Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Impact on SS of ex's new common law relationship

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

  • #16
    I will do a brief CanLii search and post some cases which may or may not be of interest to you:

    https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...AAAAQAfc3BvdXN


    This one is from Ontario - skip down to the part where the judge addresses repartnering:

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...c3BvdXNhbCBzdX


    So as you read through these cases you can see how "repartnering" is viewed by courts.


    Interesting one from Manitoba:
    http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc...=AAAAAQAec3Bvd

    Another one from Ontario - skip down to the part about repartnering:

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...AAAAQAgc3BvdXN
    Last edited by arabian; 02-07-2014, 12:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      The problem is that your issue is largely arbitrary and I am encouraging you to change your strategy.
      You can make the law work for you by forcing a judge to publicly say things that most people would not have the courage to say in public. You may find a judge who sides with you and wants to see more clients challenge the law and to set new precedents.
      Last edited by AnarX; 02-07-2014, 12:47 PM. Reason: added the word "not"

      Comment


      • #18
        Judges generally try to make rulings which won't be tossed out on Appeal.

        I think this is a matter that the OP must consider carefully. If he wants "full financial disclosure" then he had better be prepared to provide it as well. His ex could be re-partnered but still may show a 'need' to receive SS. I would look carefully at 'needs' of recipient as the aspect of recipient needs was clearly reviewed in the cases I cited above.

        Assuming the recipient is relatively young I would instead focus argument on "self-sufficiency" and reconsider focus on re-partnering as it may prove to be futile.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nogoingback View Post
          However, my question remains, how long into repartnering/cohabitation before it could be used to reduce spousal, assuming spousal support is not indefinite? And how do I prove cohabitation in case it is disputed?
          If spousal support was awarded on a compensatory basis, then cohabitation is irrelevant. Compensatory spousal support is mean to compensate the recipient for the sacrifice of his or her earning potential during the marriage. It has no implications for the recipient's future romantic life or domestic arrangements.

          If I were you, I'd leave the whole cohabitation thing alone, because tracking your ex's sex life is like opening an icky can of worms and won't get you too far. She's entitled to cohabit with her boyfriend while receiving SS unless there's something in your agreement which prohibits this.

          It sounds like you have a a good case for having spousal support reviewed if she is capable of supporting herself and has made no efforts to seek employment. Arabian has a good idea about graduated or "step-down" SS, providing an incentive for her to seek work.

          Comment


          • #20
            Excellent points Stripes.

            I wouldn't be very happy with my lawyer for not putting in the step-down process in place in the original agreement. These are likely young people and it would stand to reason that the original agreement was not intended to be indefinite. Now the bloke has to basically renegotiate the thing all over again because instituting a new calculation process would require a major amendment of the original order.

            I wonder if the step-down process was ever suggested to the OP? If not then I'd get another lawyer who is more up-to-date with current divorce settlement trends.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              Excellent points Stripes.


              I wonder if the step-down process was ever suggested to the OP? If not then I'd get another lawyer who is more up-to-date with current divorce settlement trends.


              nope, but the lawyer did mention repartnering as a "hopeful", potential avenue to reduce SS in the future.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                I will do a brief CanLii search and post some cases which may or may not be of interest to you:

                https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...AAAAQAfc3BvdXN


                This one is from Ontario - skip down to the part where the judge addresses repartnering:

                www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2012/2012oncj102/2012oncj102.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAgc3BvdXNhbCB zdX


                So as you read through these cases you can see how "repartnering" is viewed by courts.


                Interesting one from Manitoba:
                www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2013/2013mbqb162/2013mbqb162.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAec3Bvd

                Another one from Ontario - skip down to the part about repartnering:

                www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc5982/2012onsc5982.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAgc3BvdXN
                Thanks for your help. Unfortunately, none of these links work for me. I believe this is a protective feature of the CANLII site. Could you repost with the url listed on the CANLII site, rather than the url from your browser's address bar?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sorry about that, I will post as I look them up again:

                  Boland v. Boland, 2012 ONCJ 102 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fqd29
                  Wegler v. Wegler, 2012 ONSC 5982 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ftjn6

                  this one is lengthy but it does speak to SS and repartnering:
                  Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/2dnn1

                  Manitoba:
                  Remillard v Remillard, 2013 MBQB 99 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fx5z4

                  Alberta:
                  Sargent v. Sargent, 2009 ABQB 487 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/259ft
                  Wolters v. Wolters, 2013 ABQB 172 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fwx4n
                  Dobbin v Dobbin, 2012 ABQB 711 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fv6qw [this one is just interesting as it considers a separation agreement in relation to the divorce act]

                  B.C.
                  R.S.R. v. S.M.R., 2006 BCSC 1404 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1pgtf
                  Last edited by arabian; 02-08-2014, 09:49 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    here is one from Saskatchewan:
                    Beattie v Beattie, 2013 SKQB 127 (CanLII), <CanLII - 2013 SKQB 127 (CanLII)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      If spousal support was awarded on a compensatory basis, then cohabitation is irrelevant. Compensatory spousal support is mean to compensate the recipient for the sacrifice of his or her earning potential during the marriage. It has no implications for the recipient's future romantic life or domestic arrangements .
                      Romantic life aside, I don't believe this is correct, or at least not this black and white. Though I do not have a full understanding, from what I have read, re-partnering does have implications.

                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      If I were you, I'd leave the whole cohabitation thing alone, because tracking your ex's sex life is like opening an icky can of worms and won't get you too far. She's entitled to cohabit with her boyfriend while receiving SS unless there's something in your agreement which prohibits this .
                      Again, I'm not looking for dirty laundry, or trying to stop her from repartnering. My lawyer at the time said one of my hopes to reduce SS was her repartnering. I can't afford the $350 phone call to the lawyer to confirm this, or to determine the length of cohabitation before this becomes a viable option. So I'm wondering if someone on here has some experience with this.

                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      It sounds like you have a a good case for having spousal support reviewed if she is capable of supporting herself and has made no efforts to seek employment. Arabian has a good idea about graduated or "step-down" SS, providing an incentive for her to seek work.
                      Agreed, I am pursuing this.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I have not yet come across a single case where re-partnering of the SS recipient was grounds to have SS removed. Of course that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, rather you will have to ask your lawyer what case law he would hope to base his argument on. If you have an older lawyer he may be thinking back to how things were done in the 1980s perhaps? There have been significant changes since that time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by arabian View Post
                          here is one from Saskatchewan:
                          Beattie v Beattie, 2013 SKQB 127 (CanLII), <CanLII - 2013 SKQB 127 (CanLII)
                          That was an enjoyable and useful read! The judge's sarcastic tone referencing the petitioner's tweets is hilarious: "twitter affords you an opportunity to serve up a feast". Though very different than my situation, some good references with regard to repartnering.

                          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