Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Unmarried Spouses"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
281 bytes added ,  18:37, 28 March 2013
no edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
{{OKSUBSTANTIVE}}
{{OKSUBSTANTIVE}}


The provincial ''Family Law Act'' defines ''spouse'' as including married spouses and unmarried couples, providing that the unmarried couple has lived together in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years, or lived together for less than two years if they have had a child. Because the federal ''Divorce Act'' only applies to married spouses, all of the rules that apply when unmarried relationships end are found in the ''Family Law Act''.
The provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'' defines ''spouse'' as including married spouses and unmarried couples, providing that the unmarried couple has lived together in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years, or lived together for less than two years if they have had a child. Because the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'' only applies to married spouses, all of the rules that apply when unmarried relationships end are found in the ''Family Law Act''.


This page talks about qualifying as unmarried spouses, the consequences of being in a spousal relationship and unmarried spouses' entitlement to government benefits. This page talks about the legal issues involved when a relationship breaks down. The ______ page talks about the emotional issues that come up when a relationship ends and how those issues can impact on the resolution of the legal issues.
This page talks about qualifying as unmarried spouses, the consequences of being in a spousal relationship and unmarried spouses' entitlement to government benefits. This page talks about the legal issues involved when a relationship breaks down. The [[Separating Emotionally]] page talks about the emotional issues that come up when a relationship ends and how those issues can impact on the resolution of the legal issues.


==Introduction==
==Introduction==


The legal rights and responsibilities people in an unmarried relationship owe to each other are described in a number of different laws, and these different laws have different definitions of what it means to be a ''spouse'' or a ''common-law partner''; a couple might meet the test under one law but not under another. The really important question is this: ''Do I qualify as a "spouse" under this particular piece of legislation?''
The legal rights and responsibilities people in an unmarried relationship owe to each other are described in a number of different laws, and these different laws have different definitions of what it means to be a "spouse" or a "common-law partner"; a couple might meet the test under one law but not under another. The really important question is this: ''Do I qualify as a "spouse" under this particular piece of legislation?''


As a result, although married couples are always married spouses, unmarried couples aren't always unmarried spouses. For example, the federal ''Income Tax Act'' defines spouse as including people who have cohabited for one year, while the provincial ''Employment and Assistance Act'' defines spouse as including people living together for three months if a welfare caseworker believes that their relationship demonstrates "financial dependence or interdependence, and social and familial interdependence".
As a result, although married couples are always married spouses, unmarried couples aren't always unmarried spouses. For example, the federal ''[http://canlii.ca/t/7vb7 Income Tax Act]'' defines spouse as including people who have cohabited for one year, while the provincial ''[http://canlii.ca/t/84l7 Employment and Assistance Act]'' defines spouse as including people living together for three months if a welfare caseworker believes that their relationship demonstrates "financial dependence or interdependence, and social and familial interdependence".


Regardless of a couple's federal or provincial status under these rules, it is not true that being an unmarried spouse or common-law partner means that you are legally married. Being married involves a formal ceremony and certain other legal requirements like a marriage licence. Without that ceremony and that licence, unmarried spouses will never be married, no matter how long they've lived together.
Regardless of a couple's federal or provincial status under these rules, it is not true that being an unmarried spouse or common-law partner means that you are legally married. Being married involves a formal ceremony and certain other legal requirements like a marriage licence. Without that ceremony and that licence, unmarried spouses will never be married, no matter how long they've lived together.


===Provincial Legislation===
===Provincial legislation===


For most provincial laws, the test is whether or not a particular couple are "spouses". Qualifying as a spouse might mean that you are entitled to the family rate for MSP, that you can share in your spouse's estate in the event your spouse dies or that you are no longer entitled to social assistance.
For most provincial laws, the test is whether or not a particular couple are "spouses". Qualifying as a spouse might mean that you are entitled to the family rate for MSP, that you can share in your spouse's estate in the event your spouse dies or that you are no longer entitled to social assistance.


In general, for most but not all provincial laws you must have lived with your partner for at least two years to qualify as a spouse. (The laws about sharing in a spouse's property after his or her death also require the spouses to have been living together at the time of your spouse's death.) Here's the definition from the ''Wills Variation Act'':
In general, for most but not all provincial laws you must have lived with your partner for at least two years to qualify as a spouse. (The laws about sharing in a spouse's property after his or her death also require the spouses to have been living together at the time of your spouse's death.) Here's the definition from the ''[http://canlii.ca/t/84g0 Wills Variation Act]'':


<blockquote><tt>"spouse" means a person who</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>"spouse" means a person who</tt></blockquote>
Line 34: Line 34:
<blockquote><tt>(2) A spouse includes a former spouse.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(2) A spouse includes a former spouse.</tt></blockquote>


And here's the definition from the ''Adult Guardianship Act'':
And here's the definition from the ''[http://canlii.ca/t/84gj Adult Guardianship Act]'':


<blockquote><tt>"spouse" means a person who</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>"spouse" means a person who</tt></blockquote>
Line 42: Line 42:
As you can see, there are lots of subtle differences between these definitions, and can be very important to find out just how a particular law defines spouse.
As you can see, there are lots of subtle differences between these definitions, and can be very important to find out just how a particular law defines spouse.


===Federal Legislation===
===Federal legislation===


Most federal laws distinguish between ''spouses'', people who are legally married, and ''common-law partners'', who aren't. Qualifying as a common-law partner might mean that you are entitled to a share of your partner's CPP credits, receive Old Age Security survivor's benefits or the spouse amount for the GST Credit.
Most federal laws distinguish between "spouses", people who are legally married, and "common-law partners", who aren't. Qualifying as a common-law partner might mean that you are entitled to a share of your partner's CPP credits, receive Old Age Security survivor's benefits or the spouse amount for the GST Credit.


In general, you must have lived with your partner for at least one year to qualify as a common-law partner under federal legislation. Here's the definition from the ''Old Age Security Act'':
In general, you must have lived with your partner for at least one year to qualify as a common-law partner under federal legislation. Here's the definition from the ''[http://canlii.ca/t/7vjx Old Age Security Act]'':


<blockquote><tt>"common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship at the relevant time, having so cohabited with the individual for a continuous period of at least one year.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>"common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship at the relevant time, having so cohabited with the individual for a continuous period of at least one year.</tt></blockquote>
Line 59: Line 59:
"Conjugal relationship" is the federal equivalent of British Columbia's "marriage-like relationship".
"Conjugal relationship" is the federal equivalent of British Columbia's "marriage-like relationship".


==="Common-Law Spouses"===
==="Common-law spouses"===


Family law in British Columbia doesn't talk about people who are ''common-law spouses'' and never has. Once upon a time, people could marry each other and create a legal relationship simply by agreeing to marry, without getting a licence from the government or having a particular kind of ceremony. Because the rights between the spouses came from principles established by the common law, these were known as common-law marriages. Common-law marriages were valid in England until the ''Marriage Act'' of 1753, better known by its full flowery name, ''An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage''.  
Family law in British Columbia doesn't talk about people who are "common-law spouses" and never has. Once upon a time, people could marry each other and create a legal relationship simply by agreeing to marry, without getting a licence from the government or having a particular kind of ceremony. Because the rights between the spouses came from principles established by the common law, these were known as common-law marriages. Common-law marriages were valid in England until the ''Marriage Act'' of 1753, better known by its full flowery name, ''An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage''.  


Normally I wouldn't make a fuss about terminology like this, except that the phrase "common-law spouses" kind of suggests that there are certain of rights and entitlements that a couple get from the operation of the common law, and this really isn't the case and it hasn't been the case for two and a half centuries. What's really important is whether a couple are ''spouses'' under the particular law that they're looking at; all of their rights and entitlements come from the operation of a statute.
Normally I wouldn't make a fuss about terminology like this, except that the phrase "common-law spouses" kind of suggests that there are certain of rights and entitlements that a couple get from the operation of the common law, and this really isn't the case and it hasn't been the case for two and a half centuries. What's really important is whether a couple are "spouses" under the particular law that they're looking at; all of their rights and entitlements come from the operation of a statute.


There is no such thing as a common-law spouse or a common-law marriage in British Columbia. If you're a "spouse", it's because of s. 3 of the ''Family Law Act''.
There is no such thing as a "common-law spouse" or a "common-law marriage" in British Columbia. If you're a "spouse", it's because of s. 3 of the ''Family Law Act''.


==Qualifying as an Unmarried Spouse==
==Qualifying as an unmarried spouse==


It's usually pretty hard to argue that you're not married if you're a married spouse. It's a lot easier for unmarried couples to argue about the status of their relationship, and the stakes can be quite high. If a couple were just roommates, for example, neither of them will be able to ask for a share of the family property or for a contribution to the family debt, and neither will be able to ask the other to pay spousal support.  
It's usually pretty hard to argue that you're not married if you're a married spouse. It's a lot easier for unmarried couples to argue about the status of their relationship, and the stakes can be quite high. If a couple were just roommates, for example, neither of them will be able to ask for a share of the family property or for a contribution to the family debt, and neither will be able to ask the other to pay spousal support.  


===Living Together...===
===Living together...===


This requirement of an unmarried spousal relationship is fairly self-explanatory. An unmarried couple who have lived together and had a child together are spouses who are eligible to ask for spousal support, regardless of how long or how short a period of time they lived together. An unmarried couple who have lived together for at least two years are spouses who are eligible to ask for spousal support and orders about the division of property and debt.
This requirement of an unmarried spousal relationship is fairly self-explanatory. An unmarried couple who have lived together and had a child together are spouses who are eligible to ask for spousal support, regardless of how long or how short a period of time they lived together. An unmarried couple who have lived together for at least two years are spouses who are eligible to ask for spousal support and orders about the division of property and debt.
Line 77: Line 77:
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 a three of 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 a three of 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===
===...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 ''Takacs v. Gallo'', 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:


*'''Shelter:'''
*'''Shelter:'''
Line 94: Line 94:
<blockquote>What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?</blockquote>
<blockquote>What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?</blockquote>


In a nutshell, where the marriage-like quality of a relationship is disputed, the court will enquire as to how the couple represented themselves to their family and friends, and as to the nature of their financial relationship and household relationship. Did the couple present themselves as a family unit and conduct their personal affairs as a family unit? The judge in a 2003 case from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, ''Yakiwchuk v. Oaks'', expressed the difficulty of determining what is and what is not a marriage-like relationship this way:
In a nutshell, where the "marriage-like" quality of a relationship is disputed, the court will enquire as to how the couple represented themselves to their family and friends, and as to the nature of their financial relationship and household relationship. Did the couple present themselves as a family unit and conduct their personal affairs as a family unit? The judge in a 2003 case from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/5bpc Yakiwchuk v. Oaks]'', 2003 SKQB 124, expressed the difficulty of determining what is and what is not a "marriage-like" relationship this way:


<blockquote>"Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property — in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important — for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their 'spouse' by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some 'spouses' do everything together — others do nothing together. Some 'spouses' vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some 'spouses' have children — others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a 'spousal relationship' exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of 'public' declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to 'be together'. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people 'ease into' situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property — in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important — for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their 'spouse' by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some 'spouses' do everything together — others do nothing together. Some 'spouses' vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some 'spouses' have children — others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a 'spousal relationship' exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of 'public' declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to 'be together'. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people 'ease into' situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist."</blockquote>
Line 100: Line 100:
To be clear though, mere roommates will never qualify as unmarried spouses. There needs to be some other dimension to the relationship indicative of a committment between the parties and their shared belief that they are in a special relationship with each other.
To be clear though, mere roommates will never qualify as unmarried spouses. There needs to be some other dimension to the relationship indicative of a committment between the parties and their shared belief that they are in a special relationship with each other.


===Time Limits===
===Time limits===


While a claim for child support with respect to a child of the parties will remain open until the child reaches the age of 19, and possibly longer, there are three important things you need to know about claims for spousal support and claims for child support against stepparents:
While a claim for child support with respect to a child of the parties will remain open until the child reaches the age of 19, and possibly longer, there are three important things you need to know about claims for spousal support and claims for child support against stepparents:
Line 110: Line 110:
''Bringing a claim'' means starting a court proceeding asking for a particular order, not the date when the first application is made in that proceeding.
''Bringing a claim'' means starting a court proceeding asking for a particular order, not the date when the first application is made in that proceeding.


The date of separation is the date when the "marriage-like" quality of an unmarried relationship ends. As a result, the marriage-like quality of a relationship can terminate before a couple physically separates, and the time limits will usually begin to run from that date rather than the date someone moves out.
The date of separation is the date when the "marriage-like" quality of an unmarried relationship ends. As a result, the "marriage-like" quality of a relationship can terminate before a couple physically separates, and the time limits will usually begin to run from that date rather than the date someone moves out.


====Effect of Dispute Resolution Processes====
====Effect of dispute resolution processes====


Under s. 198(5) of the ''Family Law Act'', the running of the time limits is "is suspended during any period in which persons are engaged in family dispute resolution with a family dispute resolution professional." The purpose of this provision is to allow people to engage in dispute resolution without having to feel pressured into starting a court proceeding to stop a time limit from running out. However, this provision isn't a straightforward as it looks.
Under s. 198(5) of the ''Family Law Act'', the running of the time limits is "is suspended during any period in which persons are engaged in family dispute resolution with a family dispute resolution professional." The purpose of this provision is to allow people to engage in dispute resolution without having to feel pressured into starting a court proceeding to stop a time limit from running out. However, this provision isn't a straightforward as it looks.
Line 118: Line 118:
First, the parties have to be engaged in a process of ''family dispute resolution''. That term is defined in s. 1 of the act as including:
First, the parties have to be engaged in a process of ''family dispute resolution''. That term is defined in s. 1 of the act as including:


#the services of a Family Justice Counsellor;
*the services of a Family Justice Counsellor,
#mediation;
*mediation,
#collaborative settlement processes; and,
*collaborative settlement processes, and
#arbitration.
*arbitration.


You'll notice that negotiation isn't on this list. As well, under the Family Law Act Regulation, a process of mediation and arbitration requires the execution of a mediation agreement or an arbitration agreement to count as mediation or arbitration.
You'll notice that negotiation isn't on this list. As well, under the ''[http://canlii.ca/t/8rdx Family Law Act Regulation]'', a process of mediation and arbitration requires the execution of a mediation agreement or an arbitration agreement to count as mediation or arbitration.


Second, the parties have to be engaged in one of these processes with a ''family dispute resolution professional''. This term is defined in s. 1 of the act as including:
Second, the parties have to be engaged in one of these processes with a ''family dispute resolution professional''. This term is defined in s. 1 of the act as including:


#Family Justice Counsellors;
*Family Justice Counsellors,
#lawyers;
*lawyers,
#mediators who meet the training requirements set out in the Family Law Act Regulation; and,
*mediators who meet the training requirements set out in the Family Law Act Regulation, and
#arbitrators who meet the training requirements set out in the Family Law Act Regulation.
*arbitrators who meet the training requirements set out in the Family Law Act Regulation.


In other words, being engaged in a family dispute resolution process with someone like a community leader, an elder, a senior family member, a priest, an imam or a rabbi won't cut it unless the person also happens to fit into the definition of family dispute resolution professional.
In other words, being engaged in a family dispute resolution process with someone like a community leader, an elder, a senior family member, a priest, an imam or a rabbi won't cut it unless the person also happens to fit into the definition of family dispute resolution professional.
Line 136: Line 136:
Third, the parties must be ''engaged'' in the family dispute resolution process. That implies a process that is continuing and underway, rather than one which is started but never followed-through with.
Third, the parties must be ''engaged'' in the family dispute resolution process. That implies a process that is continuing and underway, rather than one which is started but never followed-through with.


====Effect of Attempts to Reconcile====
====Effect of attempts to reconcile====


The ''Divorce Act'' talks about how the one year period a married couple must wait in order to get divorced on the basis of separation is not interrupted if the parties live together in an attempt to reconcile for less than ninety days. Similar language is used in the ''Family Law Act'' for the purpose of determining the date when a couple stops accumulating family property. Neither of these provisions apply to the two year time limit for bringing claims under the ''Family Law Act''.
The ''Divorce Act'' talks about how the one year period a married couple must wait in order to get divorced on the basis of separation is not interrupted if the parties live together in an attempt to reconcile for less than ninety days. Similar language is used in the ''Family Law Act'' for the purpose of determining the date when a couple stops accumulating family property. Neither of these provisions apply to the two year time limit for bringing claims under the ''Family Law Act''.


==Rights and Responsibilities of Unmarried Spouses==
==Rights and responsibilities of unmarried spouses==


Providing a couple qualify as spouses, either party is entitled to seek an order for spousal support under the ''Family Law Act'' or to ask for an order that a stepparent pay child support for the benefit of the child of a spouse. The rules that apply to an unmarried spouse's claim for spousal support or for child support from a stepparent are exactly the same as those that apply to married spouses.
Providing a couple qualify as spouses, either party is entitled to seek an order for spousal support under the ''Family Law Act'' or to ask for an order that a stepparent pay child support for the benefit of the child of a spouse. The rules that apply to an unmarried spouse's claim for spousal support or for child support from a stepparent are exactly the same as those that apply to married spouses.
Line 148: Line 148:
If an unmarried couple has had a child together, they are parents who are entitled, just because they are parents, to ask for orders about the care of the child and for child support. The rules that apply to determine guardianship, the distribution of parenting arrangements and contact are exactly the same as they are for any other parents, including parents who are married.
If an unmarried couple has had a child together, they are parents who are entitled, just because they are parents, to ask for orders about the care of the child and for child support. The rules that apply to determine guardianship, the distribution of parenting arrangements and contact are exactly the same as they are for any other parents, including parents who are married.


==Government Benefits==
==Government benefits==


The fact that a couple live together may entitle one or both of them to certain benefits paid by the federal or provincial government if they also qualify as ''spouses'' under the applicable rules and legislation. It can also expose them to the prospect of losing those benefits, most notably social assistance payments.
The fact that a couple live together may entitle one or both of them to certain benefits paid by the federal or provincial government if they also qualify as ''spouses'' under the applicable rules and legislation. It can also expose them to the prospect of losing those benefits, most notably social assistance payments.


===Social Assistance===
===Social assistance===


The ministry which administers the ''Employment and Assistance Act'' and is responsible for social assistance often treats anyone living together as a couple as being in a spousal relationship, whether you are or aren't. This will decrease, and sometimes cancel, your benefit entitlement under what's known as the ''spouse in the house'' rule. As soon as you and your partner — or the person the ministry claims is your partner — stop living together, the ministry will usually return to treating you as single.
The ministry which administers the ''Employment and Assistance Act'' and is responsible for social assistance often treats anyone living together as a couple as being in a spousal relationship, whether you are or aren't. This will decrease, and sometimes cancel, your benefit entitlement under what's known as the ''spouse in the house'' rule. As soon as you and your partner — or the person the ministry claims is your partner — stop living together, the ministry will usually return to treating you as single.
Line 170: Line 170:
The Old Age Security Pension is available to people who are at least 65 years old. You may be entitled to receive the amount for a couple rather than for two single people if you have been living together as a couple for at least one year.
The Old Age Security Pension is available to people who are at least 65 years old. You may be entitled to receive the amount for a couple rather than for two single people if you have been living together as a couple for at least one year.


===MSP and Medical and Dental Benefits===
===MSP and medical and dental benefits===


The Medical Services Plan will cover your partner on your plan without any minimum limit on the length of time you've been living together, although you must have signed your partner up on the plan and must pay the family rate rather than the single rate.
The Medical Services Plan will cover your partner on your plan without any minimum limit on the length of time you've been living together, although you must have signed your partner up on the plan and must pay the family rate rather than the single rate.
Line 176: Line 176:
If you or your partner receive any workplace medical or dental insurance coverage, check with the plan administrator to see if unmarried couples are eligible beneficiaries under your plan.
If you or your partner receive any workplace medical or dental insurance coverage, check with the plan administrator to see if unmarried couples are eligible beneficiaries under your plan.


===ICBC Death Benefits===
===ICBC death benefits===


A surviving unmarried spouse can apply to receive death benefits from ICBC when the other spouse is killed in a car accident, regardless of whose fault the accident was.
A surviving unmarried spouse can apply to receive death benefits from ICBC when the other spouse is killed in a car accident, regardless of whose fault the accident was.