Alberta likely to adopt same common law rules as B.C.

thedude99 · #1 10-25-2017, 11:23 PM

Well as soon as NDP were voted in I was 100% sure that in no time they would introduce the same common law rules as in B.C. Sure enough a move is afoot to do that. The Alberta Law Reform Institute which alleges to provide independent legal counsel to the government is set to provide recommendations to the NDP on this

As an unmarried man in a long term relationship, I will say that couples are free to make their own choices about getting married or not and this is essentially taking that choice away.

See for yourselves here:

https://www.alri.ualberta.ca/index.p...on-law-couples

normstad · #2 10-25-2017, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedude99

Well as soon as NDP were voted in I was 100% sure that in no time they would introduce the same common law rules as in B.C. Sure enough a move is afoot to do that. The Alberta Law Reform Institute which alleges to provide independent legal counsel to the government is set to provide recommendations to the NDP on this

As an unmarried man in a long term relationship, I will say that couples are free to make their own choices about getting married or not and this is essentially taking that choice away.

See for yourselves here:

https://www.alri.ualberta.ca/index.p...on-law-couples

After two years, you might as well be married anyways I thought.

thedude99 · #3 10-25-2017, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normstad

After two years, you might as well be married anyways I thought.

In Alberta, far from it. There has to be proof of unjust enrichment...ie person contributed to the mortgage let's say and then they should be entitled to x% of any increase in house during the time together.

conservativeken · #4 10-26-2017, 12:21 AM

Terrible proposal. If I wanted to be bound by the Matrimonial Property Act I'd get married. Now if a woman tricks me into living with her for three years she'll get half of everything? Does that sound healthy for Alberta?

I hope this doesn't go through but, realistically, what are the chances they'll even read the feedback? Nonetheless I filled out the survey on the website.

The government is truly the enemy of the people.

Rastus · #5 10-26-2017, 06:08 AM

"FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND" She gets half of everything that you two have accumulated for the first six months. After that there has to be a prenuptial agreement in place. After, (I do not know how much time), time, the house becomes a marriage place and is equally divided. This six months also includes pensions. She gets pension "CREDITS". Example, if she live there eight months she gets pension "CREDITS" for eight months. Now these pension credits can be government and private. This is Ontario law, as I understand it.

Newview01 · #6 10-26-2017, 06:17 AM

You should be getting married or kicking her out.

The indecisiveness these days is ridiculous.

pikergolf · #7 10-26-2017, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newview01

You should be getting married or kicking her out.

The indecisiveness these days is ridiculous.

People are takers, they will commit to as little as possible.

bobinthesky · #8 10-26-2017, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conservativeken

Terrible proposal. If I wanted to be bound by the Matrimonial Property Act I'd get married. Now if a woman tricks me into living with her for three years she'll get half of everything? Does that sound healthy for Alberta?

I hope this doesn't go through but, realistically, what are the chances they'll even read the feedback? Nonetheless I filled out the survey on the website.

The government is truly the enemy of the people.

Tricks you? ..... Seriously?

Sporty · #9 10-26-2017, 07:20 AM

Pretty easy to get around this, just don't shack up.

coastalhunter · #10 10-26-2017, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sporty

Pretty easy to get around this, just don't shack up.

Smash & Dash?

jstubbs · #11 10-26-2017, 08:29 AM

Yeah... as guys we all hear the rough stories about your buddy's uncle's good friend who is out in BC and let some poor woman stay with him for a year or two while she tries to get her life together who then goes to the courts and takes half his stuff since she didn't have to pay rent or something and eventually winds up with his house.

Also, take this how you will, but in the acknowledgments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDF30

ALRI was fortunate to partner with the Population Research Lab at the
University of Alberta to carry out a survey of Albertans’ attitudes and
expectations towards cohabitation and property division. We appreciate the
assistance of Donna Fong, Rosanna Shih, Dr Gillian Stevens and many others
who helped to design and carry out the survey and collect the data.
Dr Stevens also connected us with Aleena Amjad Hafeez and supervised
Ms Hafeez’s report that analysed the survey results. Their expertise in data
analysis has brought the opinions of 1,200 Albertans prominently into the
framework of this report.

ALRI also appreciates the work of the Canadian Research Institute for Law
and the Family in preparing a survey proposal.
Dr Laura Wright (then a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Alberta,
Department of Sociology, now an assistant professor in the University of
Saskatchewan Department of Sociology) kindly provided information about
research on unmarried couples and shared her work and knowledge on the
demographics of common-law couples in Canada.

ALRI held two round table discussions with family law practitioners as part of
the pre-consultation on this project. Those who attended brought to light
many issues that arise in practice but which are not well-reflected in the
relevant literature.

Internally, we appreciate the work of the ALRI Board for their thoughtful
discussion of the issues that arose during this project. Geneviève TremblayMcCaig,
legal counsel, carried out the preliminary assessment for both this
project and related topics. Ms Tremblay-McCaig also completed significant
research and analysis on this project. As lead counsel, Laura Buckingham,
legal counsel, wrote the Report for Discussion and carried out additional
research and analysis as this topic evolved. Ashley Hathorn, summer student,
checked the footnotes and drafted the summary for this report. Additional
editing and analytic assistance were provided by Ms Tremblay-McCaig and by

Sandra Petersson, Executive Director. Barry Chung, communications
associate, was responsible for preparing the report for publication.
Finally, we would like to thank “Melissa” (a pseudonym) for sharing her
experience with us regarding a difficult property division litigation when her
common-law relationship ended. Her story has helped us to understand and
explain the challenges that former partners face when dividing property using
constructive trust principles.

Of course this is just from the male side of the argument, but we've typically seen men suffer the most from family and divorce courts. Seems fitting that despite this, there do not appear to be a lot of men involved in the creation of this report, strange considering there's 1.7x more male lawyers than female lawyers in Canada. I will assume that the sampling surveying was done fairly otherwise, but a guy can't be a bit worried. The family/divorce legal system is already against us.

wags · #12 10-26-2017, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conservativeken

Terrible proposal. If I wanted to be bound by the Matrimonial Property Act I'd get married. Now if a woman tricks me into living with her for three years she'll get half of everything? Does that sound healthy for Alberta?

You have a choice to live with a woman or not. Are you not accountable to your choices? Tricks you to live with her for three years - good one!

3blade · #13 10-26-2017, 10:28 AM

Family law has been in place to punish men for a long time now. Doesn't make it right, but another layer don't really change things

She has to have her own place. Regarding mine, if I leave the house, she leaves the house, unless/until we're married. Pretty simple.

Mike_W · #14 10-26-2017, 10:42 AM

If you guys are so worried about splitting your assets with someone you have been in a relationship for 2 or 3 years then maybe you should look for a different relationship.

If you don't believe in marriage that is one thing but if you have been in a conjugal relationship with someone for an extended period of time, contributed to things together and whatnot then you really need to buck up.

Envitro · #15 10-26-2017, 10:48 AM

Or if you're worried get a co-habitation agreement. Basically the same as a pre-nup.

Man up and have the tough conversation if you're that worried about it.

Okotokian · #16 10-26-2017, 11:00 AM

I'm one of those that thinks that there should be no recognition of common-law relationships. I think that if both parties want to make a contractual agreement to share everything, then get married. That's all that a marriage certificate is; a contract. Sign the contract. Forget all the religious and till-death-do-us part connotations. Just get married in a civil ceremony. But if people choose not to, it means they do not want to make that commitment. Then you are just room mates who have sex.

Now if there is a child involved, things change. But that can be addressed through child support.

Rastus · #17 10-26-2017, 11:25 AM

I believe that some STATES have common-law practices, I think the STATE of INDIANE does not reconizesed common-law relantionships. I know the spelling is wrong, but what the h__l.

Stubb · #18 10-26-2017, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Envitro

Or if you're worried get a co-habitation agreement. Basically the same as a pre-nup.

Man up and have the tough conversation if you're that worried about it.

This! It's pretty cheap insurance if you have some assets.

CF8889 · #19 10-26-2017, 12:34 PM

You boys would be afraid of your own shadow if the NDP showed it to you..

ReconWilly · #20 10-26-2017, 01:46 PM

Educate yourself or you are playing Russian roulette with male oppressing family laws.

Once again the modern day philosopher extrodinare out of Toronto has covered it all, Sandman shares subscriber submitted real life horror stories of men's lives being ruined by our legal system, be honest we all know someone who has wrongly lost far to much to someone who deserved nothing...

https://m.youtube.com/user/SandmanMGTOW

Here's one story about common law that he covered...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQnBfVAMK_k

Okotokian · #21 10-26-2017, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CF8889

You boys would be afraid of your own shadow if the NDP showed it to you..

True, but my shadow would be transgendered and earning $15 an hour.

ReconWilly · #22 10-26-2017, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

True, but my shadow would be transgendered and earning $15 an hour.

Man I'm in a hospital waiting room right now waiting to see a surgeon and this made me erupt out loud in a relatively embarrassing way...thanks!

Sporty · #23 10-26-2017, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReconWilly

Educate yourself or you are playing Russian roulette with male oppressing family laws.

Once again the modern day philosopher extrodinare out of Toronto has covered it all, Sandman shares subscriber submitted real life horror stories of men's lives being ruined by our legal system, be honest we all know someone who has wrongly lost far to much to someone who deserved nothing...

https://m.youtube.com/user/SandmanMGTOW

Here's one story about common law that he covered...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQnBfVAMK_k

Wow, nice videos, He's definitely better off staying single, poor guy.

As I previously stated, don't shack up. Why are people shacking up if they don't plan on creating a life with another individual? Unless you're making a commitment, on the same level as marriage, what's the point of living together if you don't plan on staying together?

Really, people should take some responsibility for themselves and quit trying to blame their crappy choices on someone else.

Redfrog · #24 10-26-2017, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm one of those that thinks that there should be no recognition of common-law relationships. I think that if both parties want to make a contractual agreement to share everything, then get married. That's all that a marriage certificate is; a contract. Sign the contract. Forget all the religious and till-death-do-us part connotations. Just get married in a civil ceremony. But if people choose not to, it means they do not want to make that commitment. Then you are just room mates who have sex.

Now if there is a child involved, things change. But that can be addressed through child support.

What about the "Obey" Thingy. can we leave that in?

And there's a heck of a lot more to children than a child support check.

Has anyone heard "I came home and she was gone, cleaned me out."

"That bag took me for everything"

"She tricked me into having kids"

" My lawyer was an idiot"

"Her lawyer was a shark"

We've all heard these things, and in spite of all the warnings we make the deal anyway. How many would buy a car from a place that had thousands of horror stories.

How about an IQ test? Would that help? are men so stupid that they repeatedly get taken advantage of?

Stop whining.

"They stole our land"

fish_e_o · #25 10-26-2017, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Envitro

Or if you're worried get a co-habitation agreement. Basically the same as a pre-nup.

Man up and have the tough conversation if you're that worried about it.

as it turns out those wont hold up in court... ask me how i know

ReconWilly · #26 10-26-2017, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sporty

Wow, nice videos, He's definitely better off staying single, poor guy.

As I previously stated, don't shack up. Why are people shacking up if they don't plan on creating a life with another individual? Unless you're making a commitment, on the same level as marriage, what's the point of living together if you don't plan on staying together?

Really, people should take some responsibility for themselves and quit trying to blame their crappy choices on someone else.

Not getting involved is the WHOLE point of the MGTOW philosophy.

Got any points that haven't been covered?

Okotokian · #27 10-26-2017, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfrog

What about the "Obey" Thingy. can we leave that in?

C'mon Red. That thingy is still in both our marriages. Only applies to you and me, not the wives, but still.....

Drewski Canuck · #28 10-26-2017, 09:01 PM

Saskatchewan has the same concept as B C.

I have litigated this issue.

However, the problem is men marry (shack up) down. If you want a solution find a partner who has an equal or better financial position.

However, the basic problem is it pulls like 10 mules.

Drewski

conservativeken · #29 10-27-2017, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wags

You have a choice to live with a woman or not.

But I don't have the choice to live with her without giving her half of my possessions? How does this make sense from a "you have a choice" angle? This is specifically the government restricting our choice to further drive a wedge between men and women. Right now I have a choice that the government is trying to take away.

HowSwedeItIs · #30 10-27-2017, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conservativeken

But I don't have the choice to live with her without giving her half of my possessions? How does this make sense from a "you have a choice" angle? This is specifically the government restricting our choice to further drive a wedge between men and women. Right now I have a choice that the government is trying to take away.

maybe you should be 'libertarianken' instead