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

[laughing dog]

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.

Your analysis is faulty. When A proposed X and B does Y, that means A was willing to agree all the legal responsibilities of the proposal at the time. The fact the proposal was not accepted by B does not mean that A was not willing to agree to the proposal and all of its entailments.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Your analysis is faulty. When A proposed X and B does Y, that means A was willing to agree all the legal responsibilities of the proposal at the time. The fact the proposal was not accepted by B does not mean that A was not willing to agree to the proposal and all of its entailments.

Why are you even rolling around in that dirt? The dirt doesn't matter.

The guy knew what saying they were married meant. It meant consent to the expectations people have of the married, including a reasonable promise of security in the proffered standard of living. He may have said "I'll marry you if" at one point, but that goes out the window when he says "we are married" without the other party fulfilling the previous "if".

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

They were not living together.

From the decision:

[FONT=&quot]

Ms. Climans has taken the position that they started cohabiting as of November 1, 2001 and separated May 11, 2015. This means that they cohabited, by her calculations, for 13 years, 6 months and 24 days. By her calculations she hits the “Rule of 65” (65 years and 5 months), and is asking for indefinite spousal support. While I may not agree that they started cohabiting as early as November 1, 2001, there is a five-month leeway. It was Mr. Latner’s position that the parties never cohabited, so he did not provide any evidence or take a position as to the start date. I find that at some point in those first five months of the relationship, the parties did start cohabiting.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[Metaphor]

They were not living together.

From the decision:

Ms. Climans has taken the position that they started cohabiting as of November 1, 2001 and separated May 11, 2015. This means that they cohabited, by her calculations, for 13 years, 6 months and 24 days. By her calculations she hits the “Rule of 65” (65 years and 5 months), and is asking for indefinite spousal support. While I may not agree that they started cohabiting as early as November 1, 2001, there is a five-month leeway. It was Mr. Latner’s position that the parties never cohabited, so he did not provide any evidence or take a position as to the start date. I find that at some point in those first five months of the relationship, the parties did start cohabiting.

The parties did not 'live together' in any sense that ordinary people talk about when they say 'we are living together'. They did not move into the same house.

For legal purposes, they were found to be 'cohabiting' by a certain date, because
* The woman sometimes 'slept over' the man's house
* They spent (extended?) winter vacations in Florida (better than winter in Canada I'll bet), where they presumably had the same hotel room or however it is the wealthy vacation.

The judge saying 'at some point within the first five months, the parties did start cohabiting' is the judge saying 'they never actually lived together'.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

From the decision:

The parties did not 'live together' in any sense that ordinary people talk about when they say 'we are living together'. They did not move into the same house.

For legal purposes, they were found to be 'cohabiting' by a certain date, because
* The woman sometimes 'slept over' the man's house
* They spent (extended?) winter vacations in Florida (better than winter in Canada I'll bet), where they presumably had the same hotel room or however it is the wealthy vacation.

The judge saying 'at some point within the first five months, the parties did start cohabiting' is the judge saying 'they never actually lived together'.

Incorrect. Please try again.

 

[Metaphor]

From the decision:

The parties did not 'live together' in any sense that ordinary people talk about when they say 'we are living together'. They did not move into the same house.

For legal purposes, they were found to be 'cohabiting' by a certain date, because
* The woman sometimes 'slept over' the man's house
* They spent (extended?) winter vacations in Florida (better than winter in Canada I'll bet), where they presumably had the same hotel room or however it is the wealthy vacation.

The judge saying 'at some point within the first five months, the parties did start cohabiting' is the judge saying 'they never actually lived together'.

Incorrect. Please try again.

kis, it's in the second and third paragraphs.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court said. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”

They did not 'live together' in the sense ordinary people use the term. They did not move into the same house. They did not open up a joint bank account. They did not get the electricity bill in both their names.

The judge found that there was enough 'sleeping over' and enough 'vacationing together' within the first five months of the relationship that she considered cohabiting to have started. That appears to be sufficient in Canada to legally establish 'living together'. But it ain't what normies think living together is.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Incorrect. Please try again.

kis, it's in the second and third paragraphs.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court said. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”

They did not 'live together' in the sense ordinary people use the term.

It's meant in the sense that they spent a substantial amount of time living together in a conjugal relationship. It's in the decision. "Normies" don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

 

[ZiprHead]

They did not 'live together' in the sense ordinary people use the term.

The legal system doesn't use terms the same way ordinary people do.

 

[Metaphor]

They did not 'live together' in the sense ordinary people use the term.

The legal system doesn't use terms the same way ordinary people do.

That's quite apparent. kis seems to think they lived together in the ordinary sense of the term. so, despite the fact that I made it very explicit that I said they did not live together in the ordinary sense of the term:

The parties did not 'live together' in any sense that ordinary people talk about when they say 'we are living together'. They did not move into the same house.

and then I listed the reasons why they 'lived together' in a legal sense to show why it is not the ordinary sense.

so, unless kis believes that sleeping over and vacations together are what normies think 'living together' is (which is a very strange thing to think, because nobody thinks that's what living together is), I don't know why kis is so outraged.

In fact, kis said earlier that the man was obviously doing everything he could to avoid getting a common-law marriage designation, and I would place not living together in the ordinary sense at the top of that list of things he was doing. obviously, he was not aware that the Ontario court would find sleeping over and vacationing together sufficient to trigger the 'living together' aspect of a common-law marriage, and until a few days ago, I would have thought the same thing.

 

[Metaphor]

kis, it's in the second and third paragraphs.



They did not 'live together' in the sense ordinary people use the term.

It's meant in the sense that they spent a substantial amount of time living together in a conjugal relationship. It's in the decision. "Normies" don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

why are you so angry? I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining that they legally 'lived together'. that's why i made it very explicit what ordinary people think living together is (which is, you know, actually living together), and what the court determined was sufficient to establish conjugal cohabitation (which, in this case, is not congruent with what normies think living together is).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining that they legally 'lived together'. that's why i made it very explicit what ordinary people think living together is (which is, you know, actually living together), and what the court determined was sufficient to establish conjugal cohabitation (which, in this case, is not congruent with what normies think living together is).

The definition of 'living together' was that they were living in the same place together for substantial portions of the year. I didn't say anything about the 'ordinary sense of the term'. I said 'normies'--that mythical beast you summon at your convenience, don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

 

[Metaphor]

I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining that they legally 'lived together'. that's why i made it very explicit what ordinary people think living together is (which is, you know, actually living together), and what the court determined was sufficient to establish conjugal cohabitation (which, in this case, is not congruent with what normies think living together is).

The definition of 'living together' was that they were living in the same place together for substantial portions of the year. I didn't say anything about the 'ordinary sense of the term'. I said 'normies'--that mythical beast you summon at your convenience, don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

No, I said something about the ordinary sense of the term, and you attacked me for it.

A normie is just anybody who has mainstream/common/popular tastes or opinions (and not even a person really, I have normie tastes for some things but not everything). I have no idea why the word makes you so angry.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

There are two key questions at hand:

1. Whether the court was correct in ruling they were cohabiting.

2. If so, whether the law of the land is just.

However the technical legal terms are interpreted, it seems they were not living together.

Although they maintained their separate homes, Latner and Climans behaved as a couple both privately and publicly. They vacationed together. He gave her a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry that she wore. She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house. They travelled together and talked about living together.

They "talked about living together". They were not doing so.

The second issue is whether it is just to force people to pay for their former partner's expenses after breaking up even though they never agreed to that, assuming the law has been correctly interpreted.

 

[Toni]

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?

There are two key questions at hand:

1. Whether the court was correct in ruling they were cohabiting.

2. If so, whether the law of the land is just.

However the technical legal terms are interpreted, it seems they were not living together.

Although they maintained their separate homes, Latner and Climans behaved as a couple both privately and publicly. They vacationed together. He gave her a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry that she wore. She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house. They travelled together and talked about living together.

They "talked about living together". They were not doing so.

The second issue is whether it is just to force people to pay for their former partner's expenses after breaking up even though they never agreed to that, assuming the law has been correctly interpreted.

Well, no. He proposed marriage so he had tacitly agreed to living together. He introduced her using his surname--i.e. he introduced her in such a way as to convey the belief that she was his wife.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You claim there are two issues. I will tentatively agree for purposes of discussion.

Let's deal with your first issue first, "living together."

My father-in-law and mother-in-law were married more than 50 years before they had died. They had residences in New England and in Florida. At some point they sold the house in New England, but before that either of them might have left very early or very late in their migrations back and forth between north and south. They were not living in the same household 100% of the time. Sometimes one or the other would stay a season in one spot to perform some kind of function, like dealing with a family matter or whatever.

Don't respond to the above. I don't want to see you nitpick. It's silly. It's a simple fact that two persons married need not spend 100% of the time in the same residences. You already know this and so please do not respond to this or any of the above. I am just establishing this fact in writing for the record.

Here's another example. While I was married to my wife, I was away in college for a couple of years. My primary residence was school and she would visit me most weekends. During the summer I'd stay with her. We "lived together" during the summer. Overall, we co-habitated less than 50% of the year. Again, this is a simple fact that two persons can live together less than 50% of the time, yet still be said to be living together those times. Please do not respond to this with silly semantics. This is a simple fact and added analysis is unnecessary logically.

Okay. Now that we have established some groundwork about married couples living together, let's look at specifics of this case. ..

• The couple actually did live together in his cottage in the summer, i.e. for an entire season or at least for most of the season since when someone says they summer somewhere they sometimes mean a length of time slightly less than a full season. In this specific case of living together in the summer cottage, it is quite similar to my living together with my wife during the summer.
• They also lived together significant portions of the winter in Florida.
• She had children from a previous marriage. The ex-husband had rights to see them like Thursday to Monday. So, she stayed with at the new husband's place those days. When they were not together those days, they had dinner together, including the kids most of the time.

The couple actually did live together the vast majority of the year.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining that they legally 'lived together'. that's why i made it very explicit what ordinary people think living together is (which is, you know, actually living together), and what the court determined was sufficient to establish conjugal cohabitation (which, in this case, is not congruent with what normies think living together is).

The definition of 'living together' was that they were living in the same place together for substantial portions of the year. I didn't say anything about the 'ordinary sense of the term'. I said 'normies'--that mythical beast you summon at your convenience, don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

No, I said something about the ordinary sense of the term, and you attacked me for it.

No. You said 'in the sense ordinary people use the term.' I didn't 'attack' you for it. You made an incorrect statement, I pointed it out, and then you lazily shifted it to some imaginary definition based on your characterization of 'normies'. You know what kids tend to say when they're in the position Climens' kids were in? I live with my mom most of the time and I live with my dad the rest of the time. They don't always say that, of course, but it is a perfectly ordinary way to characterize where they live. The mother was doing the same with her partner. She wasn't just vacationing in the Muskokas. She was staying there for extended periods of time and even securing seasonal work. She was living there with her conjugal partner. That is ordinary speech. 'Living together' is an ordinary way to characterize those periods of time.

Subsequently, you said 'I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining...' as if you were indicating I had pointed out something to you that you already knew. I made it clear I wasn't saying that.

A normie is just anybody who has mainstream/common/popular tastes or opinions (and not even a person really, I have normie tastes for some things but not everything). I have no idea why the word makes you so angry.

I understand what it is, but it's also an unquantified, unqualified and largely irrelevant reference point to use when the point I called you out on is what the judge said, not what 'normies' think. But the thing about 'normies' is they seem to see things your way an awful lot when you cite them, which is pretty convenient when you consider in cases like this we can't actually measure or adequately reference what they think. I didn't say 'fucking' because I was angry. I said it because I was being dismissive of intellectually lazy, equivocal nonsense. "Uh durr... the judge didn't say they lived together. I mean, he did say they "lived together", but he didn't mean they lived together the way ordinary people mean it. I swear. My norrmie bros told me to tell you they totally back me up on this borderline irrelevant factoid."

 

[Metaphor]

[

No. You said 'in the sense ordinary people use the term.' I didn't 'attack' you for it. You made an incorrect statement,

No, I did not make an incorrect statement. They were not living together in the ordinary sense of the term. The judge found that, for alimony purposes, they had been living together.

I pointed it out, and then you lazily shifted it to some imaginary definition based on your characterization of 'normies'.

I fucking did not shift it. I meant what I said. They were not living together in the ordinary sense of the term.

You know what kids tend to say when they're in the position Climens' kids were in? I live with my mom most of the time and I live with my dad the rest of the time. They don't always say that, of course, but it is a perfectly ordinary way to characterize where they live. The mother was doing the same with her partner. She wasn't just vacationing in the Muskokas. She was staying there for extended periods of time and even securing seasonal work. She was living there with her conjugal partner. That is ordinary speech. 'Living together' is an ordinary way to characterize those periods of time.

Subsequently, you said 'I realise the ordinary sense of the term 'living together' did not play a role in determining...' as if you were indicating I had pointed out something to you that you already knew. I made it clear I wasn't saying that

If you think they were living together in the ordinary sense of the term 'living together', then I disagree with that assessment.

I understand what it is, but it's also an unquantified, unqualified and largely irrelevant reference point to use when the point I called you out on is what the judge said, not what 'normies' think. But the thing about 'normies' is they seem to see things your way an awful lot when you cite them, which is pretty convenient when you consider in cases like this we can't actually measure or adequately reference what they think.

Why is it convenient? When normies don't agree with me, I'm aware of that too.

But, if you think most people would judge the couple as 'living together' then we can agree to disagree. I don't think most people would, and I wouldn't either.

I didn't say 'fucking' because I was angry. I said it because I was being dismissive of intellectually lazy, equivocal nonsense. "Uh durr... the judge didn't say they lived together. I mean, he did say they "lived together", but he didn't mean they lived together the way ordinary people mean it. I swear. My norrmie bros told me to tell you they totally back me up on this borderline irrelevant factoid."

It wasn't backtracking, it was clarification. The common usage and understanding of a term is not irrelevant.

Also my friends are not 'bros'. They're my friends.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, no. He proposed marriage so he had tacitly agreed to living together. He introduced her using his surname--i.e. he introduced her in such a way as to convey the belief that she was his wife.

Proposing marriage does not entail agreeing to any of the obligations of marriage unless the proposal is accepted. This is generally the case with any offer of any contract. At any rate, they were not living together.
That aside, does marriage in Canada involve an obligation to live together?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My father-in-law and mother-in-law were married more than 50 years before they had died. They had residences in New England and in Florida. At some point they sold the house in New England, but before that either of them might have left very early or very late in their migrations back and forth between north and south. They were not living in the same household 100% of the time. Sometimes one or the other would stay a season in one spot to perform some kind of function, like dealing with a family matter or whatever.



Don't respond to the above. I don't want to see you nitpick. It's silly. It's a simple fact that two persons married need not spend 100% of the time in the same residences. You already know this and so please do not respond to this or any of the above. I am just establishing this fact in writing for the record.

Of course that is true they can be married without spending 100% of the time together. In fact, two people can be married and not live together most of the time. However, the question is very different in this context, because absent a marriage contract, then it seems the law considers cohabitation as one of the factors on the basis of which two people would be legally married.

Here's another example. While I was married to my wife, I was away in college for a couple of years. My primary residence was school and she would visit me most weekends. During the summer I'd stay with her. We "lived together" during the summer. Overall, we co-habitated less than 50% of the year. Again, this is a simple fact that two persons can live together less than 50% of the time, yet still be said to be living together those times. Please do not respond to this with silly semantics. This is a simple fact and added analysis is unnecessary logically.

Sure, they can live together a small fraction of the time. One would not describe those people as cohabiting, though. In fact, if one wants to be precise, what one should say it's precisely that: they cohabit an x% of the time, and do not cohabit a (100-x)% of the time.

The couple actually did live together in his cottage in the summer, i.e. for an entire season or at least for most of the season since when someone says they summer somewhere they sometimes mean a length of time slightly less than a full season. In this specific case of living together in the summer cottage, it is quite similar to my living together with my wife during the summer.

Actually, it was in July and August.

She had children from a previous marriage. The ex-husband had rights to see them like Thursday to Monday. So, she stayed with at the new husband's place those days. When they were not together those days, they had dinner together, including the kids most of the time.

The Thursday to Monday morning thing was in winter, and on alternate weeks. That means 3 days every 2 weeks in winter. That's apart from 2 months in summer. That gives you less than 82 days a year. Add to that a few days in the rest of the year, and you might get to 100 days a year, in the first years of the relationship.

When they were not together those days, they had dinner together, including the kids most of the time.

Earlier in the relationship, yes, but that is not the same as living together.

The couple actually did live together the vast majority of the year.

No, it was at best 100 days a year.

But the law says:

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0554.htm

29 In this Part,

“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1(1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,

(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, …

Section 1(1) defines “cohabit” as follows:

1(1) In this Act,

…

“cohabit” means to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage[.]

100 or fewer days a year do not amount to 3 years continuously. Sure, there is some leeway if they spend a weekend apart per month or something like that. But not when most of the year they were apart.


That said, even if they had cohabited for 3 years continuously, with him repeatedly saying that he would not marry her without the prenuptial agreement and she agreeing to continue living with him under those circumstances, it would be pretty unjust - though in that case legal - to say they were married and he has to pay.

 

[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.

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.