Starting Today New BC Law Turns Thousands of Live-in Lovers Into Married Couples

[ronthecivil]

Well, who's "they"? The government won't force roommates to split up their property 50/50 when they move out; this will only occur if something under the Family Law Act is triggered. In practical terms, this means that the issue will only come up if one of the roommates decides to go after the property and thus files an application to get the litigation process going. And then, like I said, it's up to the court to determine whether the relationship was "marriage-like" and thus applicable under the scheme.

[ronthecivil]

This was not just lawyers involved.

[aGENT]

Just make sure to charge whomever you're living with rent "for tax purposes" (with receipts) and make sure you claim it as income on your taxes. Then they're simply tenants, not spouses

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

So how much sex do you have to be having to constitute a "marriage-like relationship"? None?

[aGENT]

So how much sex do you have to be having to constitute a "marriage-like relationship"? None?

[CB007]

I have always regarded BC as a more socially advanced province than Ontario. I am proven wrong.

[literaphile]

I have always regarded BC as a more socially advanced province than Ontario. I am proven wrong.

[Wetcoaster]

What I was trying to say is, what exactly is a marriage-like relationship? Romantic relationships can take many different forms, hard to put a label on things sometimes, for example like a friends with benefits situation where they just happen to live with each other or an open relationship. Or what is they are in a relationship but they have other roommates.

[ronthecivil]

As I said if there are grey areas, then those will be fleshed out by the courts on a case by case basis

[Dittohead]

This is a wake up call and reminder to guys. Do not move in with a woman and do not get married at all costs. You will be much happier. My girl friend owns here own place too and we like it this way. I was married and trapped in misery and it cost me Over $100,000 in cash still paying $700 a month for 2 more years.( worth it though..haha) DO NOT GET MARRIED. BUY 2 HOUSES!

[ronthecivil]

Why? Because BC wants to ensure that long-term common law spouses aren't thrown out on their asses without any claim to property, just because they're not married? Yeah, that sounds pretty socially backward to me.

The government has done this because more people are choosing to live in long-term common law relationships rather than marriages, but acting as if they're married. If, say, two people are in a common law relationship and the woman stays home to look after the kids while the man works, buys everything in his name, etc., if they break up then, without this sort of protection, the women is absolutely screwed. This shouldn't happen simply because a couple isn't married.

[Wetcoaster]

Why? Because BC wants to ensure that long-term common law spouses aren't thrown out on their asses without any claim to property, just because they're not married? Yeah, that sounds pretty socially backward to me.

The government has done this because more people are choosing to live in long-term common law relationships rather than marriages, but acting as if they're married. If, say, two people are in a common law relationship and the woman stays home to look after the kids while the man works, buys everything in his name, etc., if they break up then, without this sort of protection, the women is absolutely screwed. This shouldn't happen simply because a couple isn't married.

[Wetcoaster]

Billable hours! LOTS of billable hours!

Remember gentlemen, when that two year anniversary is coming up, better **** or get off the pot, cause if you don't the decision is now made for you!

Now it's no longer just a matter of not making sure you don't have a kid your not sure you want to support, better make sure she's holding down a job as now if it turns out you've been supporting her, well, better get used to it long term!

Way to force a 1950s family mentality onto a society that clearly doesn't act in that way any more. (See serial monogamy, aka what almost everyone really does.) Now with the added bonus of even more lawsuits, no kid required!

[ronthecivil]

^^^^

Seems odd that we need to push everyone that cohabitates for two years into the same category where one person looked after children while the other went on to be a CEO.

Had the made the rule more like five years if there are no children then it would make sense but to push many childless couples into mandatory marriage after two years in the name of "looking out for the best interest of children" is hollow. Very hollow.

[ronthecivil]

This has been going on for the past 30 years since Pettkus and Becker.

If anything the legislation should cut down on the number of cases going to court because there is now a degree of certainty.

[Wetcoaster]

^^^^

Seems odd that we need to push everyone that cohabitates for two years into the same category where one person looked after children while the other went on to be a CEO.

Had the made the rule more like five years if there are no children then it would make sense but to push many childless couples into mandatory marriage after two years in the name of "looking out for the best interest of children" is hollow. Very hollow.

[literaphile]

Well, with the whole In loco parenatitis rules, as it turns out doesn't even have to be the dudes kids the woman is staying home to look after. And as we have seen, she will win child support in the house to continue doing so until the kids are grown up.

Once the kids are grown up, well, she still has the house, and the best interest of the child have been looked after.

Why the need to support her after this point? No harm to the children (being adult) is she has to (horror of horrors) get a job now is it?

[ronthecivil]

You redirecting the issue because your point is weak. This has nothing to do with the best interests of the child, in loco parentis, or anything like that. The aim is to make property division in common law relationship breakdowns easier and more predictable.

[literaphile]

In the past such common law spouses had to resort to court claim based in equity and claim "unjust enrichment", "constructive trust" or a "resulting trust" to obtain a share of the assets.

This line of cases really begin with Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 in which the SCOC applied equitable principles to give the common law wife a share of the assets. On of my law professor's work on trust law (Professor Donovan Waters, The Law of Trusts in Canada) was the central basis for the SCOC decision in that case:

...

http://scc.lexum.org...m/7922/index.do

[Wetcoaster]

Some say the art of a good lawyer is being able to distill the law into a short summary for those who don't want to read pages of legalese and case law.