{"id":28475,"date":"2020-09-26T12:40:05","date_gmt":"2020-09-26T16:40:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/philip.greenspun.com\/blog\/?p=28475"},"modified":"2020-09-13T23:19:46","modified_gmt":"2020-09-14T03:19:46","slug":"frontiers-of-canadian-divorce-litigation-alimony-without-a-marriage-children-or-shared-residence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/philip.greenspun.com\/blog\/2020\/09\/26\/frontiers-of-canadian-divorce-litigation-alimony-without-a-marriage-children-or-shared-residence\/","title":{"rendered":"Frontiers of Canadian divorce litigation: alimony without a marriage, children, or shared residence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court rules”<\/a> (National Post<\/em>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited \u2014 lived together in a conjugal relationship \u2014 continuously for at least three years. But that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.<\/p>

\u201cLack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,\u201d the Appeal Court said. \u201cThere are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.\u201d<\/p>

The decision comes in the case of Lisa Climans and Michael Latner, both of Toronto, who began a romantic relationship after meeting in October 2001. At the time, she was 38 and separated with two children, court records show. He was 46 and divorced with three children.<\/p>

Although they maintained their separate homes, Latner and Climans behaved as a couple both privately and publicly. They vacationed together. He gave her a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry that she wore. She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house. They travelled together and talked about living together.<\/p>

Latner proposed several times and Climans accepted. He often referred to her by his last name. However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused.<\/p>

Throughout their relationship, the two kept separate bank accounts and never owned property in common. Nevertheless, Latner gave Climans thousands of dollars every month, a credit card, paid off her mortgage and showered her with expensive gifts. He provided her and her children with a \u201clavish lifestyle,\u201d the court found.<\/p>

When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Climans asked the courts to recognize her as Latner\u2019s spouse and order him to pay her support. He argued she had been a travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more. As such, he said, they were never legally spouses and he owed no support. An eight-day trial ensued.<\/p>

In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner\u2019s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.<\/p>

The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn\u2019t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn\u2019t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.<\/p>

Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, the gal who refused to sign the prenuptial agreement will end up with CAD$6,369,240 (about $5 million U.S.). Canadians who identify as “women” and who work full-time full-year earn about CAD$52,500 per year (statcan<\/a>). Thus, for her work as a travel companion, jewelry recipient, and (presumably) sex partner, Lisa Climans will receive, in addition to gifts already banked, 121 years of salary at the average wage paid to a Canadian identifying as a “woman” who endures the drudgery of 40 hours per week in the labor force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Distillery District of Toronto… Love (possibly convertible into cash).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

What was the old\/conventional understanding of the law? From a group of divorce, custody, and child support litigators in Ontario<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Ontario, Canada, two people are considered common law partners if they have been continuously living together in a conjugal relationship for at least three years<\/strong>. If they have a child together by birth or adoption, then they only need to have been living together for one year.<\/p>

In Canada, a “conjugal relationship” is more than just a sexual relationship. A “conjugal relationship” in Canada is one in which two people share a home, finances, friend groups, and an emotional connection on top of having a sexual relationship.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Related:<\/p>\n\n\n\n