To Be or Not To Be (Married)

Introduction

Today, more couples are choosing to live together in a relationship resembling marriage, without the formalities of marriage. There are many different reasons why a couple may choose not to get married; however, just as choosing to get married has legal implications, so does choosing not to get married. One of the most notable legal implications of not getting married relates to the division of property when the relationship breaks down. So, if you make the decision not to get married, do you really know what you are (not) buying into?

Division of Property for Unmarried Couples

Division of property is dealt with in Part I of the Family Law Act. When married couples separate, generally speaking they are entitled to divide their property equally between the two spouses, regardless of who legally owns the property.[1] Under the Family Law Act, “spouses” are entitled to divide their property on the breakdown of the marriage. “Spouse” is defined as either (1) two people who are married to each other, or, (2) two people who entered into a marriage that is either void or voidable, in good faith. It does not include “common law couples” – even couples who have lived together for more than least 3 years, or are living together and are the parents of a child. So, what does that mean exactly? It means that common law couples cannot look to the Family Law Act to make a claim to a share of property that they do not own. Let’s look at an example:

Jack and Jill have been living together for the past 15 years. They are not married. They live in a quaint house owed by Jill that they both spent time furnishing, decorating and renovating. They have two cars. Both vehicles are jointly owned. Jack and Jill each have their own chequing account. They also have a joint savings account in which they both deposit money to save for a vacation. Jill has a fairly substantial pension with the federal government. Jack only has a modest RRSP. Jack was never worried about his retirement because he knew Jill had a large pension that could support them both. They never had any children. Suddenly, Jill tells Jack she is no longer happy and wishes to end the relationship.

Dividing Jack and Jill’s Property

When common law couples break up, lawyers look to the title, or ownership of the property to determine how it will be shared. If the title is held jointly, the parties can share the value of the asset equally. If the title is held by only one person, only that person is legally entitled to the asset, with only limited exceptions.

What Jack and Jill Can Share

Jack and Jill will be able to share in the value of both vehicles, as well as the joint savings account. This is because these assets are held jointly. Both parties are automatically entitled to share in the value of those assets.

What Jack and Jill Can’t Share

Jack and Jill would each keep their own bank accounts. Unfortunately for Jack, the title to the house is in Jill’s name alone. While Jack and Jill have been living in the house together for the last 15 years, and both put time and money into renovating and decorating the house, Jack has no automatic entitlement to half the value of the house. Jack is also not entitled to exclusive possession of the home. If Jack and Jill were married, the treatment of the house would be very different.

Jack would be entitled to keep his RRSP. Jill would keep her pension; quite unfortunately for Jack, as he was hoping to share in Jill’s pension to fund his retirement. Now that Jack and Jill are no longer together, Jack is likely going to have to come up with an alternative retirement plan.

The Exception

While the law for dividing property on the break down of the relationship for common law couples follows the title of the asset, it may be possible to make a claim for an equitable share in an asset that is in the other person’s name. The best means of doing this is to claim a Constructive Trust[2]  based on equitable principles. Be forewarned that such a process is expensive and protracted. And the threshold for establishing a claim is high.

Conclusion

When asking the question: to get married or not, it is important to understand the legal implications of your decision. The best way to do this is to consult with a lawyer to better understand how the law will apply to you. A lawyer can advise you as to what you can do to protect yourself, and your assets, prior to entering into either a marriage, or a common law relationship with your partner. A lawyer can draft a domestic contract that can set out what will happen if the relationship breaks down and can address the equal sharing of assets, whether you marry or do not marry. This will help to save you from ending up as Jack did: a victim of the fact that common law spouses are not included in the division of property provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act.

- Mary Jane Binks Q.C. and Lauren M. Angle for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

--------------------------------

[1] There are exceptions when it comes to dividing property between married couples, such as gifts or inheritances received by one spouse during the marriage, among other things. For more information on what can and cannot be equalized on separation, consult with a lawyer.

[2] A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that the court will impose if they believe the person retaining the asset will be unjustly enriched, to the detriment of the other, by being able to keep the entire asset.

Support for Common Law Spouses under the Succession Law Reform Act

When a person dies, his or her common law spouse is usually entitled to make a claim for support against the estate of the deceased partner, much like the situation between living spouses after a separation.

Where the true nature of the relationship is in dispute, whether or not a person qualifies as a common law spouse can be a difficult issue. The issue is even more difficult when one of the parties to the relationship has died and therefore is not available to describe how the parties felt about each other.

Like many aspects of common law relationships the guidelines that the courts have developed in these kinds of cases might surprise many people.

Entitlement

In order to qualify for support from the estate, the claimant must establish that he/she is a dependent and that the person who died, with or without a will, has not made adequate provision for the proper support of the claimant.

If the claimant can establish this the Court has broad powers to order that the estate pay such support as the Court considers adequate out of the estate of the deceased for the proper support of the claimant. The court can make this support order attach to a wide variety of assets, including many that would not normally be considered part of the estate.

A “Dependant” includes the spouse of the deceased, to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death.

A “Spouse” includes people legally married, divorced, or who are not married to each other but have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years, or in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

“Cohabit” means to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage.

The courts have struggled with the meaning of “cohabit in a conjugal relationship“ in this estate context. Whether or not a couple has cohabited is said to be both a subjective and objective test. What were the intentions of the parties as gleaned from the facts and how were they regarded by others?

To help Courts decide difficult cases judges of Ontario have developed a series of questions that should be considered. These questions are organized into seven descriptive components. These are as follows:

        a. Shelter:

            i. Did the parties live under the same roof?

            ii. What were the sleeping arrangements?

            iii. Did anyone else occupy or share the available
                 accommodation?

        b. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

             i. Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

             ii. Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

             iii. What were their feelings towards each other?

             iv. Did they communicate on a personal level?

             v. Did they eat their meals together?

             vi. What, if anything, did they do to assist each other
                  with problems or during illness?

             vii. Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

        c. Services:

             i. What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

                 1. preparation of meals;

                 2. washing and mending clothes;

                 3. shopping

                 4. Household maintenance; and

                 5. any other domestic services?

        d. Social:

            i. Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood
               and community activities?

           ii. What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward
               members of their respective families and how did such
               families behave towards the parties?

        e. Societal:

            i. What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward
               each of them and as a couple?

         f. Support (economic):

            i. What were the financial arrangements between the parties
               regarding the provision of or contribution towards the
               necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation,

               etc.)?

           ii. What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and
               ownership of property?

          iii. Was there any special financial arrangement between them
               which both agreed would be determinant of their overall
               relationship?

         g. Children:

            i. What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning
               children?

Judges and Courts have recognized that “The extent to which the different elements of the  relationship will be taken into account must vary with the circumstances of each case.” For example:

        Cohabitation does not necessarily depend upon whether there is
        sexual intercourse.

        Cohabitation does not require that the parties were even living
        under the same roof. They might have maintained separate
        residences throughout their relationship.

        How the parties describe their relationships in income tax returns
        and other government documents is not determinative.

        The three year period of cohabitation does not have to continue
        up to the time of death.  In a perhaps extreme example a man
        was found to be entitled to support from the estate of another
        man with whom he had lived in a same-sex relationship for
        some years, even though the claimant had met, become
        intimate with and married a woman before the death of the
        other man, and was charged and later acquitted with the murder
        of the other man. [Romero v Estate of Naglic et al, 2009
        CarswellOnt. 3193]

Interim support

The Court also has the power to make an order for interim support before the trial. The test for interim support is for the claimant to establish some degree of entitlement to, and the need for, interim support. On an interim motion a court can weigh and assess the evidence, to the extent permitted by the nature of the evidence and any pre-hearing testing of it. If, after such assessment, the motions court concludes that the record contains credible evidence from which one could rationally conclude that the applicant could establish his claim for support, then an order for interim support may issue.

Amount of Support

If the claimant can establish an entitlement to support from the estate the Court will then decide how much and for how long support should be paid. The statute sets out a long list of factors to be considered. Some of these factors are:

        the dependant’s current assets and means;

        the assets and means that the dependant is likely to have in the
        future;

        the dependant’s capacity to contribute to his or her own support;

        the dependant’s age and physical and mental health;

        the dependant’s accustomed standard of living;

        the proximity and duration of the dependant’s relationship with the
       deceased;

        whether the dependant has a legal obligation to provide support
        for another person;

        any agreement between the deceased and the dependant;

        if the dependant is a spouse,

            a course of conduct by the spouse during the deceased’s
            lifetime that is so unconscionable as to constitute an
            obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship,

            the length of time the spouses cohabited,

            the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the
            responsibilities assumed during cohabitation,

            whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child

            any housekeeping, child care or other domestic service
            performed by the spouse for the family,

       any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out
       of public money.

The reference to the claimant’s “accustomed standard of living” means the standard of living established by the deceased while the parties cohabited.

Paying the Support – the Estate

The court can order such a support order to be paid out of a wide variety of assets, including many that would not normally be considered part of the estate. These assets might include:

        (a) certain gifts that the deceased made to other people before
        death;

        (b) money deposited in an account in the name of the deceased in
        trust for another person;

        (c) joint bank accounts;

        (d) jointly owned homes, cottages or other real property;

        (e) monies held in a trust fund;

        (f) insurance policies, group insurance; and other monies normally
        governed by a designation of beneficiary

Timing

Perhaps the last but very important consideration is a matter of timing, because the statute states that …”No application for a [support order] may be made after six months from the grant of letters probate of the will or of letters of administration.”

SO if you think you might make such a claim, don’t wait too long !!

  - Craig M. Bater for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]