Parenting & Family

How is this even possible? Even unmarried *couple* is legally recognized as *couple*?

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 9th, 2020 6:53 am
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 28, 2015
1231 posts
527 upvotes
Nobleton, ON

How is this even possible? Even unmarried *couple* is legally recognized as *couple*?

clearly they lived common-law relationship, and in Ontario ,from what I understand, the other party has no rights whatsoever to his properties, let along the outrageous spousal support.... How is this even possible? Do I not understand Family Law Act correctly?
pay support to common law woman
6 replies
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
2897 posts
1607 upvotes
Ottawa
xuanzh wrote: clearly they lived common-law relationship, and in Ontario ,from what I understand, the other party has no rights whatsoever to his properties, let along the outrageous spousal support.... How is this even possible? Do I not understand Family Law Act correctly?
pay support to common law woman
Well read the article. Headline is worse than details. He was supporting her and she quit her job for the relationship. Certainly seems more deserving than someone who gets married for year and gets half of a paid off house.
Newbie
Oct 31, 2014
91 posts
140 upvotes
Toronto, ON
xuanzh wrote: clearly they lived common-law relationship, and in Ontario ,from what I understand, the other party has no rights whatsoever to his properties, let along the outrageous spousal support.... How is this even possible? Do I not understand Family Law Act correctly?
pay support to common law woman
Yes, you have misunderstood the law on spousal support. Spousal support can arise from a common-law relationship.

The thing that makes this case interesting is that the parties weren't permanently cohabiting, so it's being seen as "OMG the court says they're spouses even though they lived apart". But bear in mind that in this case the partners did spend significant time 'residing together' (e.g. summers, and weekends during the winter). And the Court concluded that the support recipient had quit her job in order to devote her time to the relationship, which is one of the textbook circumstances justifying the principle of spousal support.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
25651 posts
4797 upvotes
fogetmylogin wrote: Well read the article. Headline is worse than details. He was supporting her and she quit her job for the relationship. Certainly seems more deserving than someone who gets married for year and gets half of a paid off house.
Sure, but was she earning $50k per month at her job?
I don't understand this BS of having to maintain the life they had before. In what world is anyone entitled to a life of luxury just because they had it before? That's insane.

The guy paid off her mortgage and provided her with a life she wouldn't have had if not for him. The court should have told her to thank him for all he did for her, then dismissed the case. It's not like she was a Wall St. lawyer that quit to raise his children. So because he provided her with a luxurious life when they were together, that entitles her to more than $6 million from him?

No wonder people consider murder. The family law system is completely broken
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
2897 posts
1607 upvotes
Ottawa
Shaner wrote: Sure, but was she earning $50k per month at her job?
I don't understand this BS of having to maintain the life they had before. In what world is anyone entitled to a life of luxury just because they had it before? That's insane.

The guy paid off her mortgage and provided her with a life she wouldn't have had if not for him. The court should have told her to thank him for all he did for her, then dismissed the case. It's not like she was a Wall St. lawyer that quit to raise his children. So because he provided her with a luxurious life when they were together, that entitles her to more than $6 million from him?

No wonder people consider murder. The family law system is completely broken
Yes I agree the whole basis seems unfair. I just don't think a legal marriage should mean you have to pay an exorbitant sum. To understand how unfair the system is look at cases when a woman has to pay a man such support and there is near universal condemnation. I read a story a few years back in our community where she had custody of the kids but earned all the income so had to give her never having worked ex-husband several thousand dollars a month. My female facebook friends were outraged. In this case at least she specifically quit her job for him. He started supporting her and there was some expectation. I don't think the actual legal marriage should mean automatic payment.

All this shows if you enter a relationship with someone who doesn't work expect to be broke.
Member
Nov 24, 2019
429 posts
514 upvotes
Saskatoon
Shaner wrote: Sure, but was she earning $50k per month at her job?
I don't understand this BS of having to maintain the life they had before. In what world is anyone entitled to a life of luxury just because they had it before? That's insane.

The guy paid off her mortgage and provided her with a life she wouldn't have had if not for him. The court should have told her to thank him for all he did for her, then dismissed the case. It's not like she was a Wall St. lawyer that quit to raise his children. So because he provided her with a luxurious life when they were together, that entitles her to more than $6 million from him?

No wonder people consider murder. The family law system is completely broken
Yup, spousal support as a whole is an absolute joke. Child support when there's kids involved is one thing to make sure they are taken care off, but spousal support has zero reason to exist.

You benefitted from the person when you were together, and got to experience a life you wouldn't have otherwise had. There's your reward, be thankful for it, full stop. There's no reason you should be entitled for that to continue.
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
3062 posts
2875 upvotes
Montreal
Chris Rock, so totally NSFW. Even if working from home.

Top