Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court rules

[Metaphor]

The original court awarded $53,077/month to Lisa Climans indefinitely, but the odious grip of the misogynistic Appeals Court reduced that to merely ten years of $53,077/month payments. And MRAs claim we don't live in a patriarchy, for fuck's sake!

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...r-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules

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.


Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.


“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court said. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”


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.


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.


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.


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 “lavish lifestyle,” the court found.


“Theirs was a committed relationship,” the Appeal Court said.
When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Climans asked the courts to recognize her as Latner’s 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.


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’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.


The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.
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’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.


Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.


Climans and her lawyers declined comment. Lawyers for Latner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The greatest thing about the Internet is the endless supply of anger that can be ordered, no matter how far away a person is from it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

$50k per month is in the right range. She has to get haircuts. And sneakers.

 

[bigfield]

A silly law about that isn't relevant to anyone besides rich guys and their messy breakups.

This is definitely worth getting upset about.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would say that laws like this seems ok, so long as they work the same way in reverse (ie regardless of gender). And I don't think it only a law for rich people. Someone else, male or female, of more modest means might be ordered to pay $1000 a month under the same law (although I agree it may not get to court over such small sums, but it could if one of the parties was willing to take it that far).

Although I would say this, if he did pay for all the things listed, including paying off her mortgage, giving her thousands of dollars per month, a lavish lifestyle etc, it doesn't actually seem equitable, in this particular case. I would at least hope that these were taken into account in the calculations.

 

[Metaphor]

I would say it seems ok, so long as the law works the same way in reverse (ie regardless of gender).

Why is it okay? Why should one partner be forced to provide for another after they are no longer a couple?

 

[ruby sparks]

I would say it seems ok, so long as the law works the same way in reverse (ie regardless of gender).

Why is it okay? Why should one partner be forced to provide for another after they are no longer a couple?

Well, it's the norm, for starters.

I'm not sure why you think it's not ok.

If I get divorced today, and my wife has a huge pension coming, I can ask for a fair share of it, but only if certain conditions are met. If I was only married for 6 months, I probably wouldn't get any. It's complicated, but in principle I think the idea is to prevent one partner waltzing off with everything.

 

[Metaphor]

I would say it seems ok, so long as the law works the same way in reverse (ie regardless of gender).

Why is it okay? Why should one partner be forced to provide for another after they are no longer a couple?

Well, it's the norm, for starters.

That seems like a conservative argument "we've always done it this way, so that's why it should stay this way". That is, it's no argument at all.

In what sense is it proper for the State to force one partner to continue to support another financially, even when they are no longer a couple?

 

[starwater]

The horror! How dare they make a white male do that! It's just outrageous. Something should be done!

 

[Gospel]

I would say that laws like this seems ok, so long as they work the same way in reverse (ie regardless of gender). And I don't think it only a law for rich people. Someone else, male or female, of more modest means might be ordered to pay $1000 a month under the same law (although I agree it may not get to court over such small sums, but it could if one of the parties was willing to take it that far).

Although I would say this, if he did pay for all the things listed, including paying off her mortgage, giving her thousands of dollars per month, a lavish lifestyle etc, it doesn't actually seem equitable, in this particular case. I would at least hope that these were taken into account in the calculations.

I think the problem is that it was taken into account. Basically he's paying to continue doing what he was doing while in the relationship.

Edit: Including getting screwed. I couldn't help it

 

[laughing dog]

Well, it's the norm, for starters.

That seems like a conservative argument "we've always done it this way, so that's why it should stay this way". That is, it's no argument at all.

It's the same argument some people use to maintain there is one and only one proper interpretation of a sentence.

In what sense is it proper for the State to force one partner to continue to support another financially, even when they are no longer a couple?

There is an argument that if one partner relinquished a livelihood during the partnership that support is necessary until that partner can return to pre-partnership standard of living. There is also the argument that the partnership itself allowed the "supporting" partner to become more productive and earn more, so that some of those earnings should go to the other partner upon dissolution.

 

[prideandfall]

Why is it okay? Why should one partner be forced to provide for another after they are no longer a couple?

i'm not saying i personally agree with this logic (i don't) but the why of it is 2 parts:
1. old laws created and established during a period where a woman was literally physically incapable of taking care of herself and her children due to societal gender bias and the inability of women to get or keep jobs capable of providing self sustainability - financial dependence on men was the expected social order, and thus a break up where said financial dependence had been established wasn't just a romantic split but the end of one's livelihood.

2. the expectation that if one drops out of the work force for a sufficient amount of time and has their partner be their sole financial backer, that there is a period of adjustment where one has to re-enter the work force. if it's been a number of years, it can be difficult to find a job that is capable of supporting the lifestyle that one has settled into.

alimony and support laws are not new things, not based on modern social norms - they're based on a reality that no longer exists. it's ironic that the men who most act like their only fervent wish is for females to go back to being breeding stock with no autonomy of their own also rail the hardest against these sorts of laws, which only exist because they were created during a time that women were breeding stock with no autonomy of their own.

 

[Toni]

I find it difficult to feel sorry for the guy or to disagree with the ruling.

It is apparent that they behaved as a married couple. It is also apparent that he was very conscious of laws governing marital assets (he kept presenting her with drafts of a pre-nup, which she refused to sign.). It seems impossible to believe that he was unaware that under Canadian law, they would be considered in a common law marriage. In other words, it seems as though he knew what he was getting into--and wanted even more of a commitment while maintaining all the financial freedoms HE decided he wanted. In other words, he wanted control. She demurred. Good for her.

We don't know why she quit her job or what kind of job she held previously. It could easily be the fact that she left her job at his request or insistence: he wanted her available when he wanted her available and work tends to interfere with that.

We don't know how much care she provided to his three children or to what extent she behaved as his wife and presumably step mother to his children, and mother to her own. We don't know to what extent he acted as a father to her children or his own.

But after nearly 20 years out of the job market at about 58 years of age, it is unlikely that she would be able to find a decent job to support herself.

The bigger question to me is whether anyone should have a monthly income of $50K, even if it is only $50K Canadian. I find it impossible to feel sorry for him or to feel that an injustice was done with regards to the financials just as I find it impossible to feel sorry for Bezos or the financial settlement upon his ex.

Edited to add: My former next door neighbor and her husband (2nd marriages for each) maintained separate residences throughout their marriage. I know of other married couples that do as well. That is no indication that it wasn't a 'real' marriage.

 

[Derec]

The greatest thing about the Internet is the endless supply of anger that can be ordered, no matter how far away a person is from it.

There is good reason for anger here. Basically, this Canadian court made this man a serf to his ex-girlfriend. Not an ex-wife, not even somebody you lived with.
No man in Canada is now safe from being forced to pay his ex-girlfriend's lifestyle.

It's sexist bullshit of the highest order, but feminists (including resident feminists on here like Toni) are defending it because it means a man is forced to pay a woman, and they always love sexist anti-male decisions like this.

 

[Derec]

I find it difficult to feel sorry for the guy or to disagree with the ruling.

What a surprise that a sexist feminist like you would agree with a court forcing a man to support his ex-girlfriend even after they break up.

It is apparent that they behaved as a married couple.

Bullshit. They did not even live together.
And besides, even if they were married, a woman should have to get her own job and support herself after a break-up. A man should not have to support a woman just because he is a man.
However, they WERE NOT EVEN MARRIED. They merely dated.

It is also apparent that he was very conscious of laws governing marital assets (he kept presenting her with drafts of a pre-nup, which she refused to sign.). It seems impossible to believe that he was unaware that under Canadian law, they would be considered in a common law marriage. In other words, it seems as though he knew what he was getting into--and wanted even more of a commitment while maintaining all the financial freedoms HE decided he wanted. In other words, he wanted control. She demurred. Good for her.

It's NOT GOOD FOR HER.
It's his money. He should be able to have control over it. It is obvious that he did not want their finances to be combined and for the court to rule that he has to support her after breakup is ridiculous.

We don't know why she quit her job or what kind of job she held previously. It could easily be the fact that she left her job at his request or insistence: he wanted her available when he wanted her available and work tends to interfere with that.

"It could easily be" is not something a court should base a decision to rob a man of his hard-earned money and hand it to a woman so she can continue not to work even after their relationship ended.

It'a a bullshit decision based on a law that violates every principle of justice or gender equality. But you applaud it because it benefits women and gives them an unearned benefit and a legal privilege over the men they exploit.

We don't know how much care she provided to his three children or to what extent she behaved as his wife and presumably step mother to his children, and mother to her own. We don't know to what extent he acted as a father to her children or his own.

You don't know a lot and yet you still support the decison?
And even if she took care of his kids while they were dating - she enjoyed financial advantages WHILE THEY WERE DATING.
After the break-up she is not doing anything for him. So why should he be forced to continue to support her? It's very one sided - he is forced to support her, but she is not being forced to do anything for him. And that's just how you want it. Feminists want women to get continued advantages over men.

But after nearly 20 years out of the job market at about 58 years of age, it is unlikely that she would be able to find a decent job to support herself.

She can get some job. Instead of living in luxury doing nothing just because she used to date a man that the sexist, corrupt courts decided has to be a serf to a woman just because they used to date.

The bigger question to me is whether anyone should have a monthly income of $50K, even if it is only $50K Canadian. I find it impossible to feel sorry for him or to feel that an injustice was done with regards to the financials just as I find it impossible to feel sorry for Bezos or the financial settlement upon his ex.

Of course a grave injustice was done. Whatever his income is, he is working for it. She is getting $50k/month JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN WITH A VAGINA and a sexist decided that a man should be forced to provide her with a luxurious income for doing nothiing.

Edited to add: My former next door neighbor and her husband (2nd marriages for each) maintained separate residences throughout their marriage. I know of other married couples that do as well. That is no indication that it wasn't a 'real' marriage.

These two people never got married. And even if they were married, alimony is unjust even in those cases. To pretend two unmarried people who are dating should be treated as married people for the purposes of alimony is an even graver injustice, but alimony in itself is robbery.


I hate to say it, but this poor guy could have saved himself a lot of humiliation and money just by hiring a good hitman. And given how much money this vile, lazy piece of shit feminazi is robbing from him, use of lethal force to prevent it would be justified. Bring on the jury nullification!

 

[laughing dog]

The greatest thing about the Internet is the endless supply of anger that can be ordered, no matter how far away a person is from it.

There is good reason for anger here. Basically, this Canadian court made this man a serf to his ex-girlfriend. Not an ex-wife, not even somebody you lived with.
No man in Canada is now safe from being forced to pay his ex-girlfriend's lifestyle.
It's sexist bullshit of the highest order, but feminists are defending it because it means a man is forced to pay a woman, and they always love sexist anti-male decisions like this.

Do you have a citation or link that indicates that the applicable law or reasoning is deliberately sexist? It is possible the applicable laws are gender-neutral, so that if the roles were reversed, the woman would be paying the man.

BTW, anyone who can afford to pay $53,007 per month is not serf, even if it is in Canadian dollars.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Guys can earn alimony, too. They just have to work harder at being house husbands. It's their personal choice.

 

[Derec]

The horror! How dare they make a white male do that! It's just outrageous. Something should be done!

I guess you think that since he is white and male, courts robbing him blind is just.
I guess you are just a racist and a sexist.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, it's the norm, for starters.

That seems like a conservative argument "we've always done it this way, so that's why it should stay this way". That is, it's no argument at all.

Well, I meant that there are reasons for it being accepted practice.

In what sense is it proper for the State to force one partner to continue to support another financially, even when they are no longer a couple?

If I get divorced today, and my wife has a huge pension coming, I can ask for a fair share of it, but only if certain conditions are met. If I was only married for 6 months, I probably wouldn't get any. It's complicated, but in principle I think the idea is to prevent one partner waltzing off with everything after a shared relationship.

To be honest, it doesn't seem fair, as reported in this case, and that would be true whether it was a woman or a man who was the wealthier.

 

[Derec]

Guys can earn alimony, too. They just have to work harder at being house husbands. It's their personal choice.

Courts are very reluctant to award men alimony. Only 4% o all alimony recipients in the US are men, even though women earn more in about 1/3 of marriages.

And remember, this wasn't even a marriage. They were not even cohabitating.
The man should have just hired a hit man. And who knows, the money-grubbing, greedy, lazy, piece of shit ex may still suffer some unfortunate accident. Here's hoping, because in Canada there is no justce from the court system evidently so those harmed by sexist injustice have to take matters into their own hands.