Love Is Great But It Won’t Pay the Bills When Your Significant Other Dumps You


Canadians beware, the governments of Canada have duped you again and this time it is all of you who thought that common law relationships were as valid as a marriage with all of the rights of being married.  You have no rights under the law and from what I heard today. Depending on what province you live in you are not entitled to any compensation should you choose to stay home and raise children or take on the homemaker role by the government of your province or your significant other.  If you already have the time in you better be getting something in writing.  I listened fascinated as the lawyer‘s talked about these women as though they were meat and not people at all.  The show was called CPAC, on channel 28. The Surpreme Court of Canada was on television, showing real cases that were taped  as they were argued live. 

 The lawyer’s for the men always belittled the contribution of the stay at home un-wed partner no matter how long the relationships lasted.  One was a 27 year relationship involving children; another was a 12 year relationship with children. Another thing I noticed is the court seemed to give these women no respect as if they were whores getting what happens eventually to whores who do not have the decency toget married. I thought that I had slipped backwards in time.   I listened to lawyers said that the women had chosen to live with their common law mates with the understanding that they were pretty much servants, sexually and domestically and that their pay was the privilege of living in the homes that were provided for them and the lifestyle that they enjoyed while their men wanted them and were not entitled to anything when they were no longer desirable to their mates. 

 There seemed to be a general lack of appreciation for what these women did and the thought was that they could not prove their jobor its worth, therefore they could not bill for it.  Totally ignored by the court is that no couple in love thinks that their partner will leave them and take everything for themselves and that all arrangements like these are not written down, but there is an expressed contract of sharing when two people take up house and the government of the day said you were just as good as married after a certain amount of years.    

  The Canadian Government seems to be enjoying this quandary.  If you are on welfare and living with some one for an extended amount of time you are forced to combine your assets as though you were a married couple whether you want to or not.  Why is it not the same for rich men?  Why has the government of Canada and the provinces turned these honorable women into the chattel of ruthless men who use them sexually and domestically impregnate them and when these women get sick, or the men tire of them down the road get dumped like garbage into the street with often little more than what they have on their backs or have managed to squirrel away? 

 Now what if you are in a gay relationship living as a married couple without the benefit of that marriage contract, where do you think that you stand in this argument if this is how Canada is treating her heterosexual citizens? 

   If I were in any kind of relationship without the benefit of a marriage certificate I would be getting some sort of contract about the dividing of the monies and assets accumulated during the relationship and get in writing a monetary value for the service that you are doing that without the contract you will not be able to prove when your significant other decides they are done with you.  The courts, the lawyers, the judges and the government all will want to see your link in tangible proof to their assets when you get tossed. 

   I know that you are not whores nor are you stupid, because love is neither of these things. Love gets cheapened by unscrupulous people who will do and say anything to make a buck (divorce attorneys), decide to help for a fee your significant other make a mockery of your entire relationship with your significant other and tear down every promise and any hope of you getting a fair settlement.  That they are lying will make no difference to anyone, because every one knows that lawyers do not lie they just do the best job for their clients that they can and will use what every half-truths that they can find.    

 When I think that all of the people in these types of relationships that have no protection and know that it is the fault of the combined governments of Canada it sickens me to my heart.  This is just another example of how your government thinks of you and the value of your services as women as homemakers and as people.  This is their version of equality for all.    Protect yourself and get it in writing.  As one chief justice put it, “They can not just walk into a court room and say I have been with him for a certain amount of years and took care of his house hold and expect to get half of his assets. The petitioner must provide to the court a tangible link to the assets accumulated by the significant other.” 

Now maybe you can tell me why this approach makes any sense to use. To have the federal government acknowledge and apply its rules to common law marriage, but when it comes to the provinces allow a different interpretation throughout the country.  It confuses the people in these relationships; it creates legal loopholes for unscrupulous lawyers to use for their clients, binds judges hands and leaves people all over this country thinking they are covered only to find out after years of marriage they are really at the mercy of their significant other.  This creates a situation where you can be legally bound as if in marriage by the laws of the federal government and depending where you live in this country, lose all of your rights under the provinces interpretation of the law.  Now does this make sense I ask you?  If the answer is no then why will the governments not change it so that the whole country is under one clear legal definition? Are we Canadians first, or are we truly a country made up of smaller countries, with the provinces calling the shots and the federal government doing the provinces bidding; a figure-head if you will with no real power to decide anything lest given permission by the provincial  governments? If this is true why do we need to be bound at all by the federal government? I guess this is a topic of discussion for another day, another time.  I will leave you with this legal definition and regulation of common law marriage as applied in Canada.  Te definition below was taken from an article written in,

 Observer: Common-law marriage – Informal marriage

In Canada, the legal definition and regulation of common law marriage fall under provincial jurisdiction. A couple must meet the requirements of their province’s Marriage Act for their common law marriage to be legally recognized.
However, in many cases common law couples have the same rights as married couples under federal law. Various federal laws include “common law status,” which automatically takes effect once two people (of any gender) have lived together in a conjugal relationship for one full year. Common law partners may be eligible for various federal government spousal benefits. As family law varies between provinces, there are differences between the provinces regarding the recognition of common law marriage.
In 1999, after the court case M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex partners would also be included in common law relationships.
In Ontario, the Ontario Family Law Act specifically recognizes common law spouses in sec. 29 dealing with spousal support issues; the requirements are living together for three years or having a child in common and having “cohabitated in a relationship of some permanence.” The three years must be continuous, however a breakup of a few days during the three-year period will not affect a person’s status as common law [1]. However, the part that deals with marital property excludes common law spouses as sec. 2 defines spouses as those who are married together or who entered into a void or voidable marriage in good faith. Thus common law partners do not always evenly divide property in a breakup, and the courts have to look to concepts such as the constructive or resulting trust to divide property in an equitable manner between partners. Another difference that distinguishes common law spouses from married partners is that a common law partner can be compelled to testify against his or her partner in a court of law.
Québec, which unlike the other provinces has a Civil Code, has never recognized common-law partnership as a kind of marriage. See about De Facto Marriage in Québec. However, many laws in Québec explicitly apply to common-law partners (called “de facto unions” or conjoints de fait) as they do to spouses. See a List of These Rights and Freedoms. Same-sex partners can also have recognized “de facto unions” in Québec.
A recent amendment to the Civil Code of Québec recognizes a type of domestic partnership called civil union that is similar to common-law marriage and is likewise available to same-sex partners.
Other Provinces
The requirements in some other provinces are as follows:
In British Columbia and Nova Scotia a couple must cohabit for two years in a marriage-like relationship [2].
In New Brunswick, a couple must live together continuously in a family relationship for 12 months.[3]


About archemdis

I try to say what is on my mind and not hurt others, but some things need to be said whether they hurt or not and I do just that. I try to listen as well as talk, but my opinion is just that mine. You need not take it as your own, just respect the fact that I am entitled to it, as you are yours. I do read all comments, but will only answer, or allow to be displayed those which adress me by name, refer to the post by name in the comment, or that have been sent through the proper channels. In this manner I can tell whether the comment was meant for me and that it is not just spam.
This entry was posted in abuse, abuse of power, common law marriage, divorce, Government, Marriage In Its Many Forms, Prejudice, Uncategorized, United States of America and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.