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

[ronburgundy]

Well, it seems what you say is true, but if she freely chose to quit her job for that reason (and along the way got lots of money and her mortgage paid off) I'm inclined to think she got enough out of it during the relationship.

So, we know he paid most her expenses and supported her kids, she traveled much of the year with him (making a job implausible), and quit her job. So, making the most likely assumption that this was an arrangement where she could be his companion, if he paid her expenses. If she was already independently wealthy and never needed to work again then that's different. But then that would just make them both people we should have no sympathy for. I address the rest of your post along with the below similar comment.

Here is a more accurate headline: Man forced to pay support to woman with whom he had a 14 year relationship while paying most of her expenses and supporting her kids, so she could quit her job and spend much of the year traveling and vacationing with him.

I'm not really understanding how this changes anything. Is it your opinion that this is a good thing? Why should the courts encourage this?

If child rearing and housework is worthy of compensation, then so is companionship.
If you support someone and their kids so they can quit their job and travel and vacation with you for 14 years, then you've gained something by the fact that they are now unemployable and cannot support themselves b/c of your shared arrangement.

The amount he should pay to help her return to a self sufficient status is debatable and should be reduced by the value of the assets she has and can leverage as a result. But that applies equally to any ex-wife who raised the kids of some billionaire and now is unemployable after 14 years of being unemployed. Should the payments to exes not be a % of wealth but some finite sum that ignores prior standard of living in favor of societal averages? Maybe, but for the same reasons the supporting spouse should be taxed more so that they don't have so much wealth that a small portion of it paid in alimony amounts to obscene amounts.

 

[Metaphor]

In Canada, it is very dangerous for men to date women, pay all their bills, pay off all their debts, lavish them with gifts, give them credit cards to use for all their purchases, and completely financially support for them for over a decade because courts may force the men to continue supporting her even after a breakup.

added the rather important bit that you unsurprisingly left out of that little tirade.

it continues to be utterly hilarious to me that people like metaphor and derec get so riled up over shit like this when people like metaphor and derec are why shit like this happens in the first place.

I'm curious. Why am I why "shit like" the above happens?

 

[ruby sparks]

But then that would just make them both people we should have no sympathy for.

I might buy that.

As to companionship, I hear what you say about it being valuable, but if he was paying for her to be his companion on, say, luxury cruises, it's not as if she's not already getting at least a fair share of that situation while it was happening, so....what's he compensating her for? Getting used to it? I suppose that may be what the law is saying.

The transcript of the court case would probably be interesting reading and might illuminate a lot of our speculations here.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I'm aware of why, historically, alimony was created. What I'm struggling to understand is how any such laws are relevant today.

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.

I'd wager, in this case at least, that it would be absolutely impossible. The woman did not have a 50k/month lifestyle before they became a couple, and if she were the kind of person who could earn 50k/month on her own, then she'd be doing it and no spousal support should be paid.

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.

For the avoidance of doubt, are you accusing me of wanting 'females' to 'go back' to being 'breeding stock' with 'no autonomy'?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm wondering. If she quit her job, and he was financially supporting her and her kids and stuff.......what did she do on a typical day (when he wasn't taking her on a holiday)?

 

[Metaphor]

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

Quelle surprise.

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.

Really, it seems impossible to you?

I haven't lived in Canada, but I'd have been surprised to find out that taking regular vacations together counted as 'cohabiting'.

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

They were together for 14 years. She did not quit her job until she was some time into the relationship. She was not out of the job market for 'nearly 20 years'.

at about 58 years of age, it is unlikely that she would be able to find a decent job to support herself.

It's certainly unlikely she'd be able to find a job that paid 50/k month.

 

[ronburgundy]

But then that would just make them both people we should have no sympathy for.

I might buy that.

As to companionship, I hear what you say about it being valuable, but if he was paying for her to be his companion on, say, luxury cruises, it's not as if she's not already getting at least a fair share of that situation while it was happening, so....what's he compensating her for? Getting used to it? I suppose that may be what the law is saying.

The transcript of the court case would probably be interesting reading and might illuminate a lot of our speculations here.

I don't doubt she got something out of the arrangement, but now that it's ended she's unemployable as a result. Some of the law is "what they are accustomed to" and I could easily buy that's a bullshit criteria. But whether a person gave up their income potential as part of a relationship and neccessary for that relationship to occur as it mutally did seem to be relevant IMO. Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support? The laws aren't based upon the rare cases were so much wealth is involved that both people would be fine w/o any compensation from any one.

 

[laughing dog]

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

No, it's not. I'm not saying grammar ought not change nor would I try and prescribe what future language ought be (I'm not French, for fuck's sake).

When you insist your interpretation is the only one, you are making that argument.

The second part, in this particular case, I see no evidence of.

For the first part, she's already at better than pre-partnership standard of living, since he paid off her mortgage. But it's not true that it's based on pre-partnership standard of living. In fact, that's a standard I've never heard of. If he had been dating a bankrupt and homeless woman, are you suggesting the court would find he owed her no alimony?

You asked in what sense, and I gave two arguments. Whether or not you understand them or accept them is not my concern.

As to any evidence, unless you have the entire court documents, including any possible testimony, you do not have sufficient evidence to draw any reasonable conclusions about the possible validity of either argument.

 

[Metaphor]

But then that would just make them both people we should have no sympathy for.

I might buy that.

As to companionship, I hear what you say about it being valuable, but if he was paying for her to be his companion on, say, luxury cruises, it's not as if she's not already getting at least a fair share of that situation while it was happening, so....what's he compensating her for? Getting used to it? I suppose that may be what the law is saying.

The transcript of the court case would probably be interesting reading and might illuminate a lot of our speculations here.

I don't doubt she got something out of the arrangement, but now that it's ended she's unemployable as a result. Some of the law is "what they are accustomed to" and I could easily buy that's a bullshit criteria. But whether a person gave up their income potential as part of a relationship and neccessary for that relationship to occur as it mutally did seem to be relevant IMO. Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support? The laws aren't based upon the rare cases were so much wealth is involved that both people would be fine w/o any compensation from any one.

She is entitled to the support that any Canadian citizen is entitled to - including being on the dole.

I don't see why an individual, who was lavish and generous during the time of the relationship, should be forced by the State to continue to provide after the relationship is over.

My employer has given me money for ten years, and in exchange I provided my labour for it. If I quit, or I'm fired, my employer owes me any holiday pay or long service leave that I've earned but not taken, but it doesn't owe me my old wage indefinitely or for ten years.

 

[Metaphor]

When you insist your interpretation is the only one, you are making that argument.

There is only one proper interpretation of some sentences, yes. That doesn't mean that I think that what a sentence means can never change, or that there is only one legitimate interpretation of all sentences.

You asked in what sense, and I gave two arguments. Whether or not you understand them or accept them is not my concern.

I'm specifically asking you where you got the idea of 'pre-partnership' standard of living? I've never heard of a 'pre-partnership' standard of living barometer for alimony before. The usual barometer appears to be 'the standard of living accustomed to during the relationship', not some earlier standard.

 

[J842P]

But then that would just make them both people we should have no sympathy for.

I might buy that.

As to companionship, I hear what you say about it being valuable, but if he was paying for her to be his companion on, say, luxury cruises, it's not as if she's not already getting at least a fair share of that situation while it was happening, so....what's he compensating her for? Getting used to it? I suppose that may be what the law is saying.

The transcript of the court case would probably be interesting reading and might illuminate a lot of our speculations here.

I don't doubt she got something out of the arrangement, but now that it's ended she's unemployable as a result. Some of the law is "what they are accustomed to" and I could easily buy that's a bullshit criteria. But whether a person gave up their income potential as part of a relationship and neccessary for that relationship to occur as it mutally did seem to be relevant IMO. Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support? The laws aren't based upon the rare cases were so much wealth is involved that both people would be fine w/o any compensation from any one.

The law shouldn't encourage any of this. If you decide, of your own free will, to give up being in the workforce so you can be someone's companion, that's on you if later things don't work out. She should be entitled, like any person, to whatever welfare benefits she is eligible for. And in general, I would support generous state benefits.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't doubt she got something out of the arrangement, but now that it's ended she's unemployable as a result. Some of the law is "what they are accustomed to" and I could easily buy that's a bullshit criteria. But whether a person gave up their income potential as part of a relationship and neccessary for that relationship to occur as it mutally did seem to be relevant IMO. Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support? The laws aren't based upon the rare cases were so much wealth is involved that both people would be fine w/o any compensation from any one.

She is entitled to the support that any Canadian citizen is entitled to - including being on the dole.

I don't see why an individual, who was lavish and generous during the time of the relationship, should be forced by the State to continue to provide after the relationship is over.

My employer has given me money for ten years, and in exchange I provided my labour for it. If I quit, or I'm fired, my employer owes me any holiday pay or long service leave that I've earned but not taken, but it doesn't owe me my old wage indefinitely or for ten years.

So in your stunning "intellect" being paid to be employed for 14 years has the same impact on your future employment and self sufficiency being paid to remain unemployed. It isn't hard to see why you are always so angry about trivial isolated events. "Hulk no understand, Hulk get angry."

 

[DBT]

Perhaps they should each be made to pay the other 50k per month and everyone is happy....

 

[Metaphor]

So in your stunning "intellect" being paid to be employed for 14 years has the same impact on your future employment and self sufficiency being paid to remain unemployed.

No. I am saying that my employer and I both got something out of our relationship during the time they were paying me and I was working for them.

And jobs, like marriages, are no longer 'for life', and neither has been for decades.

As for the future employment prospects of a 58 year old who has not worked for 14 years (or however long it was between the beginning of the relationship and her withdrawal from the labour market), I suspect they are pretty grim. There's a lot of age discrimination in the labour market and I suspect this woman does not really want to work.

It isn't hard to see why you are always so angry about trivial isolated events. "Hulk no understand, Hulk get angry."

I do not regard this event as trivial or isolated, but if you do, you are free not to engage in conversation around it.

 

[laughing dog]

When you insist your interpretation is the only one, you are making that argument.

There is only one proper interpretation of some sentences, yes.

Yet you maintain there is only one proper interpretation of sentences that clearly have other interpretations.

I'm specifically asking you where you got the idea of 'pre-partnership' standard of living? I've never heard of a 'pre-partnership' standard of living barometer for alimony before. The usual barometer appears to be 'the standard of living accustomed to during the relationship', not some earlier standard.

I cannot point to it exactly, but when someone gives up their standard of living to join a household (whatever standard that was, including the income earned from working), then I have seen the argument that alimony or payments should be made to that person to allow them to reach that standard of living prior to the partnership.

 

[Arctish]

I don't doubt she got something out of the arrangement, but now that it's ended she's unemployable as a result. Some of the law is "what they are accustomed to" and I could easily buy that's a bullshit criteria. But whether a person gave up their income potential as part of a relationship and neccessary for that relationship to occur as it mutally did seem to be relevant IMO. Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support? The laws aren't based upon the rare cases were so much wealth is involved that both people would be fine w/o any compensation from any one.

The law shouldn't encourage any of this. If you decide, of your own free will, to give up being in the workforce so you can be someone's companion, that's on you if later things don't work out. She should be entitled, like any person, to whatever welfare benefits she is eligible for. And in general, I would support generous state benefits.

That depends on what verbal agreements were reached and what stipulations were agreed to at the time one partner left the workforce and became dependent on the other. And it would depend on whether and how much the jobless partner contributed to the success of the other one, and to the marriage as a whole.

It makes no difference that their marriage was of the common law variety, not the civil or church variety. They were married in the eyes of the law in Canada, and anything the law says applies to married couples applies to them, including the distribution of assets and alimony.

This part of my post isn't directed at anyone in particular but to everyone in general: there has been some speculation that the woman is a gold-digger. It might be true that she is one. But it might be true that the guy is possessive and controlling, and he used his wealth to undermine her independence

Did he demand she be available whenever he wanted her companionship? Did he pay off her mortgage because she kept saying she had work to pay her bills and he didn't like her having activities that didn't revolve around him? Was he attempting to control her movements? Was he isolating her? We don't know. But it might be true that he was.

If you're going to speculate about motives then do it for both of them. Because if all you do is dream up reasons to denounce the woman, that's misogyny, plain and simple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Some money is warranted here--note that she gave up her job for him.

What we need is that alimony should be capped at putting someone back to the where they were before the relationship, adjusted for time. Make them whole, but not more than that.

 

[Metaphor]

Some money is warranted here--note that she gave up her job for him.

This is a strange narrative to me. What makes you think she 'gave up' something, let alone gave it up for him?

For an alternative perspective: if I found a man whose monthly income was more than my annual income, and who lavished me with gifts and holidays and spending money and paid off my mortgage, it would not be a 'sacrifice' for me to stop working, any more than it would be a 'sacrifice' for me to give up working if I won Powerball.

It's not clear to me what work she did before she left the labour market. But most normies don't like work, and they'd be idle if they could.

 

[ruby sparks]

Suppose the level of money and assets meant meant that now the checks aren't coming she has to go "on the dole". Should tax payers pay, or should he continue to give some support?

Dunno. But I would question whether she's actually unemployable*.

And granted, we don't know why she gave up her job. Maybe it was because he was paying for everything and she didn't have to work to earn it.



*My googling suggests she's now a yoga instructor, part time, earning $24,000 per annum.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not clear to me what work she did before she left the labour market.

She was a former model when they met in 2001 apparently (he was 46, she was 38). Earning $60,000.00 at the time, apparently. Not sure from what*.

*ETA: working for her brother, in sales and marketing in the construction business.