Canadian man ordered to pay support

https://globalnews.ca/news/7327501/couple-no-home-no-kids-spouses-ontario-court/

A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court said. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”

The decision comes in the case of Lisa Climans and Michael Latner, both of Toronto, who began a romantic relationship after meeting in October 2001. At the time, she was 38 and separated with two children, court records show. He was 46 and divorced with three children.

Although they maintained their separate homes, Latner and Climans behaved as a couple both privately and publicly. They vacationed together. He gave her a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry that she wore. She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house. They travelled together and talked about living together.

Latner proposed several times and Climans accepted. He often referred to her by his last name. However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused.

Throughout their relationship, the two kept separate bank accounts and never owned property in common. Nevertheless, Latner gave Climans thousands of dollars every month, a credit card, paid off her mortgage and showered her with expensive gifts. He provided her and her children with a “lavish life the court found.

“Theirs was a committed relationship,” the Appeal Court said.

When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Climans asked the courts to recognize her as Latner’s spouse and order him to pay her support. He argued she had been a travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more. As such, he said, they were never legally spouses and he owed no support. An eight-day trial ensued.

In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.

The higher court leaned heavily on Shore’s analysis, finding she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.

The Appeal Court did find Shore had made an error in deciding how long Latner would have to pay Climans support based on when they first began cohabiting. While Shore had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn’t earlier than their first stay together at his cottage, meaning they didn’t reach the threshold for indefinite payments.

Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.

Climans and her lawyers declined comment. Lawyers for Latner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

She would have a tragic accident about a year into that 10. 

1 Like

Yeah....we fucked.

Murder seems justified in this scenario. 

2 Likes
TFK_HossPearson -

Murder seems justified in this scenario. 

I wouldn’t consider it murder, but self-defense. 

4 Likes

I’d rather pay 50k per month just to tie it up in court forever than pay a woman one dime of something she didn’t earn. 

3 Likes

Ya im gonna go sub every whore and sex vacation thread on the OG.

1 Like

Are you fucking kidding me?

“Your honor, I want you to understand that what happens to her now will be dripping from your hands.”

I hope he prolapsed her ass, mouth and cunt during their time together

I thought a high paid lawyer was supposed to help in these cases. 

1 Like
DemonDeacon - 

I thought a high paid lawyer was supposed to help in these cases. 

it did… she had one.

I’m sure the lawyer is getting paid 25% of that $50k for a few years for taking the case

what a travesty: woman judge as well what a shocker. 

he wanted to marry her but with a prenup. she refused, obvious golddigger. 

google her she isn't even pretty

I’m gonna chalk this one up to mostly “Oh, Canada.”

With that said, can anybody who’s not an automatic No Ma’amer explain what we’re trying to do with childless common law marriage? As in, what the societal function is supposed to be?

I get that we want to minimize the impact of deadbeat dads abandoning their children, so we have child support.

…& that we want to minimize the impact of abandoning women after the kids are gone, the milk’s spoiled, & they have no route to success since we sidelined them during their primes while we established our careers, so we have alimony.

…& that we want to unfuck those who were fucked out of the above because the contract was never signed & ceremony never performed, so we have common law marriage.

But what inequity are we trying to fix by forcing the contract on those who didn’t want it & wouldn’t have benefited from it regardless? Is it a crazy backwards way to stop single people from fucking without invoking religion? Or a way to push couples into having kids even if they don’t want them? I don’t get what the overall plan is supposed to be.

I’ve aleaus been against it.  Why are you basically going to hold someone to the rule of marriage that didn’t want to get married??  The woman was free to leave anytime.  There might be a few cases where the woman really did function as the wife, gave up a career to maintain home and family, etc., but that’s a rare exception.  Think this is something else we can thank California for. 

Que the Bill Burr Gold digging whores skit

Did you guys even read the article ? 

 

the guy proposed to her several times, bought her a diamond ring , were together pretty much most of the time and he would refer to her as his lady with his last name …they were together and he was supporting her for over 15 years , the only thing is that at times she would stay at her home and he would stay at his …

I kind of agree with the courts decision 

dios -

Did you guys even read the article ? 

 

the guy proposed to her several times, bought her a diamond ring , were together pretty much most of the time and he would refer to her as his lady with his last name …they were together and he was supporting her for over 15 years , the only thing is that at times she would stay at her home and he would stay at his …

I kind of agree with the courts decision 

Yes I read the article.  They maintained separate homes.  He presented her with a pre-nup which she never signed and they never married.  They spent summer vacations together.  Yes, they were a couple.  

dios -

Did you guys even read the article ? 

 

the guy proposed to her several times, bought her a diamond ring , were together pretty much most of the time and he would refer to her as his lady with his last name …they were together and he was supporting her for over 15 years , the only thing is that at times she would stay at her home and he would stay at his …

I kind of agree with the courts decision 

Yeah? Well, you’re also kind of an idiot.