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

[Angra Mainyu]

Where did you get Thursday to Monday was only in winter? Okay, I see why you think that:

the winter months they spent time together in Florida – from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father and sometimes during the winter school break.

In winter, they were in Florida at a condo.

In summer, at a summer cottage.

Outside of exotic vacations, the rest of the year, they were in Toronto.

The ex-husband's parental rights to Thursday-Monday of the children seem irrelevant while the couple seasonally migrated to Florida.

I am not discussing other issues. They rely on false information. Please stick to the issue of "living together" for now.

But if they had been together from Thursday to Monday morning also on automn and spring, then the court would probably have said that, rather than saying it was in winter. That's Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and it's unclear what part of Thursday, but even if we say Thursday too, that's 4 days out of 2 weeks. For 13 weeks of winter (more or less), that gives you between 24 and 28 days in winter. To that, you have to add July + August, and it's still a small fraction of the year (plus a few more days here and there).

Your assumption that Thursday to Monday (once every two weeks) was all year long except for the summer vacation seems again improbable for the aforementioned reasons. In that case, yes, you would get a much longer period. But you need that assumption. And still, it would be 3 or 4 days every two weeks. Assuming 4 not 3 just to make the maximum assumption, and it's about 43-44 weeks outside July and August, giving extra days to July and August to further round the numbers in your favor, for 43 weeks, 43*4/2=86 days, plus say 9 weeks in enhanced July in August every day, that's 63 days, for a total of 149 days. Adding a few holidays, and assuming there are more holidays than usual for them, one can further round it up upwards to 160 days a year, vs. 205-206 days a year they were not together, and also with the periods mostly not continuous but with large gaps. That's not cohabiting continuously for 3 years.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where did you get Thursday to Monday was only in winter? Okay, I see why you think that:

the winter months they spent time together in Florida – from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father and sometimes during the winter school break.

In winter, they were in Florida at a condo.

Let me clarify this further.

In winter [break], they were in Florida at a condo. Additionally, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE YEAR, the father had rights to see his children Thursday to Monday morning, alternating weeks. That's Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, Sunday day, Sunday night, and Monday morning, i.e. 4 days + 1 morning only + 4 nights 26 times a year. 4 FULL DAYS + 1 half day x 26 = 104.5 DAYS by itself. But then you have to subtract out summer and any special vacations. So it's more like 90 DAYS just for this.

Then, they also had winter break together which is like 10 days. So add another 10 days.

In summer, AT LEAST July and August, they were in a cottage. That's MORE THAN 60 days by itself.

They seem to have also averaged an exotic vacation together per year. We won't say that it's 2 week vacations like most people take...but instead we'll say 1 week vacations. That's an ESTIMATED 7 days per year by itself.

We are now at 167 FULL days, i.e. days and nights together plus I added the half day. As an estimate.

BUT they also spent a lot of daytime together throughout the year. The document says "In the early years of their relationship, Ms. Climans and Mr. Latner interacted daily. They usually ate dinner together at one home or the other’s, often with whichever of their children were around. They had coffee together in the morning, walked their dogs together, and talked on the phone frequently."

That part is difficult to quantify, but clearly they spent mornings together and then evenings because he had to work. Otherwise, it'd be the whole time except perhaps overnight. We should count that as an intended daytime with each other and exclude the fact that he had to work or she had to work. That's like around 200 half DAYS. or 100 DAYS, just rounding, where DAY is day and night, i.e. full days.

They also probably HAD SEX at least some of the time after dinner after the kids were in bed or occupied. Even if THERE WERE NO OVERNIGHT.

Calling this 82 (or less than 100) isn't correct.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But if they had been together from Thursday to Monday morning also on automn and spring, then the court would probably have said that,

This according to Latner who was a less reliable (more biased) witness than his common-law spouse:
"[53] Mr. Latner acknowledges that maintaining separate residences does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the parties did not live together. However, he contends that Ms. Climans did not sleep over at his home with anything like the frequency that characterizes the cases relied on by the trial judge in which cohabitation was found. In the early years, Ms. Climans only slept at his home on alternate weekends when her children were with their father."

He didn't say only winter. That simply isn't how parental rights work. Why on earth would it be only during winter that the father has custody? You have to use some common sense here and look elsewhere in the document to see that the Thursday to Monday was not in reference to winter only, it was merely describing what happens within winter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...one can further round it up upwards to 160 days a year, vs. 205-206 days a year they were not together, ...

No, Angra, they got together pretty much daily, i.e. every day. Every day they were together. You are for some reason just using night times to exclude days. Again, just about every day they were together, morning coffees, morning yoga, possibly morning sex, then after work, dinner together, possibly night time sex, even if no overnight. You simply cannot classify two people getting together every single day of the year as "205-206 days a year they were not together."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...4 FULL DAYS + 1 half day x 26 = 104.5 DAYS by itself....

Inconsequential arithmetic error. If we called this 4.5x26, it would be 117, not merely 104.5. However, I am willing to simply call this 104 since we do not know what time on Thursday precisely the kids went with their father but since it was a school day, they are probably getting picked up after school. The common-law wife still has time during the day to be with the common-law husband since the kids are in school and then again with him at night either way. So, we might as well call this 4 full DAYs x 26 which is still 104. And the following arithmetic in the post is still all relevant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In winter [break], they were in Florida at a condo. Additionally, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE YEAR, the father had rights to see his children Thursday to Monday morning, alternating weeks.

That appears improabable on the basis of the ruling. Had than been the case, one would expect the court to highlight that, rather than specificially saying that that happened in winter. But I already assumed that for the sake of the argument.

That's Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, Sunday day, Sunday night, and Monday morning, i.e. 4 days + 1 morning only + 4 nights 26 times a year.

That assumes that Thursday day is included, and also that Monday morning is included. The former is unclear, and probably not true for the whole day, since it takes a while for the kids to leave, so at most they would get Thursday minus morning. The latter is also improbable, as she'd have to leave to pick up the kids (the ruling, by the way, does not say it includes the begining and the end of the period it mentions).
But fine, let's make that assumption too for the sake of the argument.

That's Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, Sunday day, Sunday night, and Monday morning, i.e. 4 days + 1 morning only + 4 nights 26 times a year. 4 FULL DAYS + 1 half day x 26 = 104.5 DAYS by itself.

That is probably not the case, and also morning is not half a day at all. It's more like 1/4 of a day. But let us further assume it's 4.5 days. So, you have 62 days (August + July), plus 4.5/14*(365-62) (assuming not a leap year), which gives you 159,392857143 days. Let us round it up to 160 days just because. So, again you have 160 days.

Then, they also had winter break together which is like 10 days. So add another 10 days.

No, that's "sometimes during the winter school break", and sometimes not. But whatever, let's say 170 days then.

In summer, AT LEAST July and August, they were in a cottage. That's MORE THAN 60 days by itself.

Not "at least", but described as such. 62 days, already counted, and despite big assumptions (and false assessments even) to favor your case, we're still at 170 days.

They seem to have also averaged an exotic vacation together per year. We won't say that it's 2 week vacations like most people take...but instead we'll say 1 week vacations. That's an ESTIMATED 7 days per year by itself.

I do not see any good evidence of that, but let's assume. So, 177 days.

BUT they also spent a lot of daytime together throughout the year.

It's not clear that those are separate from the others, but if they are, again that would not be cohabiting.

They also probably HAD SEX at least some of the time after dinner after the kids were in bed or occupied. Even if THERE WERE NO OVERNIGHT.

Having sex is not cohabiting, though.

He didn't say only winter. Why on earth would it be only during winter that the father has custody? You have to use some common sense here and look elsewhere in the document to see that the Thursday to Monday was not in reference to winter only, it was merely describing what happens within winter.

Where were the children in July and August? Did the father have custody in those months too? How did they manage then? Maybe the children spent those two full months with the father, and then in automn and fall they were with her, except some visits. But who knows? What I am saying is that a statement like

The parties always maintained their separate residences in Toronto but stayed together when they travelled outside of Toronto. They spent July and August together each year in Mr. Latner’s Muskoka cottage. In the winter months they spent time together in Florida – from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father and sometimes during the winter school break. The parties also frequently vacationed together.

in a ruling that intends to say they were cohabiting seems to make no sense no sense as it is if they were together "from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father" all year round.

But whatever, I already made the assumption, and still the claim " The couple actually did live together the vast majority of the year" is false.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That appears improabable on the basis of the ruling. Had than been the case, one would expect the court to highlight that, rather than specificially saying that that happened in winter. But I already assumed that for the sake of the argument.

No, it doesn't appear probably at all. It seems like the most reasonable conclusion.

Observe:
1. "In the winter, I was spending a lot of time with my cat and a lot of time with my dog."
You are assuming that the person spending time with their cat only does so during the winter.
2. Now they say, "I usually spend a lot of time with my cat" later on.
You observe this and then exclude the most reasonable conclusion that they usually spend time with their cat. The statements are not mutually exclusive and the first is not restrictive of the idea of the second. The first merely describes goings-on in the winter. It does not state what happens outside winter. To argue the non-existence of cat-time spending outside winter merely on the basis of the first sentence is fallacious logic. But even if you made that inference, you still have to concede upon observing the second sentence that you are wrong.

Now this case is even worse for your incorrect inference because not only does the document later refer to the alternating Thursday to Mondays with the ex-husband, it also isn't a reasonable way of doing parental visitation orders that they ought to be only in the winter. The inference thus fails for 3 reasons.

So when you observe this in the document:

In the early years, Ms. Climans only slept at his home on alternate weekends when her children were with their father.

you ought to recognize it is not restrictive to the winter. Then, you ought to use common sense to review and correct your incorrect inferences.

That assumes that Thursday day is included, and also that Monday morning is included. The former is unclear, and probably not true for the whole day, since it takes a while for the kids to leave, so at most they would get Thursday minus morning. The latter is also improbable, as she'd have to leave to pick up the kids (the ruling, by the way, does not say it includes the begining and the end of the period it mentions).

I already addressed this in a subsequent post. The kids are in school on Thursday. During the day, she is sometimes running errands for their relationship and dwellings and sometimes working as a yoga instructor, depending on time period. She is still spending the morning with him because that is what she typically does and typically she is doing dinner at night and by then the kids would be gone. So, this is mostly likely any other work day--spending time and such like most other married couples do.

But fine, let's make that assumption too for the sake of the argument.

It is the most reasonable conclusion to make.

That's Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, Sunday day, Sunday night, and Monday morning, i.e. 4 days + 1 morning only + 4 nights 26 times a year. 4 FULL DAYS + 1 half day x 26 = 104.5 DAYS by itself.

That is probably not the case, and also morning is not half a day at all. It's more like 1/4 of a day. But let us further assume it's 4.5 days. So, you have 62 days (August + July), plus 4.5/14*(365-62) (assuming not a leap year), which gives you 159,392857143 days. Let us round it up to 160 days just because. So, again you have 160 days.

I already addressed this in a subsequent post.

Then, they also had winter break together which is like 10 days. So add another 10 days.

No, that's "sometimes during the winter school break", and sometimes not. But whatever, let's say 170 days then.

No, a 10 day break is the most typical length of break in Toronto. It's really a minimal estimate at that. One school week plus two weekends on each side is 9 days. But almost always in North America these things include at a MINIMUM Christmas eve to New Years day.
Dec: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Jan: 1
are school days off and any weekends naturally go with them as part of break.

When you include weekends that's MORE than 10 days!

Now specific to Toronto, Catholic schools this year have 16 days off including the contiguous weekends. 16 days. This year. Public schools have the same break: Dec 21st to Jan 1st, also 16 days. This year. Now, you might say, "but one or both of the common-law spouses were Jewish and so we should be looking at a Jewish school!" But the Jewish school in Toronto has EVEN MORE time off from Dec 23rd to Jan 5th. That's 14 days!

It wasn't dramatically different 10 or 20 or so years ago. Even if they've extended the days off by a couple since we have covid now, they still are consistent with our US-Canada culture that has a general vacation of at least 10 days (once you include weekends).

In summer, AT LEAST July and August, they were in a cottage. That's MORE THAN 60 days by itself.

Not "at least", but described as such. 62 days, already counted, and despite big assumptions (and false assessments even) to favor your case, we're still at 170 days.

There are no false assessments. I've explained to you why your inferences, presumptions, and assumptions are incorrect.

They seem to have also averaged an exotic vacation together per year. We won't say that it's 2 week vacations like most people take...but instead we'll say 1 week vacations. That's an ESTIMATED 7 days per year by itself.

I do not see any good evidence of that, but let's assume. So, 177 days.

The couple was together for 14 years. The document says they traveled frequently.

During the years of their relationship, they vacationed in Miami, New York, Aspen, Alaska, Napa Valley, New Jersey, Turks and Caicos, Italy, Israel, France, Bahamas and Costa Rica, but not limited to these vacation spots. That is 12 known locations and possibly more over a 14 year relationship, which is nearly 1 per year, though some of these were actually more than once per year such as Aspen. Aspen may have had some overlap with winter making this more complicated. But some of the vacations you would think were two weeks due to needing more time due to typical jet lag. Since several of these were expected to be two weeks, some could have been less such as a week or several days, and there are nearly as many locations as years in a relationship, saying these totaled about a week per year is a very reasonable lower bound. Of course, admittedly, some of these vacations may have overlapped with the father's visitation and so we might be counting days twice but these trips are typically lengthy. We should not assume they didn't exist at all, at least. If you want to try a different estimate, you can try to argue for it, but I think based on the expressed reasoning that 7 days is very reasonable.

BUT they also spent a lot of daytime together throughout the year.

It's not clear that those are separate from the others, but if they are, again that would not be cohabiting.

They also probably HAD SEX at least some of the time after dinner after the kids were in bed or occupied. Even if THERE WERE NO OVERNIGHT.

Having sex is not cohabiting, though.

Let me address these two points together. Cohabiting is typically meaning (a) having a conjugal relationship and (b) living together. So, the bit about sex is relevant to (a). Having a sexual relationship is a strong factor in deciding if there is a conjugal relationship but how sex is defined, etc, may be flexible. I won't go into additional factors because it is outside the scope of what I said we are discussing--i.e. living together.

Now to the other sub-issue here of their day time activities. You had said incorrectly that they were not together some 200 days of the year which was incorrect. They were together nearly every day.

The reason this is a relevant point is that it shows their conjugal relationship extended continuously throughout several years.

Gaps in staying overnight at various places for various reasons are not as relevant as you seem to think. I already gave the example of my wife and myself where we had a continuous conjugal relationship for the years I was at school, but she was visiting on the weekends and I was not at school but with her directly in summer.

We were cohabiting. The time this couple were together in a residence having a conjugal relationship far exceeds the time of myself and my wife.

He didn't say only winter. Why on earth would it be only during winter that the father has custody? You have to use some common sense here and look elsewhere in the document to see that the Thursday to Monday was not in reference to winter only, it was merely describing what happens within winter.

Where were the children in July and August? Did the father have custody in those months too? How did they manage then? Maybe the children spent those two full months with the father, and then in automn and fall they were with her, except some visits. But who knows? What I am saying is that a statement like

The parties always maintained their separate residences in Toronto but stayed together when they travelled outside of Toronto. They spent July and August together each year in Mr. Latner’s Muskoka cottage. In the winter months they spent time together in Florida – from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father and sometimes during the winter school break. The parties also frequently vacationed together.

in a ruling that intends to say they were cohabiting seems to make no sense no sense as it is if they were together "from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father" all year round.

As I have shown, your inference is incorrect. Elsewhere in the document it says the same thing about the visitation to the father of the children on alternating weeks and Thursday to Monday but without the context of winter. You have taken the context and assumed it on the range but this is a logical fallacy.

Let's try to look at this an additional way. Here is the quote:

In the winter months they spent time together in Florida – from Thursday until Monday morning on alternate weeks when Ms. Climans’ children were with their father and sometimes during the winter school break.

It's a description of an intersection of two sets. The set of winter. And the set of visitation with the children's father. There is nothing that says B is a subset of A.

Here is another quote from {75}:

...they lived together: the “almost … 14 years” that they spent summers together at the Muskoka cottage; the “first several years” of their relationship when Ms. Climans stayed at Mr. Latner’s Toronto home on alternate weekends; and, the time they spent together in Florida in the winter months.

Do you now see sets B and A without B being a subset of A? You should be able to make this inference not just bcause they are being parsed separately, but also from the geographic reference to Toronto. Mrs. Latner is not in Florida but in Toronto when she is staying at the Latner residence in Toronto. This cannot be a subset of Florida time because they'd both be in Toronto. If you are getting confused that perhaps they flew to Florida and then flew back each Thursday to Monday but the judge called it time in Florida then this wouldn't make sense because they'd be spending time in Florida Tuesday to Wednesday but also the way it is expressed in the quote shows that "when Ms. Climans stayed at Mr. Latner’s Toronto home on alternate weekends" and "the time they spent together in Florida in the winter months" are disjoint sets. So, there is an A which is Mrs Latner staying with Mr Latner Thursday to Monday morning alternating weeks and within that two subsets, presumably, one where it is in Florida and one where it is in Toronto...and then there is time in Florida which seems to overlap one of the subsets and be disjoint with the other based on geography...but also expressed disjointly above.

But whatever, I already made the assumption, and still the claim " The couple actually did live together the vast majority of the year" is false.

It depends on how you define living together. In context, I defined it including daytime with no overnights so long as they resided* in a residence and had a conjugal relationship. Resided* meaning did functions that you do in your residence such as have your morning coffee, sex with your wife, dinner, sex with your wife, etc. What you had said was that they were not "together" some 200 days which is clearly false.

Now, okay, if you want to argue about overnight....let's say that for the sake of argument, we give you the whole they did not reside together at night the majority of the year. Okay. This does not imply that they did not cohabit for the year. So, for example, as I explained my wife and myself were cohabiting for a couple of years while I was in college. I believe that the law would say we were cohabiting continuously for those years.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Then, you ought to use common sense to review and correct your incorrect inferences.

Those were not inferences, but probabilistic assessments. And they are based on context, not on logical entailments. But I had missed the reference to Toronto, which changes the context, so good point. But I was already assuming that claim, so no difference in the assessment regarding time spent together.

I already addressed this in a subsequent post. The kids are in school on Thursday. During the day, she is sometimes running errands for their relationship and dwellings and sometimes working as a yoga instructor, depending on time period. She is still spending the morning with him because that is what she typically does and typically she is doing dinner at night and by then the kids would be gone. So, this is mostly likely any other work day--spending time and such like most other married couples do.

They wake up in the morning with her, at her place, not with him, not with their father. There is no way she can spend all day with him. And Monday morning is not half a day, but 1/4 (and if you count the previous night as part of Monday, then the same happens to Thursday, when they are not together). But again, I was already assuming your claim for the sake of the argument.

No, a 10 day break is the most typical length of break in Toronto.

Sure, but the ruling says "sometimes during the winter school break", "sometimes" clearly indicating not all the time, and it may well be that not most of the time. But again, I'm assuming 10 days for the sake of the argument.

During the years of their relationship, they vacationed in Miami, New York, Aspen, Alaska, Napa Valley, New Jersey, Turks and Caicos, Italy, Israel, France, Bahamas and Costa Rica, but not limited to these vacation spots.

Link?

Let me address these two points together. Cohabiting is typically meaning (a) having a conjugal relationship and (b) living together. So, the bit about sex is relevant to (a). Having a sexual relationship is a strong factor in deciding if there is a conjugal relationship but how sex is defined, etc, may be flexible. I won't go into additional factors because it is outside the scope of what I said we are discussing--i.e. living together.

If they have sex but do not live together, they are not cohabiting in the usual sense (see dictionaries).

Gaps in staying overnight at various places for various reasons are not as relevant as you seem to think. I already gave the example of my wife and myself where we had a continuous conjugal relationship for the years I was at school, but she was visiting on the weekends and I was not at school but with her directly in summer.

Wait, are you saying that she was only at your place 2 days a week, and you were cohabiting? Dictionaries seem to say otherwise.

It depends on how you define living together. In context, I defined it including daytime with no overnights so long as they resided* in a residence and had a conjugal relationship. Resided* meaning did functions that you do in your residence such as have your morning coffee, sex with your wife, dinner, sex with your wife, etc. What you had said was that they were not "together" some 200 days which is clearly false.

"together" in this context is 'living together', 'cohabiting', etc.

Now, okay, if you want to argue about overnight....let's say that for the sake of argument, we give you the whole they did not reside together at night the majority of the year. Okay. This does not imply that they did not cohabit for the year. So, for example, as I explained my wife and myself were cohabiting for a couple of years while I was in college. I believe that the law would say we were cohabiting continuously for those years.

Given the ruling, I would say this court would say you were cohabiting continuously. But a dictionary seems to say otherwise.


All that said, you said earlier you would not discuss any other matter. But of course, other matters are central, rather than the question of whether the court intepreted the law correctly. The complaints are about the justice of the ruling.