Even if they were cohabiting, unless they were actually married I do not see why she should be considered as a "wife" and entitled to any of his money. That is a very dangerous concept. It is one thing to sign a marriage licence, quite another to be subject to this robbery just because she slept at your house sometimes.
The laws need to be updated, perhaps; however, money is an essential of modern existence. If you enter into a living arrangement where you assume the role of paying living expenses for someone, especially if they put their career on hold at that time, then ending that support suddenly leads to substantial loss for one partner. In this case, especially without knowing more facts, it may be hard to be sympathetic. It's possible she could have chosen to keep working and it seems odd that the amount of support is so high.But the law isn't really drafted specific to their case.
A couple, never having married, lives together. They have a child together. After the child is born, one partner agrees that they will stay home with the child until the kid is old enough to start school. They put their career on hold for the time being while the other continues to work. The couple separates. The partner who put their career on hold has set their career back, lowering their earning potential or possibly encountering difficulties reentering the workforce. To some extent, the partner whose career was able to continue uninterrupted has a responsibility to ensure that separating doesn't result in hardship for their partner.
Or, perhaps, a couple moves across the country because one partner got an amazing job opportunity. After moving, the other partner isn't able to find work as easily, or encounters setbacks in terms of compensation/ hours etc. The couple splits. One partner made career sacrifices for the other's career, and they would be disproportionately affected by the separation, so some measure of spousal support may make sense.
In this case, there may not be a reason which is all that sympathetic. But if they agreed to a situation where she doesn't work and he supports her, that support can't just be withdrawn cold. I struggle with the actual amount awarded, but not with the fact that any amount was awarded. Her financial situation is one where he was providing. That was the understanding between them. There is no reason to believe he was coerced. In ending that relationship, something needs to be done to mitigate the harm of the loss of their arrangement. How much needs to be done depends on the specifics of their case.
It is quite extreme, but I have no faith in any Canadian courts to not be sexist. Wasn't it in Canada where a pair of serial killers were convicted in such a way that the man got life in prison but the woman basically got a slap on the wrist?
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach. Homolka was able to make a plea. They wanted to make sure Bernardo was convicted and her testimony helped make that happen. It was controversial at the time. That said, the deal could only work in one direction as Bernardo was the one who actually perpetrated the killings. I don't agree with the deal. Homolka's involvement in the murders was quite significant. But I do understand the desire of the police to secure the conviction in such a high profile case concerning the murders of three young women.
Because you never see courts giving ex-boyfriends over 6 million of their ex-girlfriends' money.
Almost no settlements make the news. There are cases where women pay support to their male spouses/ partners. Very few people have the sort of wealth where six million dollars in spousal support is even going to be on the table in the first place. The amount to be paid is determined by factors specific to the couple in question, and how much they earn is relevant.
