Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

News A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a random foid

Eschewcel

Eschewcel

Excluded from society for a decade.
★★
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Posts
2,132

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.



Click to play video 'Ontario appeal court stays decision on 47 wards, Toronto will now have 25-ward model'
2:24 Ontario appeal court stays decision on 47 wards, Toronto will now have 25-ward model

Ontario appeal court stays decision on 47 wards, Toronto will now have 25-ward model – Sep 19, 2018
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.


Read more: Ontario lawyer disbarred for taking $350K from trust meant for testator’s disabled son

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. Latner appealed.

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.
 
Society needs to stop caring for women
 
putting aside for a moment the fact that they weren't married, had no kids, and she owned a home, why is having to pay spousal support even a thing in the first place? makes no fucking sense. it's not even like we live in the 1930's where women couldn't have their own bank account and were reliant on their husband. they have plenty of opportunities to make their own money. what makes them entitled to their ex-husband's wealth, especially if there are no kids that need to be provided for?
 
Just another day in Cucknada.
 
At least as Incels we won't ever have to deal with this shit.
(unless some stupid bitch rape hoaxes you)
 
Honestly, it's basically the legal system admitting that women are prostitutes.

If you have sex with them and you have money, you must pay.
 
Honestly, it's basically the legal system admitting that women are prostitutes.

If you have sex with them and you have money, you must pay.
Maby we can do a 200 iq move and get rid of no fault divorce and other cucked laws by saying that the legal system makes women prostitutes because we have to pay them money

and the feminists will be like "the system is objectifying women"

turn their own game against them :feelsmage:
 
Fuck my gigacucked country tbh, I hope we all get nuked off the map.
I know I will die, but at least humanity will be better off.

Just another day in Cucknada.
1613626145509


I guess men are winning. Just more sneaky ways men oppress women.

Maby we can do a 200 iq move and get rid of no fault divorce and other cucked laws by saying that the legal system makes women prostitutes because we have to pay them money

and the feminists will be like "the system is objectifying women"

turn their own game against them :feelsmage:
won't happen, women will never do anything as a group that is against their best interest, even if it is fair.
 
Would rather burn my money then be a betabux.
 
Maby we can do a 200 iq move and get rid of no fault divorce and other cucked laws by saying that the legal system makes women prostitutes because we have to pay them money

and the feminists will be like "the system is objectifying women"

turn their own game against them :feelsmage:
High iq on this one
 
Maby we can do a 200 iq move and get rid of no fault divorce and other cucked laws by saying that the legal system makes women prostitutes because we have to pay them money

and the feminists will be like "the system is objectifying women"

turn their own game against them :feelsmage:
Politicians won't allow it. People would have to rebel en masse. There's too much stake in keeping women in power and men powerless.
 
putting aside for a moment the fact that they weren't married, had no kids, and she owned a home, why is having to pay spousal support even a thing in the first place? makes no fucking sense. it's not even like we live in the 1930's where women couldn't have their own bank account and were reliant on their husband. they have plenty of opportunities to make their own money. what makes them entitled to their ex-husband's wealth, especially if there are no kids that need to be provided for?
because soyciety hates men
 
Imagine the amount of rioting if some foid had to pay 6 million in spousal support. Would be headline news in every country for a decade
 
Just another day in Cucknada.
This. As soon as I read the word TORONTO, I immediately had the phrase "fag laws" show up in my mind and it made sense.
Soviet Femcunt Canada
 
Good, fuck richfags
 
good luck my brocels with moneymaxxing plans
 
"Breach of contract" once again...
 
What the fuck bullshit am I looking at right now? I was already in a bad mood today, I didn't need to see this gynocentric garbage. Can cucks and foids all just fuck off and soak their heads? Fuck this shit.

it's not even like we live in the 1930's where women couldn't have their own bank account and were reliant on their husband. they have plenty of opportunities to make their own money. what makes them entitled to their ex-husband's wealth,
Seriously, the court systems need to get with the fuckin' times. But of course they won't, because all the liberal fuck-tards that speak loudest across social media will never bring up this double standard issue.

If foids can flood the workplace with their unneeded, and quite frankly, useless presence, the very least they could do is support their damn selves.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top