Canadian Dudes Residing in British Columbia are Screwed

[Mr S]

Basically it breaks down to the simple truth, guys never live with a woman unless you marry her. If you are single live in separate housing, never move in together. The days of Co-habitation without strings attached are slowly coming to an end in a Western country near you...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le9847452/

The law has now pronounced you husband and wife
Andrea Woo

VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Mar. 16 2013, 8:00 AM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 19 2013, 4:36 PM EDT
264 comments

A couple for more than a decade, Maddison Spenrath and Kyle Eerbeek are, by all accounts, in it for the long haul. The two started dating in high school and, in 2008, moved from Calgary to Vancouver, settling into an apartment in the city’s Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. In 2011, they toured Hawaii’s Big Island, navigating mountains, beaches and tropical rainforests on their first big vacation together – an experience Ms. Spenrath recalls as “amazing.â€￾

There has been passing talk of marriage, but both agree now is not the time.

“We don’t see a benefit of getting married [over] our own relationship,â€￾ said Ms. Spenrath, a graduate student at the University of British Columbia. “I wouldn’t rule it out entirely, but definitely not in the near future.â€￾

But on Monday, Ms. Spenrath, 26, and Mr. Eerbeek, 28, will be married – in virtually every legal sense. That’s when B.C.’s new Family Law Act comes into effect, granting couples who have lived together for two or more years the same rights and regulations as married couples. So while no ink has hit a marriage certificate, one partner’s new car suddenly becomes “family propertyâ€￾; student debt accrued by the other during the course of the relationship becomes “family debt.â€￾

“The biggest issue I have is how it puts you in a marriage-like relationship without consent,â€￾ Ms. Spenrath said. “It’s more of an automatic process, that’s based arbitrarily on a two-year time period, rather than a more proactive stance. If I wanted the rights of a married couple, I would get married.â€￾

Grace Choi, a partner at Canadian law firm Davis LLP, calls the new legislation a “wholesale, dramatic, landscape shiftâ€￾ from the existing Family Relations Act, which, until now, had not been comprehensively reviewed since it took effect in 1979.

“Society has changed greatly in that time period,â€￾ said Ms. Choi, who presented on the matter to B.C.’s Court of Appeal justices. “I think the government, along with pressure from different groups of people, has tried to bring into account different considerations and bring the act into more of a modern time.â€￾

There are more than 160,000 common-law couples in B.C., and such arrangements are growing at a rate three times faster than marriages, according to 2011 Statistics Canada census data. The new legislation will give equal legal footing to those in marriage-like relationships – but perhaps at the expense of those finding their way in new relationships, cohabiting primarily to save money or, like Ms. Spenrath and Mr. Eerbeek, simply wanting to make that decision on their own.

Justice Minister and Attorney-General Shirley Bond was not available for comment, but said in a statement the new act is centred on supporting modern B.C. families – no matter how they are defined.

“Our new family law reflects family justice reform in a way that better represents the values of our citizens and addresses … important topics like out-of-court dispute resolution, property division, parenting arrangements and family violence,â€￾ Ms. Bond said. “Most importantly, the new family law is about ensuring children’s interests and safety are given the utmost priority when families go through the emotional turmoil that often comes with separation and divorce.â€￾

The ministry says it has researched and consulted on the legislation since 2006, receiving feedback from hundreds of “organizations, groups and members of the publicâ€￾ during the process.

***

B.C.’s new Family Law Act, which comes into effect March 18, focuses on three main categories:

PROPERTY

Perhaps the most significant change under the new legislation regards the division of property, assets and debt. Effective Monday, couples who have lived together for at least two years will have equal entitlement to property – and responsibility for debt – accrued during the relationship.

“In the past, people could have been living together for 20, 30, 40 years, but at the end of that time, if the assets weren’t in your name, then you really had no right to them unless you could prove contribution,â€￾ Ms. Choi said. “That is going to be extremely different under the new act.â€￾

Property acquired before the relationship began is excluded, as are gifts, inheritances, settlements and awards of damages. However, any increase in value of the pre-relationship assets will be divided. This is a change for married couples who, under the outgoing legislation, have equal entitlement to all assets characterized as “family assets,â€￾ including those brought into the relationship. Other areas of the law, including spousal support and income tax, already treat common-law couples the same as married couples.

In amicable separations, couples can choose instead to divide their property as they see fit. Those wanting a measure of security can sign a cohabitation agreement, which is similar to a prenuptial agreement.

CHILDREN

Monday will also usher in an era when the best interests of a child will be the court’s only consideration when making decisions relating to guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with the child.

“The new act shifts the focus … from the parents to the children,â€￾ Ms. Choi said. “Now, the only factor in making decisions about children is what is in the best interest of the child. Previously, that was of paramount concern, but it wasn’t the only concern.â€￾

Whereas it is difficult under the outgoing act to enforce parenting time agreements, the new act allows the court to issue a fine of up to $5,000 to a parent wrongfully denying the time. Alternatively, the court can require the parent denying time to reimburse the other parent for travel, child-care expenses or lost wages.

As well, the act encourages parents to first seek out-of-court settlements through avenues such as mediation, arbitration and parenting co-ordinators.

“Court is not necessarily the best place for resolving family disputes, partly because of the time and the cost, and just the emotional factor,â€￾ Ms. Choi said.

Existing tools such as reports that focus on the views of the child will play a much bigger role under the new legislation, where appropriate.

FAMILY VIOLENCE AND SAFETY

Factoring into a child’s best interests is the issue of family violence – an area that is explicitly defined in the new legislation. The court will soon have the ability to issue protection orders, which replace restraining orders under the Family Relations Act and can restrict contact and communication between family members.

In determining whether to make such an order, the court will consider numerous risk factors, including the history of, and potential for, family violence, including psychological, sexual and emotional abuse. Various parties can apply for a protection order, including an at-risk family member, a person on behalf of that family member or the court itself. Whereas a breach of a restraining order under the outgoing Family Relations Act is a civil matter, a breach of a protection order under the new law will be a criminal offence.

“While the courts have always recognized family violence as being an important factor, now there is more of a focus on this issue,â€￾ Ms. Choi said. “Counsel is going to have a duty to discuss and assess family violence.â€￾

All family dispute-resolution professionals will be required to screen for family violence.

[Mr S]

The next domino to fall...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le4104297/

Living in a common-law relationship? You need an 'agreement'

Angela Self

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 02 2012, 6:00 AM EDT

Last updated Monday, Sep. 10 2012, 11:25 AM EDT
24 comments

If you and your common-law partner, defined as living together continuously for three years or having a child together, agree that you will split everything you currently have or will have in the future, then you probably don’t need a cohabitation agreement. But “it’s rarely the case that you don’t have assets you’d like to protect,â€￾ says Sara Mintz, a lawyer in the family law group at Torkin Manes LLP, in downtown Toronto.

She recommends a cohabitation agreement in three scenarios: you’re an entrepreneur or have a family business, you have assets you want to protect (like a condo or RRSPs), or you significantly out-earn your partner or expect you will in the future.

“It’s a common misconception that if it’s in my name it’s mine, and if it’s in our name it’s ours,â€￾ Ms. Mintz says. If a property is in your name, but your partner has contributed sweat equity, for example, he or she may be entitled to a share of it. Or, if you agree you would financially support your partner’s decision to go back to school and he or she is only halfway done during your split, you could be on the hook to provide financial support.

As Ms. Mintz rolls through a number of similar scenarios, I see why splits without upfront agreements could become a financial mess.

Over drinks with friends later on, I ask if they have a cohabitation agreement. Nope. She says that since she moved into his house and it’s his mortgage, she wouldn’t fight for anything if they separated – except, of course, compensation for the hours of yard work, painting, and the small renovation projects that ate up a lot of her weekends. I sip my drink quietly while they debate the dollar value of her efforts. Before changing the subject, I mention it might be worth looking into.

Not many of my friends have an agreement, but they probably should. The beauty of drafting one is that it can be as broad or as detailed as you like. The more detailed, the more expensive, but it’s a small cost compared with the legal fees you would incur to battle it out after a breakup. It could cost $3,500 to $10,000 or more, but you can reduce the cost by getting your finances in order as a couple and outlining what you want your agreement to say prior to meeting with your lawyers.

More couples are living together before marriage and putting off tying the knot until later in life. If you’re in a common-law relationship, or about to be, then it’s worth having the “what-ifâ€￾ conversation or, even better, investing in a cohabitation agreement that will protect you and your assets if you part ways.

Angela Self is one of the founders of the Smart Cookies money group. Read her weekly column on managing debt and saving money at the Globe's personal finance site.