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

[ruby sparks]

Full text of the court case:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1311/2019onsc1311.html

Could someone else wade through that and give me a synopsis?

Here's a tidbit:

"By November 2001, Ms. Climans quit her job to be available for Mr. Latner. She did not work throughout the fourteen years of their relationship. Mr. Latner acknowledged that he wanted Ms. Climans to be available to him, whether to travel with him, run errands for him or be available to spend time with him but did not go so far as to say that he asked her to stop working."

and

"I find that almost from the start of their relationship, an economic dependency was created".

 

[ruby sparks]

Some background on the Latner Family:

How Toronto’s lavishly rich Latner family is tearing itself apart.
https://torontolife.com/city/latner-vs-latner/

Lisa Climans had dated two of them.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Full text of the court case:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1311/2019onsc1311.html

Could someone else wade through that and give me a synopsis?

Here's a tidbit:

"By November 2001, Ms. Climans quit her job to be available for Mr. Latner. She did not work throughout the fourteen years of their relationship. Mr. Latner acknowledged that he wanted Ms. Climans to be available to him, whether to travel with him, run errands for him or be available to spend time with him but did not go so far as to say that he asked her to stop working."

and

"I find that almost from the start of their relationship, an economic dependency was created".

It's also notable that Latner's tendency to lie, deflect or refuse to answer questions during the process ultimately resulted in Climans' version of events having more credibility.

Unrelated to this case, but from the sound of things, it seems like the CRA really needs to get on this guy's ass.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh no. A rich person is still rich, but less rich than he was. Waaah.

As to RS, the purpose of this law is indeed to help someone maintain a standard of living. When you expose someone to a regular long-term standard of living, you change their social circle. You change a lot of things about someone to change their lives like that. It disrupts who someone is to end that. It's not an unreasonable law to expect that the years of life you devote into something not change who you are then leave you unable to continue to be that person.

Granted there's another problem in that there's anyone in this world who is so wealthy as to be able to give up that much money to impact someone's life that hard.

Imagine, the wealthy have that much money that it is considered cruel by those who are themselves wealthy and influential (judges) to expose someone to their society and means and not pay them to continue as they have lived.

 

[prideandfall]

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

i'm not accusing you of anything, but it's a pretty short distance in the 1 to 1 correlation between the kinds of things you post on this forum and the attitude that women are some kind of bane to the existence of men and should be dealt with to keep them under thumb.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

It makes no legal difference perhaps, but the moral issue is different. In this case, the man had not agreed to enter a contract in which he could be forced to pay.

 

[Metaphor]

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

i'm not accusing you of anything, but it's a pretty short distance in the 1 to 1 correlation between the kinds of things you post on this forum and the attitude that women are some kind of bane to the existence of men and should be dealt with to keep them under thumb.

When you make that kind of assertion against me, that my posts are indistinguishable from somebody who hates women and wants them to be chattel broodmares, does it bother you that you can't produce any evidence whatsoever?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

i'm not accusing you of anything, but it's a pretty short distance in the 1 to 1 correlation between the kinds of things you post on this forum and the attitude that women are some kind of bane to the existence of men and should be dealt with to keep them under thumb.

I haven't seen any of the sort in his posts. Rather, he is often concerned about inequality and unfair discrimination against men. But I have not seen a single post in which Metaphor suggests any of the sort.

 

[Arctish]

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.

It makes no legal difference perhaps, but the moral issue is different. In this case, the man had not agreed to enter a contract in which he could be forced to pay.

Apparently he self-identified as married on multiple occasions, and the court agreed that was the appropriate term.

 

[Toni]

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.

The cap should apply to both partners, though. If the woman is to be returned to her previous financial status, so should the man. Right? What is most common in the US is that the marital assets AFTER THE MARRIAGE are to be divided equally if the marriage is dissolved. The debts would be shared, so why not the marriage?

One cannot be 'made whole' for X numbers of years. There are any number of opportunities lost by one partner in favor of the other partner. How can one weigh one's opportunities for fame and fortune or at least, a decent career of one's own against instead spending one's energies towards helping one's partner achieve their highest level? It is rare indeed that two marriage or relationship partners are able to equally attain great career success--and maintain the relationship and the family. Generally, it is the woman who has given up her career and her earnings in order to maximize the earnings of the man. Data shows that men tend to earn more after they are married while women earn less after they marry. Why should the man get to keep all of that? Marriage isn't merely a relationship based on love and/or sex and/ or offspring. It's also a financial partnership. When financial partnerships dissolve, assets are divided equitably. That doesn't mean equally but fairly to both parties.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

It makes no legal difference perhaps, but the moral issue is different. In this case, the man had not agreed to enter a contract in which he could be forced to pay.

Apparently he self-identified as married on multiple occasions, and the court agreed that was the appropriate term.

At least going by the OP article, that does not seem to have been decisive in the eyes of the court. But even if it was, the fact that he would say they were married does not imply he agreed to a marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

 

[Arctish]

Apparently he self-identified as married on multiple occasions, and the court agreed that was the appropriate term.

At least going by the OP article, that does not seem to have been decisive in the eyes of the court. But even if it was, the fact that he would say they were married does not imply he agreed to a marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

True.

We don't know anything about the guy. All we're doing here is speculating.

 

[prideandfall]

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

i'm not accusing you of anything, but it's a pretty short distance in the 1 to 1 correlation between the kinds of things you post on this forum and the attitude that women are some kind of bane to the existence of men and should be dealt with to keep them under thumb.

I haven't seen any of the sort in his posts. Rather, he is often concerned about inequality and unfair discrimination against men. But I have not seen a single post in which Metaphor suggests any of the sort.

yes yes, and we're all equally concerned about how all lives matter too, there's absolutely no subtext to it whatsoever.

 

[prideandfall]

When you make that kind of assertion against me, that my posts are indistinguishable from somebody who hates women and wants them to be chattel broodmares, does it bother you that you can't produce any evidence whatsoever?

firstly, i made no such assertion.
secondly, there's a distinct difference between "can't produce" and "haven't produced" given that this particular conversational side track is all of 3 posts long and i haven't exactly been making a thesis paper on the subject.

 

[Metaphor]

When you make that kind of assertion against me, that my posts are indistinguishable from somebody who hates women and wants them to be chattel broodmares, does it bother you that you can't produce any evidence whatsoever?

firstly, i made no such assertion.
secondly, there's a distinct difference between "can't produce" and "haven't produced" given that this particular conversational side track is all of 3 posts long and i haven't exactly been making a thesis paper on the subject.

Okay, then can you produce evidence that I think women should be subhuman chattel broodmares for men?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I haven't seen any of the sort in his posts. Rather, he is often concerned about inequality and unfair discrimination against men. But I have not seen a single post in which Metaphor suggests any of the sort.

yes yes, and we're all equally concerned about how all lives matter too, there's absolutely no subtext to it whatsoever.

There is no good reason to suspect what you attribute to your opponents. And the same goes for many of the 'all lives matter' claims by the way. Demonizing those who don't agree with your ideology is probably good for you (as you are celebrated in your group, and avoid being ostracized) but it's still not based on reality.

 

[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.

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.

Then the same should be true for a parent who stays home for 18 years to raise the kids, right If they have separate bank accounts and the house is in the working parent's name, then that parent should be able to walk off with billions and the house and leave the child rearing parent homeless and on welfare? After all that parent chose not to work of their own free will.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Exactly, whereas after 14 years of employment one's job prospects are infinitely better, thus making your analogy completely invalid.

 

[Jarhyn]

Apparently he self-identified as married on multiple occasions, and the court agreed that was the appropriate term.

At least going by the OP article, that does not seem to have been decisive in the eyes of the court. But even if it was, the fact that he would say they were married does not imply he agreed to a marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

True.

We don't know anything about the guy. All we're doing here is speculating.

Wait... Wait one fucking minute. HE said they were married. Like, he told others that they were?

What, he doesn't want to live with the consequences of people accepting his word as fact?

Marriage is a declaratory human relationship. The only difference between his marriage and my marriage is that I wrote more shit on paper, and did it in front of different people. Marriages are created by people saying they are married and acting like it. It may have not been a legal marriage, but he made it an ethical marriage when he started advertising it as fact to the world.

Any doubts as to whether he earned this fate (the fate of being slightly less rich but still filthy fucking rich) have gone right out the window here

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I haven't seen any of the sort in his posts. Rather, he is often concerned about inequality and unfair discrimination against men. But I have not seen a single post in which Metaphor suggests any of the sort.

yes yes, and we're all equally concerned about how all lives matter too, there's absolutely no subtext to it whatsoever.

There is no good reason to suspect what you attribute to your opponents. And the same goes for many of the 'all lives matter' claims by the way. Demonizing those who don't agree with your ideology is probably good for you (as you are celebrated in your group, and avoid being ostracized) but it's still not based on reality.

It's not a demonization. All lives matter was created as a counter to black lives matter. That's the subtext. It's factual to say this. That doesn't mean they are all evil demons, but it does mean that the concern for all lives mattering is much less than it is purported to be.