| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Common Law Couples Assets
Spousal Support & Child Support
Common-Law Status
Other Issues
I am in a common law relationship with my partner. I have been engaged to be married to him for 2 years. We have been together for over five years and living consistantly together for almost 2 years. We have a three year old daughter together and I have a twelve year old daughter from a prior relationship. I am working part-time. He is working full time. and makes quatdruple what I make. He has purchased a house that we have had built and are moving in to it soon. He pays all the bills. Everything is legally in his name. I do all the house hold chores and tend to the children. I am worried that if there was a breakdown in our relationship, I would be out in the street with my two children. Would I be entitled to anything? (by D of Coquitlam, BC) Once you have lived with your boyfriend for two years, you will be considered to be common-law spouses under the Family Relations Act. Once you become a common-law spouse, you will also be eligible to receive spousal support from him. This is not to say that you WILL receive the support, just that you will qualify for it under the Act. Whether you receive spousal support will depend on the circumstances of your relationship, particularly whether you are worse off financial as a result of your relationship. Because you and your fiance are not formally married, you cannot take advantage of the parts of the Family Relations Act that deal with the division of assets. Your only claim to the assets held in your boyfriends name is through trust law. This is a little complex to go into right now; you should read the parts of my website dealing with the division of assets under constructive trusts very carefully (look this up in the index). It is difficult to give you an estimate of your chances of a successful claim based on the information you've provided, but if it is the case that you sacrificed your career in order to be a homemaker and stay-at-home mother for his benefit and the benefit of your child, you may very well have a good claim under the law of constructive trusts. (Again, you really ought to read that part of my website very carefully to get a better grasp on this legal concept.) Click here to go to the top of the page. My boyfriend and I have lived together for 6 years in rental properties, and I would now like to purchase a house. Because of my partner's poor credit rating, I will be buying the house alone, but he will continue to live with me. If the house is purchased in my name, and the payments are made from my personal bank account rather than our joint bank account, would he be entitled to a share in the house should we ever decide to separate? Also, is there a document that he could sign before I purchased the house to protect me from any claim later? (by K of Victoria, BC) Quite simply, if your boyfriend contributes to the purchase of the house or the mortgage payments, he will have an interest in your house. In a common-law relationship, his interest would be in a minimum amount of equal to the money he's put in. Of course, in certain circumstances, he may have an interest even if he contributes no money to the acquisition and maintenance of the house; read the section in my website dealing with common-law couples and "constructive trust" claims, it will give you a more detailed outline of what I'm talking about. As far as documents to protect your interest are concerned, there are a few things you can do. First, you could both enter into a cohabitation agreement, or, as the people from Self-Counsel Press call it, a "living together contract." If you don't want to go to the length of drafting and executing a cohabitation agreement, why not simply get him to sign a piece of paper stating that he agrees to never seek an interest in the house? This sort of agreement should be signed by you both in the presence of witnesses and should, at a minimum:
To be absolutely certain that he won't have any broader interest in the house, you should consider having a lawyer draft this agreement for you. To give you an idea of the cost, my hourly rate is $175/hr and I would expect to spend about one hour drafting the agreement, and possibly another half hour in correspondence and telephone calls and other sundry items. I cannot guarantee of course what other lawyers would charge! Anyhow, you should think about it. Click here to go to the top of the page. I was in a common-law relationship for 5 years. I am the legal parent, not the natural parent. The little girl and I shared a healthy loving relationship. Having done some research and so forth I am aware of the time restraints on claims for common-law relationships. My question is that since there is a 1 year time-limit on putting a claim in for child support, is there a time-limit on how long you can claim for access and guardianship? The BC government site quotes out "child support" as having the time limit but doesn't seem to be specific with access and guardianship. (by N of Kelowna, BC) You're quite right, there is a time limit for support but there isn't one for access. The time limit for support for a step-child is created by the definition of "parent" in the Family Relations Act, since it is only "parents" who are obliged to pay support. As far as access and whatnot is concered, the FRA says that "any person" can apply for access, custody and guardianship. While after one year has passed since you last contributed to the child's upkeep you are no longer a "parent" obliged to provide support, you are still "a person" eligible to apply for access. Of course, even though there's no limit for applications for child support, the moment you apply to be involved in the child's life, it would certainly be open for the mother to seek child support from you. You won't be able to have your cake and eat it too. The premise behind the definition of "parent" for step-parents is that step-parents sometimes want to walk away from the whole relationship, including the child. If you don't want to abandon the child, you will likely be subject to a support obligation. Click here to go to the top of the page. By the laws of Canada, how long must a couple live together to be considered a married couple? If a separation occurs and one partner wishes to divide the assets 50/50, is there a separate amount of time that they must live together? (by J of Buckhorn, ON) First, the law on what constitutes a "common-law marriage" differ from province to province and between the provinces and the federal government. Second, they also differ between different pieces of legislation. The principle reason for this is that common-law status may trigger certain benefits (like under the Wills Act, for example) or certain disadvantages (like in welfare legislation, for example). What you're talking about has to do with the division of family assets. You're trying to see, I think, if your status as a common-law spouse may give you a certain right with respect to family assets. You've got a problem, however. Being a common-law couple does NOT mean you are married. To be married, you MUST have obtained a marriage licence and gone through a kind of ceremony officiated by someone authorized to perform marriages. No matter how long you live together you will never be married until this happens. In general, to be a common-law couple, you must have lived together for at least two years. Again, however, this depends on the law you're looking at. Some federal legislation defines common-law status as arising after one year of cohabitation as a couple. Some provincial legislation says that you have to live together for two years before you attain common-law status. Now all this aside, the meat of your question has to do with family assets. This is where I'm not going to be of any help to you. I practice in BC and the laws dealing with the division of family assets are different here than they are in Ontario. In BC, however, common-law couples are excluded from the rules relating to the division of family assets. In BC a common-law couple must make a claim in trust law to an interest in assets held by the other spouse. I suspect that this is the rule in Ontario as well, however I'm not sure. You will have to consult a lawyer in your neighbourhood for a proper answer. I things are the way I suspect they are in Ontario, that you're excluded from the legislation which deals with family assets, you will NOT have an automatic entitlement to any asset, except for those you own jointly with your spouse. If there are assets he or she has that you think you should have an interest in, you will have to make your claim based on the law of either the resulting trust or the constructive trust. There's more information about both kinds of trust claim in my website. Click here to go to the top of the page. My girlfriend and I have lived together for approximately 3 years. Last year we bought a condo together. If I decide to break up with her, what steps do I need to take to ensure I don't lose my share of the condo? If I move out, does that impact how the assets will be divided? Does one of us end up keeping the condo while paying the other off? ? (by S of Cyberspace, BC) You won't lose your share of the condo, so long as you name is on the condo's title as a co-owner. Since you bought the condo together, I assume that this is the case. Moving out won't affect your entitlement to share in the assets; moving out usually matters most when children are involved or where the person moving out may not be able to afford to live on his or her own. As a common-law couple, you are deprived of the property provisions of the Family Relations Act. This means that your claim to a share in the assets must be obvious - such as being a co-owner of the title or the car, or whatever - or be made through the law of trusts. In otherwords, you have a clear claim to whatever you co-own. For things you don't co-own on paper, you will have to claim an interest through a trust your girlfriend has for you in the assets. Sorry, I know that was a bit confusing. Read the chapter in the section dealing with the division of assets. There's more information there. Also, see the section on Unmarried Couples. Click here to go to the top of the page. My boyfriend and I have lived together for 6 years in rental properties, and I would now like to purchase a house. Because of my partner's poor credit rating, I will be buying the house alone, but he will continue to live with me. If the house is purchased in my name, and the payments are made from my personal bank account rather than our joint bank account, would he be entitled to a share in the house should we ever decide to separate? Also, is there a document that he could sign before I purchased the house to protect me from any claim later? (by L of Fort St. John, BC) Actually, we don't call them lis pendens anymore, now they're called "certificates of pending litigation." In order to file one, you must have commenced an action against your former partner. Your claim, if you have one, would be to a trust-based interest in the increase in the value of the house. Assuming you are successful in establishing a trust relationship between you and your ex, the likely result would be an entitlement to the percentage in the increase in the value of the house which is attributable to the money you put into it. My concern, of course, is that you signed a separation agreement, and did so with insufficient information. In some circumstances the court will overturn a separation agreement if it can be shown that the agreement was unfair or based on inadequate information, or a misrepresentation, or was entered into by mistake. You can only file a CPL after you've started an action. In deciding whether to start an action, you have to figure out what the likely result would be... is the amount you're likely to receive enough to compensate you for the cost of bringing the action? If all you contributed was [amount deleted] (don't forget that your personal contributions count too, things like labour in the renovations or helping colours and whatnot), the percentage interest you might have in the increase in value of the property might not be enough to justify a law suit. Or at least, you're going to be awfully close to the break-even point. In your circumstances I would strongly suggest that you consult a local lawyer who specializes in family law issues. You really should. Your problem is not one with a clear cut answer! Click here to go to the top of the page. My brother is currently in a relationship. She and her children moved into his house with him a few months ago. My brother no longer wants to continue the relationship. We are concerned that she may try to claim half of his assets. After how much time are people considered to be common-law married? (by L of Victoria, BC) Your brother has nothing to worry about. If he's only been living with his girlfriend for that short of a period, he won't be on the hook for either spousal support or child support. As far as property is concerned, he likely doesn't have to worry about that either. Common-law status, which has nothing to do with property issues, arises after a couple have lived together for two years. Common-law couples are expressly excluded from the parts of the Family Relations Act that have to do with dividing property. If the girlfriend wishes to bring a claim against him for a share of his assets, she will have to do so through trust law; there's more on the in the section in my website "Unmarried Couples > Common Law Couples." She would be able to assert this claim regardless of whether they qualify as common law or not. In any event, because of the brief nature of the relationship, she's not likely to have a good case. Further, trust claims are really tough to argue and, if successful, rarely result in an entitlement to half of the other person's assets. Really, your brother shouldn't have anything to worry about. Make sure he doesn't sign any sort of agreement relating to property though! Click here to go to the top of the page. I have been living with my common-law spouse for more than 10 years. We have a teenage daughter. We are now separating. Do we have to actually obtain a divorce now before we can remarry? (by C of Port Hope, ON) Being a common-law spouse is a matter of definition, since you may be subject to certain responsibilities and have certain rights depending on whether you qualify as "common-law" under certain pieces of legislation, like the CPP survivor's benefit, sharing in medical insurance coverage, being entitled to demand spousal support and so on. That's all common-law status is. If you were never properly married, you're not married and that's it. You are both free to legally marry to anyone you choose, and you have always been free to do so. Common-law spouses are not "married" as the law understands it. You do NOT need to "divorce" since you were never married. If you want to marry someone, or your partner does, there's nothing standing in your way. Click here to go to the top of the page. My girlfriend lived with me in my house for 17 months. She was actually still legally married to someone else during this time. What claim does she have on my house and assets? (by D of Vancouver, BC) You don't need to be terribly concerned. Firstly, your relationship was quite brief, and under the two-year mark required for common-law status under the Family Relations Act. Secondly, any claim she might bring would have to be brought under the principles of trust law. The relative brevity of your relationship significantly lowers the prospects of her success in obtaining a share of your house and other assets, assuming, of course, that you brought the house and your other assets into the relationship. She will have a presumptive interest in assets you acquired together, and in assets whose acquisition she contributed towards. The fact that she was married while you lived together doesn't have a significant impact on her claim to your assets, if indeed she has any claim at all. Making a claim under trust law can be quite difficult, it is doubtful that she'd find the effort and expense of litigation worthwhile for the trifling interest she might gain in your assets. Click here to go to the top of the page. How can I end a common-law partner relationship, which government institutions must I inform? (by J of Vancouver, BC) The answer to your questions are simple: by leaving; and, none. You end a common-law relationship simply by separating. There's no magic to it at all; you and your partner simply part ways. If there are any government agencies providing benefits to your or your partner, you may want to let them know of the development. For most folks, however, there's no need to notify anyone. Click here to go to the top of the page. Can you have a common-law relationship if you are still legally married to someone else? Also, why is it legal for common-law couples to file income tax after one year but any thing else is two years? (by D of Midway, BC) Yes, it is possible to be common-law while still married. The length of time the couple has to live together to qualify as "common-law" depends on which piece of legislation you're looking at. For most federal legislation, one year of cohabitation is required (that's the explanation for your income tax question), for most provincial legislation, two years is required. Common-law status really only relates to benefits or duties imposed by legislation. It doesn't establish any legal relationship beyond that. That's why you can be married but still in a common-law relationship. The question you have to ask, when you're wondering about common-law status, is "do I qualify as common-law under this piece of legislation?" If you do, you might qualify for family MSP rates, a share of your partners CPP death benefits, spousal support and so forth; you might qualify to make a claim under the Estate Administration Act or the Wills Variation Act. Apart from these considerations about legislated benefits or obligations, that's about all common-law means. Click here to go to the top of the page. I have recently separated from my common-law partner. We are stilling living under the same roof. I purchased the condo last year (we have been together for 4), contributed all of the down payment and everything is in my name. It was made clear (verbally) that if we split up I would not sell the condo, and that since she could not afford it I would keep it. Since the purchase she has contributed monthly for room and board. My question is this, is there any way I can force her to leave? Is there a form I can use to evict her? I have given her plenty of notice that I want her out but I want to ensure I have some sort of recourse if she decides she doesn't want to leave at that time. (by G of Coquitlam, BC) If the condo is in your name alone, ask her to leave. If she won't, change the locks when she's out. Boom, you're done. As long as the condo is only in your name, it's your property and you are entitled to exclusive use of it, and you're entitled to ask her to leave. There's no form to give her since she is porbably not a "tenant" within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act, although that's something you should probably check out — my area of expertise is not landlord and tenant law. I would like to suggest that, if you do kick her out, you have a copy of the certificate of title to show to the police to prove that the condo is yours and yours alone if she complains. Click here to go to the top of the page. My common-law spouse and I have lived together for 10 years. He did not have any assets or financial resources when we met, nor did he contribute financially to the relationship. He stayed at home to pursue a career as an artist generating no income, while I earned the household income. I paid the rent/mortgage and all household and living expenses. As well, I bought him a vehicle, set up and contributed to his RRSP, and gave him unlimited access to our household funds. I purchased a house a few years ago, and had the title put in joint tenancy. Now that we are splitting up, does he have equal share in the house's equity? His contribution to the house consists of some labour in home repairs and improvements. Also, what is the likelihood that he could claim spousal support? He is in his 50s and does not have a lot of marketable skills, and did not working at all before or during the relationship. (by K of Vancouver, BC) Your partner is presumptively entitled to half the equity in your house simply by the fact that his name is on title. On the other hand, since you contributed so much to the maintenance of the household and he contributed so little, it seems to me that you ought be be entitled to the lion's share of the equity in the house in compensation for that and in compensation for your interest in his RRSPs. Bear in mind that as a common-law couple, you can only easily share in things that are in both your names. To make a claim to something in his name alone, like the RRSPs, you'd ordinarily have to make a claim based on the law of trusts. You cannot make a claim under the Family Relations Act. Now, about spousal support. Yes, it seems to me that you're exposed to the possibility of having to provide some level of support to your partner, particularly if he's not presently employed. However, he should be employable and ought to be able to get a job in short order, and he has an obligation to do so. It might not be a job he likes if he's got little job training, but that's tough. He has a duty to support himself and he should not expect to continue to be supported by you. I expect that your obligation would be limited to perhaps one to two years, although I really can't say for sure. Click here to go to the top of the page. I have been in a common law relationship for 15 years. We built a home 6 years ago of which I contributed 70% more cash then my partner. Does he have rights to 50% of the sale? If I buy him out, is he responsible for 50% of the realty fees I will need to pay when the home is sold or 50% of the owed property tax? (by D of Victoria, BC) As a matter of law, since you're both on the title of the home, you each will be presumed to have an equal interest in the house. This is, however, just a presumption. Nothing is stopping you asking for more than half on the basis of your disproportionate contribution to the purchase of the property. I would caution you, however, that your disproportionate contribute occurred a fairly long time ago, which substantially undermines your chances of getting anything more than half of the equity. You should also consider the contributions that each of you made to the house in those last six years. Was the mortgage paid equally? How were things like renovations and improvements paid for? Before you think of demanding more than half, I'd sit down with a calculator and try to work out your contributions and your partner's contributions. Now, about the realtor's fees, yes, you can be compensated for that. The general rule is that there must be fixed sale date in mind and a definite pending sale of the property before realtor's fees will be deducted from the equity which is being divided. You should also get a realtor's guesstimate of the likely sale price to figure the commission out and put a proper value on the equity in your home. Your partner should be responsible for the property tax for so long as the property is co-owned, although there is no hard rule about this. It's just what seems fair. Click here to go to the top of the page. I am divorced and my partner is legally separated. We have been living together for 3 years, with my divorced finalized two years ago. Because she is not divorced, can we be considered to be living in a common-law relationship? (by S of Baden, ON) Simply put, yes. Common-law status has no magic to it, the way that being married does. Common-law simply means that you and your partner might have access to certain government benefits, like CPP survivor's benefits, or EI paid at a family rate. It also means that if you and your partner separate, she might have certain claims against you for things like spousal support, depending on what the Ontario Family Law Act has to say about common-law couples. Read the chapter "Marriage & Divorce > Separation" in my website for more information about new relationship while separated. Click here to go to the top of the page. My boyfriend lived with his ex-girlfriend for three and a half years. He paid for all of their rent and their other bills and expenses. He basically supported her. She bought groceries and paid for the occasional bill. The relationship eventually failed and she moved back in with her parents. My question is does she owe him any money because he supported her for such a long time? (by L of Langley, BC) Unfortunately, she probably doesn't owe your boyfriend anything. If there were a claim of any sort to be made, it's likely be by your boyfriend against any assets she owned to which he contributed. Further, since he supported her for so long, she might be able to claim that he should pay spousal support to her if she hadn't moved back in with her mother. The court looks at these sorts of relationships as a kind of partnership; each contributes as they may and the nature of their payments to different bills is all a part of that. The court would also assume that since the relationship lasted so long, that your boyfriend didn't mind his ex's relatively small contributions, or else the relationship would have ended a lot sooner. I guess what I'm saying is that in relationships like this, particularly ones as short as this, the court is very reluctant to do a forensic audit of the relationship: who paid for what, how much more did one person pay, and so forth. Had your boyfriend been genuinely concerned that his contributions outweighed his ex-girlfriend's contributions, he should have prepared a cohabitation agreement before they moved in together. Click here to go to the top of the page. I moved in with my boyfriend straight from my parents home, but I did not change my address. I've lived with him for a year. Do we qualify for a common-law partnership if our mailing addresses are not the same? (by K of Courtenay, BC) Your mailing address really has nothing to do with whether you qualify as common-law or not. The length of relationship that you must have to qualify as common-law depends on whether you're looking at federal legislation or provincial legislation. For most federal legislation, you become "common-law spouses" after you've lived together for one year; BC legislation says that you must live together for two years. Read through the first chapter of the section "Unmarried Couples" and the chaper "Unmarried Couples > Common-Couples" for a complete description of when you become common-law and what common-law status means. Click here to go to the top of the page. I will be moving in with my boyfriend who bought a condo five months ago. We have agreed to split his mortgage payments when I move in. If we seperate after two years or more, do I have any rights to his condo if I have contributed to his mortgage for that amount of time? Should I have a legal contract made up regarding this matter? Should I insist on being put on his condo contract or whatever it's called? (by S of Vancouver, BC) You won't necessarily have any claim to his condo at all. Read the chapter "Family Assets > Dividing Assets" for more information on how common-law couples divide property. Your problem is that while you very well may contribute to his condo by paying half the mortgager payments, if you wind up arguing this in court, it'll be equally open to him to say that the payments you made were in lieu of rent. If you really want to have a share of his condo, you'd have to sign a cohabitation agreement that specifically says that you have an interest in the condo in an amount equal to your contributions, or something to that effect. Otherwise, while you may have a claim under the law of trusts, it's a fairly poor claim with a low likelihood of success. As to being "put on his condo agreement," what you mean is being put on the title of the condo as a co-owner. I doubt very much that your boyfriend would agree to that, but if he does, it will give you an obvious interest in the condo since now you'd also be an owner of the condo. Click here to go to the top of the page. Am I entitled to my common-law husbands business assets? I have a feeling he may be trying to hide all his assets. (by N of Vancouver, BC) Common-law couples have only a limited set of rights with respect to each other's property. Read very carefully the chapter "Family Assets > Dividing Assets" for more information about common-law couples' claims to each other's property. I'm telling you this because while there are ways to secure financial disclosure, you may not have good enough of a claim to make the effort and cost worthwhile. For example, you generally wouldn't have a claim to your partner's business unless you actively contributed to the business without compensation, such as performing bookkeeping services, working in the business and whatnot. You do, however, have an obvious interest in anything you own together. If you're to get anything — including the information you want — you'll have to start a law suit in the Supreme Court and serve your partner, making sure you raise a claim to not only the property you own together but a constructive trust claim to the assets in his name alone. That will give you the footing to demand that he produce information to you, including a proper Financial Statement and anything else that might be relevant, such as bank statements, transaction records, RRSP statements, and so forth. Click here to go to the top of the page. In a common law relationship, what rights do the two parties have to make decisions or sign for medical procedures for their partner in the event of an accident or emergency? Can we have a legal contract drawn up to allow for this? (by J of Nanaimo, BC) I think that the extent to which a particular hospital or doctor will accept instructions from a common-law partner is probably a matter of policy for each hospital and doctor. I doubt that there is a law on this, but I'm not sure. I know that hospitals will accept instructions from immediate family members (parents, children, spouses, etc), but I suspect that it's discretionary when it comes to common-law partners. I'm aware of a few cases where family members have battled with common-law partners about the proper care for someone. There is, however, a solution to your problem. What you and your partner need is a Power of Attorney. A Power of Attorney allows a person to appoint someone to act in their place in the event of sickness or incapacity. Spouses can do this, so can common-law couples. Powers of Attorney typically appoint someone to handle the person's affairs when they cannot handle them themselves, and they can be as broad or as narrow as the person wishes. Some are all-encompassing and unrestricted, allowing the person with the Power of Attorney to sell or buy property, handle bank accounts and pay bills, make medical treatment decisions and so forth. Others are limited to, for example, just financial issues or just health care issues. A Power of Attorney is a notarized document, and the hospital and doctor will have to take instructions from the person who holds the Power of Attorney. Click here to go to the top of the page. If I enter into a common-law relationship, would I be legally responsible for any debts incured in my partners name, either before or during the relationship? (by A of Mission, BC) The answer to your question is simple: no. These days, not even married couples get dinged for each other's debts. All I have to say to you is to make sure that you NEVER co-sign your partner's debts and NEVER take a secondary credit card on one of his credit accounts. Do not even sign on as a guarantor for a loan. As long as you keep your finances separate from his, you should be fine. Click here to go to the top of the page. My girlfriend and I have been dating for almost [number] months. After the first few dates she started insisting on my moving in with her into her apartment. After a month I hesitantly agreed, but have not changed my old address (I was living with my parents before). Now my parents are moving to a different location, and my "official" address has changed as well. Our friends and her family have seen us as a couple. She even bought both of us "engagement" rings, one of which she wears constantly. My question is how can I prevent entering a common-law relationship in this case? If I spend part of the week at my parents' house, and part of the week with her, does that still count as "living together"? I do not feel easy about things advancing so quickly, but on the other hand my moving out would mean the end to our relationship (from her point of view - we have already discussed it several times). It's all or nothing kind of a situation. So I prefer to stay with her to avoid a breakup because I love her and I think (but am not completely sure because of some disagreements we already have) that we might have a future together. I do not pay any of her bills, neither do I sign any documents that would indicate the nature of our relationship. Another problem is that she is on disability assistance, and her parents have to support her financially on top of that. They would love to transfer that responsibility onto me, which they almost openly stated recently. I feel that this whole financial aspect is very damaging to our relationship. I am a full-time university student, borrow funds from the government and have a part-time job as well. Almost every penny I get goes to financing my education, so I simply cannot afford spousal support now, but I will likely improve my financial situation after I graduate and pay off my debts. What options does she or her parents have in terms of getting spousal support from me now, two years from now or ten years from now? What evidence does she or her parents have to provide to proove the fact that we live together or are in a "marriage-like relationship"? And finally, what is the difference between federal and BC legislation in regards to common law unions? (by A of Victoria, BC) The solution to your problem is simple, but slightly bloody-minded. If you don't want to fall into common-law status, stop living with this woman before the two-year mark hits! Once that comes around, you're on the hook for spousal support if things go sideways. What you've done about maintaining separate bank accounts and not paying her bills will help to insulate you from a trust claim to your assets; you're trying to maintain a regime of separate property and separate finances. So long as you wind up living together for at least two years, you're on the hook for support. The "marriage-like" aspect of the relationship is to help the court differentiate between mere roommates and common-law partners. As long as you sleep together, present yourselves to your friends and family as a committed couple, you will have that "marriage-like" quality to your relationship. I'm afraid the only way to protect yourself is to stop living with her (you don't have to break up) once the two-year mark approaches. Don't concern yourself with the difference between federal and provincial common-law status. What you need to know is that under provincial law, her entitlement to claim support happens at two years. Click here to go to the top of the page. My girlfriend and I have an interesting situation. We both want to live together, yet we do not want the status of "commom-law". Is there any paper agreement we can sign that shows both of us waive our rights to this status, or conversely, what can we do to avoid this designation? Charging rent, sharing bills or other paper trails? (by B of Vancouver, BC) First, read through the "Unmarried Couples > Common-Law Couples" chapter of my website to get the gist of what "common-law" means. Common-law really only means whether or not you qualify for certain benefits and obligations under the federal laws of Canada and the provincial laws of BC; it doesn't connote the same fundamental change in status that marriage does. For example, under our Family Relations Act, someone who's been in a "marriage-like relationship" for two years would be able to claim spousal support from his or her partner. What I suspect you want is in fact a form of cohabitation agreement. Spousal support is probably your major exposure if your relationship becomes common-law (along with other issues relating to wills and estates), so and if you don't want to face that prospect, what you can sign is an agreement that neither of you will claim spousal support from the other. It isn't a question of signing an agreement that you'll never be common-law, since that comes about by operation of statute, it's promising that neither of you will claim under the obligations you might have between each other (as opposed to between each of you and the government). The problem, of course, is that there are no guarantees that the court would uphold the agreement if one of you has a manifest entitlement to support, but it is a start. Click here to go to the top of the page. Site Navigation
Go back to the Q&A Index. Section Menu
The Legal System · Alternatives to Court · Children · Child Support · Spousal Support Resources Menu
Site Map & Index · Legislation · Resources & Links · Definitions · Feedback Please ensure you take the time to read these important legal notices. |
|
