Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support

[Universe]

lel
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...box=1599798404

[TheMaestro]

retardation has no borders.

[JamesBond007]

[The Lawspeaker]

As the news will surely spread, this will only give even more fuel to MGTOW and drive down birth rates even more.

[sean]

It's nothing new. This is a bit extreme but our court systems favour women when it comes to cohabitation and common law.

Plus, the dude treated her like a common-law wife, and he got bent over the fucking rail for it. The initial judge determined that because they stayed together at his cottage for part of a summer years ago and stayed in the same hotel suite a number of times when they vacationed together she is entitled to monthly payments of $53,077.

The truly laughable part is, this is the verdict after appeal to a higher court. The female judge found the payments were to be made indefinitely, the higher court overturned this and only made it for 10 years, which equals $6,369,240. The guy would have to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, who may or may not grant it (only ~15% of leave applications are granted). It's possible leave is granted here, as what constitutes "living together" likely has widespread importance beyond this particular case.

I don't feel bad for the guy because he is a Toronto real estate tycoon and he was banging a 40 year old 4/10 when his net worth is $1.13 billion (for that much money he would have been a lot better off getting a high-end hooker), but all men should take note.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Could they go after him if he took all his money and moved to Costa Rica or Thailand?

[sean]

Could they go after him if he took all his money and moved to Costa Rica or Thailand?

No one is moving all their assets to some shitty bank in Thailand or Costa Rica, and you can't really do that anyways, not without sending off every red flag in both Canada and the overseas country. Unfortunately this country will always have you by the balls in some way, even when you are half way around the world.

In a lot of these cases, they force the banks to put mandatory freezes on his assets/accounts so he can't liquidate assets and move money around.

If he was smart he'd already have a shitload of it hidden away in safe countries like Switzerland, and he'd have stuff in liquid form like gold.

Or keep large sums of money held in trust as a retainer to many lawyers of many kinds. They can't draw from it unless you use their services, and if you don't, that money grows interest you're entitled to, and it's money that can't be tracked or traced, and the law firm can't admit that you're a client or that they're holding money for you unless under direct and explicit court order. That information is attorney-client privilege and is absolutely sealed.

Or use traceable money to be withdrawn as cash. Spend cash on high end valuables. Keep receipts and if marital trouble arises, maybe those valuable items find their way in a storage locker no one knows about under no name paid for in cash or buried in a hole in the woods. Its a lot harder to get alimony out of some silver bars no one can find than a bank account with money in it.

[Hulu]

It's nothing new. This is a bit extreme but our court systems favour women when it comes to cohabitation and common law.

Plus, the dude treated her like a common-law wife, and he got bent over the fucking rail for it. The initial judge determined that because they stayed together at his cottage for part of a summer years ago and stayed in the same hotel suite a number of times when they vacationed together she is entitled to monthly payments of $53,077.

g]

Come on, why disinform. I was enraged reading this and the link says they were together for 14 years! He gave her a 7 carat diamond ring, paid off her mortgage, proposed several times, insisted she takes his name. She quit her job and he paid her expenses. He's lucky she didn't marry him or she would have half his money now. They guy is worth over a billion dollars, giving 5 millions to his partner of 14 years it's nothing.

[sean]

Come on, why disinform. I was enraged reading this and the link says they were together for 14 years! He gave her a 7 carat diamond ring, proposed several times, insisted she takes his name. He's lucky she didn't marry him or she would have half his money now.

That's not the point, he was just banging her for 14 years.



Men shouldn't be subject to the terms of a contract that was never signed by either party. The problem is the precedent set by this ruling makes it so they can do this to anyone now.

The idea of alimony is that the less wealthy person may have given up opportunities to gain wealth due to the relationship (for example, housewife can't really develop her resume because of her responsibilities at home) and that they deserve to maintain the same lifestyle they had after the relationship that they had during the relationship. But in this case, she divorced the father of her children and quit her job so that she could be a concubine.



This is not justice and it is not how a rational civilisation functions. It is how you get courthouses burnt down and judges hung by angry mobs.

For a 14 year sugar daddy relationship I can't see why they did this, and it would make sense if we lived in a world where women were property.

Unfortunately though, women are allowed to work. So there is no reason he should remain financially responsible for her, even if he did take her off the market for over a decade. And what pussy is worth $6 million?

[AdrianV]

It seems there was no existing law to make this decision so the Judge created it out of thin air.