Login | Register

Post Reply 
Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
09-12-2020, 02:18 AM
Post: #1
Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court rules

TORONTO — A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

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.”

The decision comes in the case of Lisa Climans and Michael Latner, both of Toronto, who began a romantic relationship after meeting in October 2001. At the time, she was 38 and separated with two children, court records show. He was 46 and divorced with three children.

Advertisement
Article content continued
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.

Latner proposed several times and Climans accepted. He often referred to her by his last name. However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-...3205f50a6/

Those who know, know! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 02:39 AM
Post: #2
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
Yep, the end of not only marriage, but now long term dating in preparation for marriage.

Thanks, leftists!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 02:40 AM
Post: #3
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
"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."

Cohabited.

Not necessarily in the same home! WTF.

That is what a subverted court system looks like.

This guy clearly knew the law and that was why he kept her out of his house, and proposed the marriage contract. Courts said "Look, we have an agenda here and we'll be damned if you get in the way of it"
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 02:55 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2020 02:56 AM by karasu.)
Post: #4
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
(09-12-2020 02:39 AM)Chaos Reigns Wrote:  Yep, the end of not only marriage, but now long term dating in preparation for marriage.

Thanks, leftists!


not if one SMARTLY manages his choices Big Grin

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 03:11 AM
Post: #5
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
Another case of men being bent over by the court system on woman's behalf.

Good AI dolls can't come quick enough.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 03:55 AM
Post: #6
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
this is insane.

I wonder if this was done to set a wave of demoralization

male strength has never been lower.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 06:30 AM
Post: #7
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
(09-12-2020 03:55 AM)pug-thug Wrote:  this is insane.

I wonder if this was done to set a wave of demoralization

male strength has never been lower.

They know people were figuring it out, between prenups and avoiding co-habiting, so they just said "nice try".

The courts need to eat.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 07:03 AM
Post: #8
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
(09-12-2020 03:11 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  Another case of men being bent over by the court system on woman's behalf.

Good AI dolls can't come quick enough.


"Good AI dolls can't come quick enough"-----

intriguing thought which could make for an interesting theological discussion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:19 PM
Post: #9
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,”

this makes zero fucking sense.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:21 PM
Post: #10
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
2020 Court of Appeal decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20...ca554.html

Portion of Judge Response

I did not find Mr. Latner to be a credible witness and I therefore find his evidence to be unreliable in many circumstances throughout the trial.

By way of example, when shown a picture of him and Ms. Climans in Costa Rica, with the words ‘will you marry me’ written in the sand, along with their names joined by a heart, he first denied proposing to Ms. Climans, suggesting that the people sitting next to them wrote the message in the sand, not him. Then he said he could not recall. Then he said if he did, he was not sure what the point was.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:31 PM
Post: #11
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
you will start seeing more rullings against "sugar daddies"

this is something they do not want happening in the future.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2020 01:42 PM by Rako.)
Post: #12
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
Weird.
It's weird to say that they are "common-law spouses" if there is no marriage. Unmarried spouses? I think that the law does not work this way in the US.

On the other hand, if their Canadian law says that there is such a thing as "common law spouses" determined by "cohabitation" as well as holding themselves out as a couple, then the case seems arguable either way.
In the facts portion above, the man even referred to the lady using his last name and it says that she quit her job and regularly slept at his place. It's true that she did not give up her own house, but she could still be cohabiting with him if she is "habiting" in his house. The story also says that the relationship started in 2001, so we are talking about almost a 20 year relationship. She would have been in this relationship from when she was 38 to about 57.

It sounds like the man offered her a contract for marriage on terms that she did not want. Maybe it said that she would not inherit anything, or else not very much. The appeals court is saying "No dice" to his claim that he is not having her as a "common law spouse" because they were cohabiting in his house.

I think that it should go to their supreme court, but if their law really looks at relationships with this unmarried "common law spouse" concept, it seems like he would probably lose, but I guess that he could still win.

The 50,000 per month is a high figure. It sounds like they must be pretty wealthy as a family. Maybe they are related to this family: https://torontolife.com/city/latner-vs-latner/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:55 PM
Post: #13
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
(09-12-2020 01:19 PM)pug-thug Wrote:  “Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,”

this makes zero fucking sense.
They are defining cohabitation as living together in a conjugal relationship, and they are saying that living together doesn't necessarily mean having the same residence.

In the story, it said that she regularly stayed at his house. Unfortunately, it does not say how often. It also is not clear how they define a residence. For instance, does the person have to spend more time there than anyplace else, or can it just be their house that they own and often stay at and call their "residence" for legal purposes.

So if you want to make sense out of this, she could be staying 40-60% of the time at her "residence" and the other 40-60% of the time at his residence and the court is saying that they are living together in a conjugal relationship. Or she could be spending like 75% of the time at his place but she is still owning her own "residence" because she likes having an extra place to stay. The story isn't clear on this.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 01:58 PM
Post: #14
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
(09-12-2020 01:21 PM)pug-thug Wrote:  By way of example, when shown a picture of him and Ms. Climans in Costa Rica, with the words ‘will you marry me’ written in the sand, along with their names joined by a heart, he first denied proposing to Ms. Climans, suggesting that the people sitting next to them wrote the message in the sand, not him. Then he said he could not recall. Then he said if he did, he was not sure what the point was.
Right. If someone is clearly lying all over the place, the judge can disregard their testimony as not credible, which means that the judge stays with the female spouse's testimony. So if she is saying that everything is the same as if we were married without a legal contract, and the spouse is lying hard, then the judge can go by what she is saying, which goes pretty strong in her favor in Canada's law with their weird unmarried "spouse" category.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2020, 02:04 PM
Post: #15
RE: Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support,
if you are not married you are not tied to them.

That's the whole point of not getting married, so you can LEAVE when you want to.

This is patently ridiculous.

Also who needs 50K a month?

that is the annual salary for most people in the developed world.

This seems like a demoralization campaign aimed at older rich guys.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - Conspiracy Theories Online EVILYOSHIDA 1 139 10-16-2020 10:48 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA
  Journal of Pediatrics: Mercury is good for your children EVILYOSHIDA 0 260 10-14-2020 11:15 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA
  California Legis Passes Bill Reducing Penalty 4 Oral, Anal Sex with Willing Children pilgrim 26 612 09-10-2020 12:10 PM
Last Post: Heystro
  Democrats QUIT The Party in Droves, Voters FURIOUS Over Democrat Support For Riots pilgrim 14 466 09-04-2020 11:38 PM
Last Post: Count Iblis

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)