Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[Flubber]

OH and Ben

Youir roomate support example

1. is still pretty stupid and
2. was available to hetero folks for years

But I understand your assertion now is that in family law, the person that files gets a payout. If you are so certain of this, I invite you to make a bogus claim and see how it works out for you.


IN any event-- even taken to an extreme, I do not see how the legalizing of gay marriage would have any impact whatsoever on this mythical roomate claim.

[Flubber]

Actually the better way to put it is that common law marriage generally is a bit of a misleading label. In Canada there is no point in time or date or event when you are suddenly married in the eyes of the law. It NEVER happens so divorce is NEVER required unless you actually and INTENTIONALLY get married.

Instead what happens is that there are a variety of provincial statutes which can confer rights and obligations on people in certain situations. Consent is not required for many of these rights and obligations to arise. The leading case in Canada involved a farmer who lived with a woman for over 20 years and when they split up tried to deny her any property division since he owned the farm and they weren't married. He would say he never consented to being found similar to married but the court found that fundamentally unfair (she had worked on the farm all those years as if it were hers as well ) and found that notwithstanding his legal title, they would deem that he was holding a portion of the ownership in trust for her and that her share would be determined based on equitable principles.

IN cohabitation situations, in most Canadian jurisdictions, I believe you never ever get to the 50/50 assumption of the matrimonial home but instead the court tries to determine what is fair in the circumstances. So having someone move in, stay a year and then be able to claim half your house is NOT the norm. Sucn a person may be entitled to nothing (if you had always handled your affairs as if she had no interest in the house or more than half (if she funded a renovation that more than doubled the value). THe idea is equity.


I just wish people would stop acting as if common law equals a legal marriage. IN canada it is NOT THE SAME

Ben -- its interesting to me that it was AFTER my post above that you said this

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi
Uh, division of property. Hello? Court treats it just like a real marriage.

IN that post or prior posts you never used the word SUPPORT once but ever since I mocked that quote you have been doing your usual Ben dance and trying to say I or you were asserting something about support. You were NOT. Insteqad you were trying to assert that a person might be forced into a marriage

You said

It sure can happen if you live with someone long enough. That's why it's called common law, the law recognises it.

and THAT is what my lengthy post repeated above addresses.

[Flubber]

ben if you wish to continue this continue this

From what I can see, the law can't step in and say, "this is good", and then say, "this is not". .

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean

If you have an argument as to why a platonic same sex roommate cannot claim partnership under the current laws in Canada, I'd love to see it.

.

Anyone can "CLAIM" anything. If you want to talk about having an actual chance of success based on what the law would say about your fact situation. . . . there is no chance. The parties must have acted as if they were in a married type relationship and the burden would be on the partry asserting the relationship.

Right now, all Canuck law cares about is the 2 year period. That's it.



.

Amazing how many things you can get wrong in such a short statement

1. There is NO "canuck law"-- ie Canadian wide law on people who did not get married --- it varies by province
2. The Ontario statute madates THREE years living together in a conjugal relationship in the version I saw NOT TWO-- please provide your cite for a two year period

So in the case of large income disparity then, it could happen. Thank you.

.

I don't know why you were thanking me-- I was again refuting your idea that spousal support and property division were the same or a subset of one another-- its still ridiculous to think support would be awarded if people are not spouses


Oh and platonic will not appear in the statutes I bet- they simply define things as conjugal-- people that intend to be joined in a marriage type state.

[Ben Kenobi]

platonic will not appear in the statutes

Which was my point.

they simply define things as conjugal

Conjugal has a very specific meaning.

"pertaining to the relation of husband and wife."

Which was my whole point here, Flubber.

[Flubber]

Which was my point.



Conjugal has a very specific meaning.

"pertaining to the relation of husband and wife."

Which was my whole point here, Flubber.

I am missing your point-- a statute does or does not contain the word "platonic"?? Take me through what that means to Ben Kenobi? Why should a statute about what families are and what relationships give rise to obligations to one another over time, contain that word??

Oh and I have seen several definitions of conjugal-- some match yours and some are like this one

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: con·ju·gal
Pronunciation: 'kän-j&-g&l
Function: adjective
: of or relating to marriage or to married persons and their relationships
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Again your point escapes me -- You were not using the word conjugal-- I did since it appears in the Ontario statute. Are you still somehow in the vicinity of gay roomates?? Or are you about to refute yet another assertion that I never made??

[Ben Kenobi]

I am missing you point-- a statute does or does not contain the word "platonic"?? Take me through what that means to Ben Kenobi? Why should a statute about what families are and what relationships give rise to obligations to one another over time, contain that word??

You are making a distinction between platonic and non-platonic, a distinction that the law does not. This is my point. The law makes no such distinction.

Oh and I have seen several definitions of conjugal-- some match yours and some are like this one

Which is a circular definition in this case. The second one is the true meaning, one can have conjugal visits without marriage. If we do as you say, how do we define conjugal? Getting brought to orgasm? Something else? In what world should this be a legal concern? Or do we simply accept at face value the claim. This is my point. The legal system at presnet does not have the desire to take the time to distinguish between the two. How would you go about proving it, Flubber, if you believed that two roomates were simply claiming spousal benefits and defrauding the system?

[Flubber]

I am sure you think there is a point in there somewhere but all I see is a marshmallow-- no substance ,

What is this business about 2 people defrauding the system? I thought your fear was a gay guy claiming support from their roomate??

Fraud of goverment is different and a completely new topic

[Flubber]

You are making a distinction between platonic and non-platonic, a distinction that the law does not. This is my point. The law makes no such distinction.

I recall making no such distinction and only using the term in the context of the "platonic roomate scenario" we discussed.The term platonic is inaccurate but in the context I took it as being a quickie way of us referencing any number of type of people who may share a residence in situations where they are not in any form of joined, marriage-like, interdependent relationship of significant duration and the stated intention between them of permanence.

I never ever ever required sex as being a part of marriage and in fact pointed out that the old common law priciple of consummation which you raised was inapplicable where the parties would not have contemplated it.



To date I have asserted very little in this thread since most of my posts were correcting your errors on the law. If you want I can succintly state my assertions

1, You are woefully ignorant of most principles of family law
2. Being legally married places people in a very different legal position that those that might qualify as being "common law". There are some purposes and issues where the differences are minor (such as the statute where the rights arise) and others where the difference can be quite large or where the supposed "common law spouse" has no automatioc rights whatsoever . Many of these issues can be "fixed" with documents like power of attorneys, advanced health care directives or by doing a property transfer but that doesn't cvhange the fact that its different.

3. The whole term-- common law marriage is a bity of a misnomer as there is no date on which the couple becomes legally married such that a divorce would ever be required. Instead there are a number of different tests that appear in statutes, the common law and things like insurance plans which trigger when certain rights and obligations arise. Ben stated with conviction that 2 years and its it. I have checked Ontario and Alberta and found for most family law act purposes, 3 years is a trigger for many rights and obligations and even then, this does NOT mimic the rights and obligation of married folks in all areas.

4 The idea that a party would be forced to pay support to another person with whom they have never had what I will term an "interdependent relationship" (largely following an Alberta statute that defines such things) is ridiculous unless you start going on the anythings possible theory. On that same theory the POPE COULD endorse polyamorous orgies -- once we assume he is under the influence of a mind control device

5 Property division is very different than support payment issues.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought your fear was a gay guy claiming support from their roomate??

Then you've missed the point entirely. Gay is irrelevant, anyone can claim this.

3 years is a trigger for many rights and obligations and even then, this does NOT mimic the rights and obligation of married folks in all areas.

Then why is it not common law marriage.

with whom they have never had what I will term an "interdependent relationship" (largely following an Alberta statute that defines such things)

I'm laughing because rather then concede that I'm right, you're coining your own terms. None so blind as he that will not see.

[Flubber]

I'm laughing because rather then concede that I'm right, you're coining your own terms. None so blind as he that will not see.

Right about what !!!!!

Oh ya and I coined the term LOL -- again you demonstrate your ignorance of the law-- They created a new term to distinguish these from marriage but the tests and the resulting rights and obligations are what many would still term a common law marriage-- Read and learn

1.What is the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act?
The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act was passed during the fall 2002 sitting of the provincial Legislature and becomes law on June 1, 2003.

This act amends several Alberta laws for people in unmarried relationships involving economic and emotional interdependency. The act covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of marriage, including committed platonic relationships where two people agree to share emotional and economic responsibilities, and provides a legal definition for an adult interdependent partner relationship.

2. How do I know if I’m in an adult interdependent relationship?
There are two key elements that define an adult interdependent relationship.

First, an adult interdependent partner is a person who is involved with another person in an unmarried relationship of interdependence where they:

share one another’s lives
are emotionally committed to one another, and
function as an economic and domestic unit.
Second, to be considered adult interdependent partners, one of the following must apply to the relationship. The adult interdependent partners must be:

living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption, or
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement.
Note: Parties related by blood or adoption must enter into a partner agreement to become adult interdependent partners.

3. How do I enter into an adult interdependent partner agreement?
Two people who live or intend to live in an interdependent relationship may enter into an adult interdependent partner agreement at any time. See question 4 for a description of how a proper agreement should be prepared.

Parties who are related to each other by blood or adoption must enter into a partner agreement in order to become adult interdependent partners.

Top
4. What should an adult interdependent partner agreement look like?

DELETED DUE TO LENGTH


5. Will there be a provincial, centralized registry of adult interdependent partner agreements?
No. These agreements are personal contracts between people who agree to take on the responsibilities and benefits of an adult interdependent partnership either prior to the three-year period or at any time after that time frame if they wish to formalize the relationship.

Top
6. What are some examples of responsibilities and benefits now extended to adult interdependent partners under this law?
To provide equal access to Alberta law, the term “adult interdependent partner” has been added to several acts that outline the financial responsibilities and benefits of Albertans in both married and unmarried relationships.

An adult interdependent relationship may be considered when determining eligibility for benefits or obligations under a variety of Government of Alberta programs and laws.

For example:

Adult interdependent partners are obligated to financially support one another.
Adult interdependent partners and their dependants will be able to register together for coverage under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. Both partners’ incomes will be considered when determining eligibility for premium assistance under the plan.
Adult interdependent partners will be eligible for insurance coverage (e.g. life, auto, property) currently available to spouses.
A deceased adult interdependent partner’s estate will be obligated to adequately provide for the surviving partner.
An adult interdependent partner may access all or a portion of a deceased partner’s estate should the partner die without a will.
An adult interdependent partner’s existing will may be revoked upon entering into an adult interdependent partner agreement.
Adult interdependent partners will have the ability to recover damages for the wrongful death of a partner.
An adult interdependent partner may apply for a protection order if an adult interdependent partner has subjected them to violence or threat of violence.
A public body may disclose personal information to the adult interdependent partner of an injured, ill or deceased individual, or so that the person’s adult interdependent partner may be contacted.
Various conflict of interest provisions extended to married couples will also apply to adult interdependent partners.
Note: For details on how these changes apply to assistance you are currently receiving from the Government of Alberta, call 310-0000 for toll-free connection to the program or service that may affect you.

7. Does this legislation apply to relationships that began prior to June 1, 2003?
Yes. Time spent living together before June 1, 2003, will be taken into account when determining whether or not two people will be considered adult interdependent partners.

For instance, if two people lived together for two years before June 1, 2003, and then continue to live together in a relationship of interdependence for over one year, as long as the total continuous time living together was more than three years, they will be considered adult interdependent partners under this act.

8. Does this law affect my taxes or pension plan?
Some Alberta laws must comply with federal legislation and therefore cannot include all partnerships outlined in the Adult Interdependent Partnerships Act.

For example, the Alberta Personal Income Tax Act has been amended to adopt the federal definition of common-law partner* as required by our tax collection agreement with the federal government.

The Employment Pension Plans Act has been amended to include the term “pension partner.” Although this act applies to many committed, unmarried relationships, it does not apply to all adult interdependent partners because pension plans recognizing platonic relationships are not registerable under the Canadian Income Tax Act.

* According to the Federal Income Tax Act, a taxpayer's common-law partner is defined as a person who cohabits in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and either: has cohabited with the taxpayer for a continuous period of at least one year; or is the natural or adoptive parent of a child of the taxpayer.

9. How can adult interdependent partners terminate their relationship?
The partners may sign a written agreement stating their intention to live separate and apart, without the possibility of reconciliation.
The partners live separate and apart for more than one year or both partners intend that the adult interdependent relationship not continue.
The partners marry each other or one of them marries or enters into an adult interdependent relationship with a third party.
10. Does this law change the definition of marriage?
No. The Alberta government recognizes that for many Albertans, marriage has a traditional, religious and cultural meaning as a relationship between a man and a woman. Alberta law will continue to recognize this distinction.

This act defines “spouse” in all Alberta legislation as a married partner—a husband or a wife.

11. Why were current Alberta laws changed?
Over the years, courts and lawmakers have recognized the need for laws to address the financial and property issues of people in committed relationships outside of marriage.

Because committed unmarried relationships create financial dependencies and responsibilities, the government must:

ensure our laws clearly outline the responsibilities people willingly take on when they enter into a financially and emotionally interdependent relationship; and,
provide access to the courts or other legal mechanisms to settle disputes when these relationships come to an end.

[Flubber]

Then you've missed the point entirely. Gay is irrelevant, anyone can claim this.

Anyone can CLAIM anything. Since the ability to get support has existed for a relativel long time, can you cite one example where a person (straight or gay) has gotten spousal support from somewone that was really only a roomate sharing expenses. IF this is such a big risk I am assuming you have legions of examples and can pull the court decisions---

[Flubber]

Then why is it not common law marriage.

.

I do not understand your question. Common law marriage exists (and I believe anything that qualified as an adult interdependent relationship woul;d also qualify as a common law marriage) but it is a poor term since the parties are never in exactly the same position as legally married folks. They have to rely on the common law or on provincial statues so their rights and obligations can vary significantly if they move even within Canada

[Flubber]

I'm laughing because rather then concede that I'm right, you're coining your own terms. None so blind as he that will not see.

hmm -- now in the face of uncontrovertible evidence that Ben Kenobi is wrong, can he admit that Flubber did not coin the term ADULT INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP as it has been the term used in the 4th most populous province in the country for almost a decade-----

[MattBowron]

you realise Ben is being a pain in arse about something that is considered by some to be a pain in the arse

oh and PS: I'm not against homosexuals or homosexual marriage, technically I follow more the idea of Kinsey's opinion that all people can be potentially bisexual and only some people make certain choices as to which gender they sleep with. I chose to be hetero. Other people's choices is up to them.