could argue unjust enrichment, but your name is on the home so that is not your issue.

I'm wondering if perhaps you could use the shear length of the relationship to shift the unjust enrichment claim against other large ticket items, like cars etc. If you managed the household money you may be able to show that had you not managed it as well as you did, then you most certainly would not have been able to afford that luxury?

Things like that, or if your physical time put into something allowed him the ability to purchase something, just something to consider when speaking with your lawyer. And remember, just because there has been no precedence set, does not automatically mean you cannot accomplish something, there is always a first time for everything.

If the children are attending post secondary educations then CS would be relevant as well.
The length of the union would warrant Spousal Support as well.

Just my 2 cents

[phoenix]

all property/assets become joint and equally when you marry

Not to hijack a thread... but I'm wondering, is that the case if there is a prenup?

[wondering50]

Here is a relevant statement from the supreme court:



The Supreme Court of Canada on December 19, 2002 in an 8-1 majority decision handed down their decision in Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh [2002] S.C.J. The decision denies common-law couples the right to share property upon the breakup of the relationship which property sharing is enjoyed by married couples. The following quote from the case gives a concise sample of the Court's thinking on this most controversial subject.

The decision to marry, which requires the consent of each spouse, encapsulates within it the spouses' consent to be bound by the MPA (Provincial Legislation similar to that in Ontario) proprietary regime. Unmarried cohabitants, on the other hand, maintain their respective proprietary rights and interests throughout the duration of their relationship and at its end. If they so choose, however, they are able to access all of the benefits applicable to married couples under the MPA (Provincial Legislation similar to that in Ontario). They are free to marry, enter into domestic contracts, own property jointly or register as domestic partners (such registration not available in Ontario). There is thus no discriminatory denial of a benefit in this case because those who do not marry are free to take steps to deal with their personal property in such a way as to create an equal partnership between them.

The decision to live together is insufficiently indicative of an intention to contribute to and share in each other's assets and liabilities. While many unmarried cohabitants have agreed as between themselves to live as economic partners for the duration of their relationship, it does not necessarily follow that these same persons would agree to restrict their ability to deal with their own property during the relationship or to share in all of the other's assets and liabilities following the end of the relationship. People who marry can be said to freely accept mutual rights and obligations. A decision not to marry should be respected because it also stems from a conscious choice of the parties.

Even if the freedom to marry is sometimes illusory, it does not warrant setting aside an individual's freedom of choice and imposing on that individual a regime that was designed for persons who have made an unequivocal commitment encompassing the equal partnership described in the MPA (Provincial Legislation similar to that in Ontario). While inequities may exist in certain unmarried cohabiting relationships which may result in unfairness on relationship breakdown, there is no constitutional requirement that the state extend the protections of the MPA (Provincial Legislation similar to that in Ontario) to those persons. Alternative choices and remedies are available to persons unwilling or unable to marry.

[wondering50]

IE all property/assets become joint and equally when you marry,

I believe you mean that all property/assets that you acquire after the date of marriage become joint and equally.
Assets accumulated before marriage which were the sole property of one person remain that person's property upon dissolution of the union.

[logicalvelocity]

In the dark,

If your common law relationship is ending, and with respect to the disparity in incomes, and the length of the relationship, I do suspect you are entitled to spousal support(assuming your in Ontario).

The second thing that comes to mind is that when it comes to individuals pension plans they are governed not by family law but rather than respective plans directives.

Many pension plans have directives that deal with common law relationships and further provide for divion of contributions. Don't assume anything. Check with the pension plan administrator or search online for the particulars.

For instance, most government pension plans allow for division of contributions for the time of the relationship even in common law relationships.

lv

lv