dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
597
share rss forum feed


Good Call

@videotron.ca

The end. Or is it?

Finally a conclusion to the Quebec Billionaire Vs. Lola.

Short re-cap:
Quebec billionaire breaks up with his 7-year common-law wife. She got to keep a mansion, servants, chef, a kids allowance that makes your salary look like chump change, and whatever else.

She sought alimony to the tune of a $50-million lump-sum payment as well as $56,000 a month.

Common-law has no such thing here in Quebec (alimony that is).

It dragged through courts and the Quebec gov got involved and brought it to supreme court.

Canchat history over the past few years:
»Quebec billionaire fights alimony for ex-lover
»Lola appeals alimony case against Quebec billionaire
»The fight for billions
»Lola versus the Quebec Billionaire. Back in Court..

And now the supreme court decision:
Quebec common-law partners not entitled to support, top court says
»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/···ode.html

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that so-called common-law couples in Quebec who split up are not entitled to the same rights as married couples when it comes to spousal support.

By a slim margin, the top court decision released Friday says the province's civil code is constitutional in its treatment of non-married couples who separate in cases involving alimony and the division of assets.

The decision means Quebec remains the only province that does not recognize common-law unions as de facto marriages.

The ruling has broad implications in a province where the 31.5 per cent of couples report being in de facto marriage relationships, versus an average of 12.1 per cent in the rest of Canada.


Seems there may be implications for other prov's now as well for those who do not implicitly have alimony on the books for common-law relationships.

The End.

Or is it?


FiReSTaRT
Premium
join:2010-02-26
Canada
Some reason in Quebec.. Who would have thought
Expand your moderator at work


Kitlope

join:2004-07-29
Edmonton, Ab
reply to Good Call

Re: The end. Or is it?

Thats good. Lets face it, many women view relationships as simple insurance policies. We all have male friends who were married that got cleaned out and it's nice at least men won't get screwed as bad when a common law relationship fails.

Because you know, statistically, most will fail. And I'm gonna be the first to say it about Lola - what a greedy whore.


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
Hey, she had every right to leave if he wouldn't commit to marrying her. Personally, I think it should be this way for all common law relationships across the country.

jaberi

join:2010-08-13
i don't care for lola and the husband....what i want to know is what exactly is common law then...

and how does the court decision change things for canadians?


Lothario

join:2009-09-30
Ottawa, ON
reply to Good Call
Is there a reason they aren't using his name? Thought everyone knows it's the owner of cirque de soleil.


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
reply to jaberi
It only changes things in Quebec where the laws don't give common law partners the same protections as married folk. Everywhere else, the breakup of a common law relationship entitles both parties to marital assets.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to jaberi
said by jaberi:

i don't care for lola and the husband....what i want to know is what exactly is common law then...

and how does the court decision change things for canadians?

Basically, there is no such thing as Common Law 'marriage' in Canada - you are married, or you are not... The CRA and other agencies recognize common-law relationships for certain purposes, but that's at their choice, and doesn't change the underlying status.

There can be no matrimonial attachment to property or assets; because there was no marriage. When a 'common-law' couple split, the assets are basically divided based on contribution. There's no alimony or support; although a lump-sum to help the other partner 'get on their feet' isn't uncommon in my experience.

Child support is a different deal.

*IANAL - but my 'ex' - whom I was with for 7 years, spent about 25k in lawyers fees trying to get my pension, alimony/support, and other things she wasn't entitled to under the law... She got nothing but a 25k lawyer's bill for her efforts.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to jaberi
said by jaberi:

i don't care for lola and the husband....what i want to know is what exactly is common law then...

It is as it is defined in the Quebec Civil Code.

said by jaberi:

and how does the court decision change things for canadians?

Absolutely nothing. The ROC uses common law as inherited from the Brits, while Quebec uses a Civil Code inherited from the French.

All civil matters are slightly (and sometimes not-so-slightly) different between Québec and the ROC but there is no criminal or constitutional implication that would translate to the whole country.

said by LazMan:

Basically, there is no such thing as Common Law 'marriage' in Canada - you are married, or you are not...

That is incorrect. In most other provinces being "common-law" is exactly the same as being married in the eyes of the law. Québec is the exception here, because their civil law has different roots.

said by Lothario:

Is there a reason they aren't using his name? Thought everyone knows it's the owner of cirque de soleil.

As with any family court matters involving children, the names of the people involved have been barred from being publicized by the Court to protect the children's privacy. Anyone who publicly identifies these people can be found in contempt of Court.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
Sorry, nope...

»www.canadiandivorcelaws.com/comm···arriage/

"People living in a common law marriage are not considered married under Canadian law. However, when their relationship ends, many of their rights are the same as for people in a regular marriage. There are also many important differences."

The fact is simple - you're married; or you're not.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Absolutely nothing.

Not necessarily. It could become challenged in some other prov's. Just like this was challenged.

It does indeed take away freedom of choice in other prov's.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Sorry, nope...

»www.canadiandivorcelaws.com/comm···arriage/

"People living in a common law marriage are not considered married under Canadian law. However, when their relationship ends, many of their rights are the same as for people in a regular marriage. There are also many important differences."

The fact is simple - you're married; or you're not.

I've bolded the important part for the topic at hand. In Québec, that just isn't true.

said by hm :

Not necessarily. It could become challenged in some other prov's. Just like this was challenged.

It does indeed take away freedom of choice in other prov's.

Anything can be challenged by anyone at any time. THIS CASE doesn't change ANYTHING for ANYONE outside Québec. Actually, it doesn't change anything for anyone IN Québec either. The current law and how courts have applied it for years has been UPHELD.

It takes no freedom from anyone.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
said by IamGimli:

said by LazMan:

"People living in a common law marriage are not considered married under Canadian law. However, when their relationship ends, many of their rights are the same as for people in a regular marriage. There are also many important differences."

The fact is simple - you're married; or you're not.

Anything can be challenged by anyone at any time. THIS CASE doesn't change ANYTHING for ANYONE outside Québec. Actually, it doesn't change anything for anyone IN Québec either. The current law and how courts have applied it for years has been UPHELD.

It takes no freedom from anyone.

Allow me to bold two other very important parts of that quote...

I'll agree that anyone can take anyone to court for anything... But that doesn't change the underlying law (although a ruling may - but I digress).

As I said, I'm not a lawyer - but I did spend a LONG time looking at this particular portion of Canadian law, for personal reasons...

Here's some facts for you:

quote:
Note that there is no such thing as common law marriage in any province in Canada. No matter how long you live with your common law partner, you will never be considered married for legal purposes.

quote:
Other rights relating to common law marriages differ from those of married couples. If you are in a common law marriage, you do not need to obtain a divorce or take any other legal proceeding to end your relationship.
quote:
If you are married, you have an automatic right (or obligation) to receive (or pay) spousal support upon separation. If you are living in a common law relationship in Ontario, you do not.

quote:
Upon a marriage ending, there is an automatic right to stay in the matrimonial home, even if it is not in your name. You have no such right in a common law relationship in Ontario – if your name is not on the home, you could simply come home one day and find yourself locked out.
quote:
There is no automatic right to the division of property when a common law marriage ends. Often there is no division of property, and each party takes what is in his or her name. If this is a greatly unfair result, the spouse who was treated unfairly can make a claim for unjust enrichment, but this is a difficult and expensive legal claim to make.

There is MUCHO misunderstanding about common-law relationships out there; and every province treats them slightly differently... From what I understand, Quebec actually recognizes more common-law relationship rights then most; but when I was going through it, I was in Ontario, so that's the laws I worked with...