Help filling out form 8 and 13.1

[Mess]

A "JV" is a Joint Venture. It is a similar to a business partnership, but it purely economic, where in a partnership there is a shared legal liability and other connections.

A joint venture should ordinarily be made with a written contract. In civil law there is really no reason I can think of where a joint venture would be found with no contract; possibly someone providing unpaid work on the promise of shares, although this would be more of a constructive trust.

As noted above, a joint venture in a common law relationship is plausible, but onus is on the claimant to prove this.

In Ontario, liens on real estate are normally limited to construction contractors - in the way that you are implying; a mortgage is a type of lien, so there are lots of liens lieing around.

The OP cannot get a lien the way a contractor could. Further, there has to be a proven liability, it is not enough to just make a claim. If the OP gets a court decision that shows money is owed, then he get a restriction on the sale of the property as part of the final order; this is similar to a lien.

(This is from my business classes, and not a legal opinion.)

 

[arabian]

Thanks Rioe. You've explained this very well. It sounds like a very expensive matter to pursue. I haven't read too many cases about this on CanLII.

Yes lawyers do get paid first. Something a person would definitely have to weigh before proceeding. At 300.00 + an hour I could see why few people pursue this.

 

[arabian]

Thanks Mess. In this case the OP would have to have a court decision before he could restrict the sale of the property which could take years. One adjournment in Alberta usually means a minimum of 3 months and so on.

 

[Pursuinghappiness]

The real issue for this OP is that he's been either been told (or more likely, heard what he wanted to hear) from several lawyers that he's gone to that he can continue to reside in the home and that she has no legal basis to evict him. She's also sought legal representation and served him with a reasonable notice to vacate.

He hasn't detailed what he's doing about that but it sounds like the vacate notice is largely being ignored and he's making no plans to find other living accommodations. I think he's trying to suggest that he has a myriad of "illnesses" which both are preventing him from working and that should prevent her from evicting him. Its sounds like this OP is planning to try to block the eviction with an ex-parte motion due to his illnesses and I don't see that happening. If I were him, I'd be looking for a place to live. I don't even see how he has grounds for an emergency motion. Although he was going on about her yelling at him and telling him to get a job and how this was causing him to have anxiety attacks that he was gathering doctor's notes for. I'm assuming these crackpot, HC lawyers are trying to suggest a verbal abuse case for grounds for exclusive possession? lol, I just don't see that happening.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that currently, barring any court order, its her house. Even if he's successful in his claim, he's only entitled to money. He still doesn't have a right to reside there. They are not married nor did she act as a married person in the relationship from a financial point of view. She kept the assets in her name and it sounds like she's the only one working and paying for them.

Adding to the problem that a) they weren't married...a) he doesn't work and isn't contributing anything...there's the issue of his attitude. He's got that victimized, whiny, entitled mentality and when challenged he gets aggressive and lashes out. That is not going to go well in court.

Frankly, I'm not sure why he's even asking for help to fill out forms. He claimed that he has a lot of legal representation to manage the details. If he's planning to do a lot of the legwork himself or self rep...lol, there's not a snowball's chance in hell...if there was one to start with.

Of course, I'm female...sooo...

By the way: I'm expecting there will soon be a post about her successfully evicting him and how his stuff got damaged or is missing or she won't give back what he thinks is his and how to recoup losses for that.

 

[arabian]

From what I have read I would agree that he would be best to get his own place.

I was reading case law on common law this morning (new to me) and it is pretty clear that any payments made towards mortgage are referred to as "rent."

He would have to present a pretty compelling argument (with evidence) that he contributed equally to the property. It would take a very long time (possibly years) in court and the best-case scenario, like PH says, he would only see some money. Lawyers and filing fees would probably eat that up quickly.

 

[Pursuinghappiness]

I am wondering about the emergency motion.

Assuming that the OP's doctor's notes provide evidence to show high anxiety/panic attacks (big assumptions), is it even possible to file an emergency motion for exclusive possession in a common-law situation where you are not the owner of the property?

Since these people don't even share any biological children together, my assumption would be that a judge in this condition would simply tell the OP to move out if he's under high stress. I can't imagine him having any grounds to stay in the home at all...quite the opposite. Again, he may be able to prove unjust enrichment/constructive trust...but that just entitles you to a financial settlement at some point off in the far future when he proves his case.

I also don't think the OP understands that he bears the entire burden of proof in this situation. He keeps saying his ex won't honor his "rights" but the fact is...he currently doesn't have any rights until he proves his entitlement to the assets...which are right now, hers. I have a feeling he's grasping at the vague potential scenarios these multiple lawyers are throwing out there without realizing what the burden of proof constitutes in terms of the evidence he's going to have to provide. To even have a chance, he needs solid evidence (meaning extremely good paper records)....he also needs to allow for a lot of time because this will be a long, slow case...and he needs to have a substantial amount of money. The only way a lawyer will prioritize this is if they know he's got money to pay them up front because he doesn't have the assets and has a weak case.

I don't think the OP understands that marching in a bunch of 2nd and 3rd party witnesses to do affidavits saying stuff like "they acted married" is going to get him a very expensive journey to nowhere.

I have a feeling that one of two things are happening here. Either he consulted with a pack of very bad lawyers...or he misinterpreted what they told him and only heard the Pollyanna version. Its probably the latter which is why he went to 4 of them.

Anyway, I feel sorry for his ex. She's going to spend a lot of unnecessary time in litigation having to defend her right to her own assets. She probably pulled the trigger on dissolving this relationship far too late. He's also going to hit her up for every cent he can in SS and CS because he doesn't sound like he's the type to take ownership of earning a living and supporting himself and his kid.

I wish her the best, I hope she finds this forum.

 

[arabian]

Tayken just made remarks on another thread which is perhaps quite relevant here:

"Often HCPs who exit an intimate relationship believe that the other person may still be in love with them or that the other person may want to cause them harm. These are delusions.

The HCP often believes that the other person whom they are creating conflict with may be the only person who can satisfy their desires and sees the other person as an ideal partner or ideal enemy - even if they don't admit to this openly. (They either idealize the other person or demonize them. Black to white... They don't see grey.)

The HCP may interpret any kind of response from the other person, even negative responses, as encouragement and may believe the other person owes them something because of all they have invested in their past relationship with them.

This type of HCP is very resistant to changing their beliefs about the other person they are in conflict with. They are often motivated by an inability to self regulate their emotional state and anxiety."

 

[OrleansLawyer]

property division on a 13 year common law relationship

Hire a lawyer. It may cost you a fair sum of money to have the Application drafted properly, however trust claims are complex. It is cheaper to pay a lawyer now than to receive nothing from the property.

The house is on her name

Uh oh.

I have contributed in the mortgage and am entitled to half of the property

Is your name on title? If not, you are entitled to nothing.

If you have paid towards the mortgage, you may have a trust claim. How much would a comparable amount of rent have been?

How about selling the house? can she without telling me if she is planning it?

She owns the house. You weren't married. She can do whatever she likes with the property, including selling it or kicking you out.

I have contributed in the mortgage, and everything else plus there is unjust enrichment and express trust strong case entitlement

You have no interest in the property until it is established at court or by agreement.

I basically should serve her with the application as soon as possible to make my claim.

That would seem prudent.

I understand you are making a trust claim. It does not, however, change the fact that the house is her asset, and she may do with it as she wishes.

Agreed.

Yes lawyers do get paid first. Something a person would definitely have to weigh before proceeding. At 300.00 + an hour I could see why few people pursue this.

Trust claims have a tendency of either being settled for a fraction of their (potential) value, or else going to trial. They are one of the more expensive claims to deal with.

 

[Pursuinghappiness]

Orleans:

Can a common-law partner file an ex-parte motion for exclusive possession on a house when their name isn't on the title on the grounds of emotional/mental abuse?

 

[OrleansLawyer]

Can a common-law partner file an ex-parte motion for exclusive possession on a house when their name isn't on the title on the grounds of emotional/mental abuse?

Sure, you can file for anything. I would be surprised if it succeeded though.

Exclusive possession is of a matrimonial home. They weren't married, therefore there is no matrimonial home. I don't see a legal remedy available to assist the OP.

 

[mcdreamy]

OL, I don't really want to assist this OP because, after all, I'm a female - but I thought his best shot might be a stab at a preservation order, under S40. No?

At least it would prevent her from selling the house, pending finalization/settlement of equalization (if, of course, he can prove he is even entitled to).