Ezekiel 25:17
Veteran
If this doesn't tell you courts are out here scamming then I don't know what to tell you
Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support
- Thread starter Doobie Doo
- Start date
the saddest part is i think this is gonna be more prevalent than we'd like to believeElon Musk needs to hurry up and unveil those sex bots already
If he was truly GMB he would've traded her in years ago for a you get chick. Staying with the same chick for 14 years you basically are married to her.
No way I pay that shyt if I was rich like him. Just move to a foreign country with no extradition. And move all your money to offshore accounts.
She probably cheated on his ass hence the reason for them breaking up.
No way I pay that shyt if I was rich like him. Just move to a foreign country with no extradition. And move all your money to offshore accounts.
She probably cheated on his ass hence the reason for them breaking up.
The God Poster
LWO representa
Yall boys wildAnyone fukking with women in 2020 lost
Should've vacationed with your boys
The God Poster
LWO representa
Judge def reached imo . But I can kinda see where they was going with common law marriage . They were living together at least half the year 
This type of shyt leads to people getting hurt
New Jeruzalem Journalist
Superstar
I'm not even being purposely crass here, but doesn't a decision like this essentially argue that the woman was basically a hired long-term prostitute deserving of severance pay?
If the logic is that he was supporting her financially and they were common law spouses, she would have had to provide something in this relationship to justify continued financial support. Otherwise, anything he gave to her could be argued as simple charity.
This is scary in how unjustice it reads. How can you argue cohabitation when you literally aren't cohabiting?
If the logic is that he was supporting her financially and they were common law spouses, she would have had to provide something in this relationship to justify continued financial support. Otherwise, anything he gave to her could be argued as simple charity.
This is scary in how unjustice it reads. How can you argue cohabitation when you literally aren't cohabiting?
Not even the kicker. She refused to marry him.
Doobie Doo
Veteran
i think it would be because it's similar to the Eric vs Lola case where a woman from Québec was asking for spousal support saying they were common law even though the concept of common law doesn't exist in quebec. Quebec superior court said common law not being recognized in Quebec is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court overturned it. I guess the difference is that the only argument for the man is how common law is determined and not whether it should or shouldn't exist. So it's a tougher case for the man to make. Because the Supreme court would have to overturn the decision of the judge as to what it means to "live together". So you might be right that the Supreme court could determine the decision was pretty cut and dry and there is no reason to take the case.
I think a lot of rich people in Ontario are gonna kick out their girlfriend because of this decision...
i see your point but the argument is pretty much if you live together for a certain amount of time in a conjugal relationship, you are quasi-married (common law) which gives you certain rights (including support in some cases). In canada, all provinces have some version of common law with different parameters (different number of years they have to live together, etc). Quebec is the only province where there is no common law.I'm not even being purposely crass here, but doesn't a decision like this essentially argue that the woman was basically a hired long-term prostitute deserving of severance pay?
If the logic is that he was supporting her financially and they were common law spouses, she would have had to provide something in this relationship to justify continued financial support. Otherwise, anything he gave to her could be argued as simple charity.
This is scary in how unjustice it reads. How can you argue cohabitation when you literally aren't cohabiting?
If you choose to live with someone in a conjugal relationship , you have to accept at some point you could be considered common law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The main point being argued in this case is if they "lived together" and what exactly does it mean to live together.
Lawyers always have these clever ways to make every case a "public interest" one. This case is already generating a lot of buzz, so it could be heard. The Supreme Court cases are not always overturned, sometimes they take cases to confirm the Appeal Court decision is correct if people are having doubts.
HARLEM AL
Your broad loves me.....
They wanted to transfer his wealth to her. They know she’s going to fukk that money up.