Unmarried Ontario couple had no children and no house but man must still pay support, appeal court rules

TORONTO — 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 lifestyle,” 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.

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.

ENG0701:
Some things I have come to realise about the west
1. The laws favour women in or out of marriage

2. You cannot circumvent spousal responsibilities by not marrying. Cohabitation is considered as being married in Canada

I support paying alimony and supporting a spouse after a divorce especially when kids are involved, but ruling like this ends up doing more harm than good in the long run

MrBrownJay1:


You do know that a man dating/married to a rich woman would get the same result (aka receive spousal support), right?!



If you live with someone as husband and wife, then why shouldn't you be viewed as husband and wife? Just like a man who has a child with a woman would have all the rights as a married man. Remember, as much as it's mostly women who receive spousal support, that's because the majority of these men let these women stay home being lazy while they went to work and brought the cheddar.... But if a woman earns just as much as you do, then you pay her ONLY the difference ... if you guys have kids and she has full custody. If you have full custody then SHE pays you the difference.



I fully understand these rulings... If a man dates and promised heaven and earth to a woman and put her in a certain lifestyle that she will now claim she is accustomed to, then the fool has to pay her in order for her to remain in such lifestyle you promised her. The catch would be for that fool to 1st, not date good for nothing useless women who don't work (so that she can also contribute to any lifestyle you guys are into) ...and 2nd not become someone's benefactor for so long while you do everything to better her life.

The dude is even lucky, in some country (brazil for example), the minute you tell a woman that you love her and wanna spend the rest of your life with her Bla bla bla, and she has a confirmation (in writing/text/email) of you telling her that, then within 6months of dating she can sue you (and ask for half your shiit) if you dump her.

Iceyjayzz:
This is complete bs

ENG0701:
I agree with your points. I think the reason we dont often read about women paying spousal benefits is because men often don't marry women richer than they are. For instance, Adele's ex is suing for almost half of her fortune. But this is rare, so it feels like men are affected more.

ENG0701:


Very annoying. Paying someone you were never married to and never lived with such an amount monthly is complete bs

crackhaus:
These court judgements keep evolving

They never quite lived together, don't have children together, never bought property together or have shared ownership of anything, yet he is to pay spousal support. Lol

Well I guess what's left for Canadian men is to restrict every relationship to the the 3-year criteria so that it won't be considered a common-law marriage – there's always a loophole in every law if you look hard enough.
Just date a woman for two years and some months, then break up with her and move on to another.

These men are royally fücked.

angelfallz:



When ubunja and Martinez9s complain about simps, it would seem as if they don't know what they're talking about.

Many western men aren't getting married anymore, hence the need for the law.
If men start circumventing that law they'll reduce the time limit to 2 years or 1 year.

Those outrageous laws were made by simp/beta men, to appease their goddess women.

This should open your eyes to how dangerous such men are. $50k a month you can imagine.
And some men are asking for such laws to be implemented in Nigeria.

crackhaus:
These court judgements keep evolving

They never quite lived together, don't have children together, never bought property together or have shared ownership of anything, yet he is to pay spousal support. Lol

I guess what's left for Canadian men is to restrict every relationship to the 3-year criteria so that it won't be considered a common-law marriage – there's always a loophole in every law if you look hard enough.
Just date a woman for two years and some months, then break up with her and move on to another.

These men are royally fücked.

ENG0701:
TORONTO — 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 lifestyle,” 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.

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.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules/wcm/90a5dbfd-f0f9-4690-8525-e5e3205f50a6/amp/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

bukatyne:


I don't understand this case.

Dude proposed to her seven times and she declined signing marriage contracts so technically the woman was the one wasting bobo's time.

So she never did wifely duties, never joined her funds with him, did not invest in him yet thinks she is entitled to be recognized as a spouse (that she refused 7 times) so she can receive support. Classic eating of cake and having it.

Funny how these unnatural laws never bring happiness.

The rate of clinical depression and mental illnesses still on the rise.

Hopefully, their men stand to fight this madness.

MrBrownJay1:


Yep it equally happens to rich women who marry "poorer" men...go ask Halle Berry who pays $16K in child support monthly to her ex French husband; go ask Mary j Blige paying her ex husband $30K monthly; ask Madonna who had to pay up to $70M to Guy Ritchie; ask J- lo who gave her ex $14m spousal settlement; ask Mel B who had to give her ex $8M spousal settlement; ask Britney Spears who pays her baby daddy $20K in child support, and the dude now wants more, lol!

angelfallz:

When u.bunja and Mar.tinez9s complain about simps, it would seem as if they don't know what they're talking about.

Many western men aren't getting married anymore, hence the need for the law.
If men start circumventing that law they'll reduce the time limit to 2 years or 1 year.

Those outrageous laws were made by simp/beta men, to appease their goddess women.

This should open your eyes to how dangerous such men are. $50k a month you can imagine.
And some men are asking for such laws to be implemented in Nigeria.

crackhaus:

Well until then, men should keep gaming the system and continue doing so for as long as necessary.

When it comes to preventing opportunists from getting paid over absolutely nothing, I'm always on the side of men who find loopholes and game the system to their advantage.
It's just common sense and self-preservation.

You can imagine $50k a month, that's $600k a year. Professional Canadian doctors in certain fields aren't even earning that much.

bukatyne:

I don't understand this case.

Dude proposed to her seven times and she declined signing marriage contracts so technically the woman was the one wasting bobo's time.

So she never did wifely duties, never joined her funds with him, did not invest in him yet thinks she is entitled to be recognized as a spouse (that she refused 7 times) so she can receive support. Classic eating of cake and having it.

Funny how these unnatural laws never bring happiness.

The rate of clinical depression and mental illnesses still on the rise.

Hopefully, their men stand to fight this madness.

MrBrownJay1:


Yep it equally happens to rich women who marry "poorer" men...go ask Halle Berry who pays $16K in child support monthly to her ex French husband; go ask Mary j Blige paying her ex husband $30K monthly; ask Madonna who had to pay up to $70M to Guy Ritchie; ask J- lo who gave her ex $14m spousal settlement; ask Mel B who had to give her ex $8M spousal settlement; ask Britney Spears who pays her baby daddy $20K in child support, and the dude now wants more, lol!

Jullima:

Watch as they avoid your unbiased post as a plague and continue to delude themselves “western laws favour women” the same laws some men use to get money from their richer female companion.

angelfallz:

It's such a shame. That woman just secured her pension with the aid of the state

Jullima:

Watch as they avoid your unbiased post as a plague and continue to delude themselves “western laws favour women” the same laws some men use to get money from their richer female companion.

No need to cry you already know what the laws are, you cannot use a woman to raise your children, use as a companion get her used to a certain lifestyle and discard her like a piece of rubbish when you’re done. If you think no woman deserves your hard earned sweat then don’t bring them into your life and lavish them with gifts, simple. It’s a choice, you can go your own way.

ENG0701:


To your first point, I agree that some guys also benefit from the law, however, it is mostly women that is why it seems to favour women.

And your second point, there is no mention of her raising the guy's children, as he is most likely paying child support to his ex, she benefited a lot from the relationship, the guy paid off her mortgage, so the idea of use and dump doesn't apply here. Relationship ends, it's not always because one party wants to use and dump the other.

pocohantas:


Lol!!! I love the way this post was avoided.





The kind high-jump over his over his post ehn. Legendary!!!

Jullima:

I was referring to the general reason why courts award settlements to spouses. In this case while no kids, he was with her for 14 years that’s a long time to be with someone that adds no value to your life, some marriages don’t even last that long.

The bolded, duh because men are like 4x richer than women. The law will still apply to a rich woman that kept a man as a companion for 14 years. The law will not say “because you’re a woman then I favour you don’t pay this man”

MrBrownJay1:


Yep it equally happens to rich women who marry "poorer" men...go ask Halle Berry who pays $16K in child support monthly to her ex French husband; go ask Mary j Blige paying her ex husband $30K monthly; ask Madonna who had to pay up to $70M to Guy Ritchie; ask J- lo who gave her ex $14m spousal settlement; ask Mel B who had to give her ex $8M spousal settlement; ask Britney Spears who pays her baby daddy $20K in child support, and the dude now wants more, lol!

pocohantas:


Lol!!! I love the way this post was avoided.





The kind high-jump over his over his post ehn. Legendary!!!

ENG0701:


I concur with your second point. Men are richer, so they are most affected. The law is generally in favour of the poorer partner and also men often prefer to marry someone they are richer than, that is another discussion. But I do not agree with the notion that because they spent 14 years together, she is entitled to such benefits. From the story: 1- they were never married and never officially lived together, 2- she refused to sign the agreement, 3- she gained a lot from the relationship she is more than enough compensation. And lastly, if this is allowed to stay, there will be lots of court cases of people suing their ex after dating for 3 years.

crackhaus:

Have women like the one in the OP or those who would support this news, ever be known to make any sense when it comes to reaping from where they had not sown?
They simply want to cash-out.

Being an opportunist and a gold-digger is the new "independent woman".

That lady is probably going to write a book very soon on how to be a strong beautiful 21st century woman, lol...

bukatyne:
I don't understand this case.

Dude proposed to her seven times and she declined signing marriage contracts so technically the woman was the one wasting bobo's time.

So she never did wifely duties, never joined her funds with him, did not invest in him yet thinks she is entitled to be recognized as a spouse (that she refused 7 times) so she can receive support. Classic eating of cake and having it.

Funny how these unnatural laws never bring happiness.

The rate of clinical depression and mental illnesses still on the rise.

Hopefully, their men stand to fight this madness.