Unmarried Spouses: Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
m
→...In a "marriage-like relationship"
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) |
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
The only thing that needs to be pointed out is that the two-year period doesn't need to be continuous. On the other hand, if a claim is based on the parties being unmarried spouses, the court will probably look at the nature of the relationship in more detail. A gap of three months in the middle of the two years a couple are supposed to have lived together might prevent someone from claiming that a couple are spouses; on the other hand, if the three months' absence was because someone was working out-of-town, the three months may not matter very much. | The only thing that needs to be pointed out is that the two-year period doesn't need to be continuous. On the other hand, if a claim is based on the parties being unmarried spouses, the court will probably look at the nature of the relationship in more detail. A gap of three months in the middle of the two years a couple are supposed to have lived together might prevent someone from claiming that a couple are spouses; on the other hand, if the three months' absence was because someone was working out-of-town, the three months may not matter very much. | ||
=== | ===In a "marriage-like relationship"=== | ||
This is more complex than the calculation of the duration of a relationship, partly because it calls for the court to make a decision about the nature of the parties' private, personal relationship with one another. In a 1998 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1dz3n Takacs v. Gallo]'', 1998 CanLII 6428 (BCCA) the Court of Appeal endorsed these considerations: | This is more complex than the calculation of the duration of a relationship, partly because it calls for the court to make a decision about the nature of the parties' private, personal relationship with one another. In a 1998 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1dz3n Takacs v. Gallo]'', 1998 CanLII 6428 (BCCA) the Court of Appeal endorsed these considerations: | ||
