Couple has no home, kids together but still considered spouses, Ontario’s top court rules

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Absolutely ridiculous.  

 

Quote

TORONTO — A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7327501/couple-no-home-no-kids-spouses-ontario-court/

[laylalex 7,300]

*takes notes*

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

*takes notes*

 

 

Now how did I know that you'd be the first one to appreciate this story?  

[laylalex 7,300]

30 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Now how did I know that you'd be the first one to appreciate this story?  

No, I am having a ring put on it, no common law marriage in CA (I know, Alex checked).

 

Last support payment from Voldy arrives in less than a month, the true end of an era and I shall no longer be the Alimony Queen.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Good for Voldy.  Freedom at last.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

13 hours ago, laylalex said:

*takes notes*

 

 

but no netflix

[Boiler 46,105]

Talking of Netflix anybody seen this, https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/09/08/tread-netflix-killdozer-granby/244748/

 

Happened about the time I moved over and I cycled through Granby shortly afterwards and wondered what had happened.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

Talking of Netflix anybody seen this, https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/09/08/tread-netflix-killdozer-granby/244748/

 

Happened about the time I moved over and I cycled through Granby shortly afterwards and wondered what had happened.

 

   That guy got about 300 feet from a cabin I had at the time. I was getting kind of nervous. 

 

   He probably would have demolished the whole town if he didn't get stuck. Nothing they had was stopping that contraption.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Absolutely ridiculous.  

 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7327501/couple-no-home-no-kids-spouses-ontario-court/

 

     They highlight the no kids part, but the issue here is probably that he let her quit her job and supported her for 10 years. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

22 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     They highlight the no kids part, but the issue here is probably that he let her quit her job and supported her for 10 years. 

 

Which was HER choice.  Why does he have to continue to pay her, after supporting her and her kids for years?  Why is he being punished for being generous?

[Boiler 46,105]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     They highlight the no kids part, but the issue here is probably that he let her quit her job and supported her for 10 years. 

 

that was back in the days of the Patriarchy, we are much more Progressive now, I assume 4th Wave Feminists will be up in arms about this ruling.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

that was back in the days of the Patriarchy, we are much more Progressive now, I assume 4th Wave Feminists will be up in arms about this ruling.

 

     By nature, common law is resistant to change. One thing they are moving to nowadays are dating prenup agreements (aka pre-prenups). Probably something to consider if you are wealthy enough that it could be an issue. Most people are not going to be in that specific situation. 

[Ban Hammer 13,546]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Which was HER choice.  Why does he have to continue to pay her, after supporting her and her kids for years?  Why is he being punished for being generous?

i always thought the movie 'love stinks" was supposed to be a comedy, not a documentary.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

46 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     By nature, common law is resistant to change. One thing they are moving to nowadays are dating prenup agreements (aka pre-prenups). Probably something to consider if you are wealthy enough that it could be an issue. Most people are not going to be in that specific situation. 

Normally I'd disagree that this is/needs to be a trend, but after being inundated with zoomer heuristics, I totally believe that a notarized prenup should be a mandatory part of marriage licenses.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Which was HER choice.  Why does he have to continue to pay her, after supporting her and her kids for years?  Why is he being punished for being generous?

 

   It was his choice to support her. It is unlikely she could have or would have been able to quit her job without his agreeing to provide support. It's the same reason courts award alimony when one person gives up a career to remain at home. All this really boils down to is that the court basically decided their relationship met the minimum definition to pass as a common law marriage. They are not the first couple to inadvertently end up in such a situation nor will they be the last. As I said, I would recommend people avoid getting in that situation without a legal agreement in place. Don't let the courts decide for you.