Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
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.

The problem now is this can affect men that much less money, and where do you draw the line for dating and not living together? 1 year, 5 years?
It is an absurd decision. This man needs to appeal this to the highest court in Canada.