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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

HE said they were married. Like, he told others that they were?

Why wouldn't he? They were common-law married.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Yes, the concern is often racism against White and sometimes other non-Black people in the BLM movement. Obviously, some people on the receiving end worry (and also some not in the receiving end). It does not mean that they want Black people to be oppressed. Similarly, some men (and some women) worry about anti-man sexism. But that does not mean that they want women to be oppressed. Usually, one would expect those on the receiving end to worry more often, as per normal human behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because to say so, publicly, is to assert consent to the common law treatment. Then it IS a legal marriage, in addition to an "ethical" marriage

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's not a sacrifice at that time. The issue is that now she's got a huge employment gap and many years less experience that she would otherwise have--both of which will reduce her income potential. I'm saying that in a case like this she should get alimony sufficient to restore her income to what it would have been if she hadn't been out of the labor force all those years. That's nothing like what she's actually getting, though.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because to say so, publicly, is to assert consent to the common law treatment. Then it IS a legal marriage, in addition to an "ethical" marriage

That depends on the circumstances. He may well not be ware of that. And unlike a contract one signs, this may well be a surprise - ordinary people are no legal experts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

If he did so, he proposed a contract like that, but that is not the same as agreeing to the burden without the benefits. In other words, if he proposes a contract and the other party says no, he's not agreed to the burden.

 

[laughing dog]

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

If he did so, he proposed a contract like that, but that is not the same as agreeing to the burden without the benefits. In other words, if he proposes a contract and the other party says no, he's not agreed to the burden.

Since it looks like he got the benefits any way, and since he did represent as being married, it appears your analysis is faulty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

Reality: He offered marriage with a pre-nup that would have avoided this. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

If he did so, he proposed a contract like that, but that is not the same as agreeing to the burden without the benefits. In other words, if he proposes a contract and the other party says no, he's not agreed to the burden.

Since it looks like he got the benefits any way, and since he did represent as being married, it appears your analysis is faulty.

If he proposed but his proposal was rejected, then his partner did not agree to giving the benefits that come with the contract, and neither did he. Look at this from the opposite perspective: Let us say he proposed, but she said 'no'. Then, she clearly did not agree to the stipulations of a marriage, and if she were to sue her, she would rightfully say that she did not agree. So, in short, if the events are as speculated, then she did not agree to the burden of a marriage on her side, and as far as one can tell, he did not agree, either, as his proposal was an offer of a contract with a burden for each side, and the other side turned it down.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

Reality: He offered marriage with a pre-nup that would have avoided this. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Oh, if this really happened, not only did he not agree to the conditions of a marriage, but he explicitly rejected them (not that it would be needed to realize that he did not agree to that burden, as explained above).

 

[laughing dog]

Since he did ask her to marry him, he did tacitly agree to marriage in which he would legally be forced to pay if they break up.

Reality: He offered marriage with a pre-nup that would have avoided this. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

If you forget about the common-law part (which I did), you have a point.

 

[laughing dog]

Since it looks like he got the benefits any way, and since he did represent as being married, it appears your analysis is faulty.

If he proposed but his proposal was rejected, then his partner did not agree to giving the benefits that come with the contract, and neither did he.

If he proposed then clearly he was tacitly agreeing to the terms and condition of marriage because that agreement is part of the proposal.

 

[ruby sparks]

If he proposed then clearly he was tacitly agreeing to the terms and condition of marriage because that agreement is part of the proposal.

I love that. Later today, I'm going to propose to Oprah Winfrey. I'm gonna be so loaded. Seriously dude, what you're saying there is that it doesn't matter whether a woman says yes or not.

Although I feel sure you'll find a way to disagree with that. What I say is, go you.

 

[laughing dog]

I love that. Later today, I'm going to propose to Oprah Winfrey. I'm gonna be so loaded. Seriously dude, what you're saying there is that it doesn't matter whether a woman says yes or not.

The response is irrelevant to the issue of the PROPOSER'S willingness to accept the terms and conditions of marriage.

Although I feel sure you'll find a way to disagree with that. What I say is, go you.

Disagree with what? If you want to propose to Oprah Winfrey, go ahead. All that would mean if you were serious, is that YOU were willing accept the terms and conditions of marriage. It says nothing about Ms. Winfrey's willingness - which is irrelevant to the issue of your willingness.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Since it looks like he got the benefits any way, and since he did represent as being married, it appears your analysis is faulty.

If he proposed but his proposal was rejected, then his partner did not agree to giving the benefits that come with the contract, and neither did he.

If he proposed then clearly he was tacitly agreeing to the terms and condition of marriage because that agreement is part of the proposal.

I feel like it falls a step short of that. In proposing, he showed how he characterized the the relationship. He tried to dodge anything which would appear, on paper, like they met the definition of a common-law marriage, but the reality is their relationship fulfilled the terms. The proposal speaks to the nature of their on-going relationship in contrast to his characterization that she was his travel companion (or whatever he said). It becomes a tacit admission that the way he viewed their relationship, given their living arrangements, falls in line with the definition of common-law marriage. When she wouldn't sign the agreement, he could have assumed responsibility by discontinuing the relationship, if that was his priority, or accepting he may owe spousal support if they one day separated and she pressed the issue. I'm not saying it's a fair choice, but trying to retcon their relationship wasn't a real option.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since it looks like he got the benefits any way, and since he did represent as being married, it appears your analysis is faulty.

If he proposed but his proposal was rejected, then his partner did not agree to giving the benefits that come with the contract, and neither did he.

If he proposed then clearly he was tacitly agreeing to the terms and condition of marriage because that agreement is part of the proposal.

No, that is not it. If A offers B to sign a contract whereby A does X and B does Y, but B says 'no', it is not the case that A agreed to do X. A had only agreed to X conditioned to B agreeing to Y, which B did not.

In this case, it seems (if the account is correct) he did not even do that, as his proposal had a pre-nupcial that precluded some of the obligations in question.

 

[Metaphor]

If he proposed then clearly he was tacitly agreeing to the terms and condition of marriage because that agreement is part of the proposal.

No, that is not it. If A offers B to sign a contract whereby A does X and B does Y, but B says 'no', it is not the case that A agreed to do X. A had only agreed to X conditioned to B agreeing to Y, which B did not.

In this case, it seems (if the account is correct) he did not even do that, as his proposal had a pre-nupcial that precluded some of the obligations in question.

Indeed: even if he had proposed without mentioning a pre-nup, proposals are not for always and forever. He could have changed his mind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought the article said she merely maintained a different home than the one she stayed with him at.

I know a school janitor who maintains a school. He doesn't live there.

A judge concluded that they were cohabitating. Why are people throwing this finding out just because she maintained a home somewhere?

Also, since they were common law married because they were saying they were married after living together for N years, why does that mean he shouldn't be legally obligated to the laws of the land that he agreed to through social compact?

 

[Metaphor]

I thought the article said she merely maintained a different home than the one she stayed with him at.

No, it didn't say that.

Also, since they were common law married because they were saying they were married after living together for N years,

They were not living together.

why does that mean he shouldn't be legally obligated to the laws of the land that he agreed to through social compact?

He didn't agree to them. Indeed it seems like he wanted to avoid them, which would explain why they never moved in together and why they maintained separate bank accounts and why they never had children and why he wanted to marry her but only with the stipulation of a pre-nup.