Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers help you deal with the tricky legal issue of when parties separated. Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers know that time limits apply for relief under our family property legislation and also for liability for spousal support both regarding how long you lived together and how long you were separated. Millions of dollars can be at stake depending on whose version of the separation date is accepted by the Court and when it is an “I’m all in” case you need the best Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers on your side. The time limits are huge for unmarried couples who are, or were, in a marriage like relationship. Similarly, assets acquired post separation are not normally shared. Yet- in today’s fast rising real estate market this can mean millions are being fought over.
That’s where our skilled Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers get involved. We will explain your options and properly characterize whether you are still a couple or not.
As new property rules for common law spouses and married spouses are now at play, don’t you deserve to know your rights and obligations if you are considering a separation before it’s too late to get any relief?
Call us toll free across BC at 1-877-602-9900 to meet with us in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Richmond or Fort St John/ Dawson Creek, BC.
When You Separated Can Mean The Difference Between Zero and Millions!
When you are in a marriage- the date you got married is usually very simple to prove. But exactly when you started living together in a marriage like relationship is harder to prove as parties may strengthen their bond slowly overtime until their relationship becomes marriage like.
Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers Help You Determine If You Are Separated
Sometimes the most difficult date to prove for both married and unmarried couples is the date they separated. A recent BC Supreme Court case has set some very helpful guidelines for when parties are a couple, when they are separated and what the test is for proving a separated couple is or has reconciled.
Does Living In A House Mean You’re A Couple? Not Always, Says BC Judge
Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers know living separate lives in the same home can mean you have separated. But how does a Judge decide if you are a couple or not even if you are married? Our new Family Law Act guides Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers and specifically states you can be separate and apart in the same residence.
Lorne N MacLean, QC who leads our team of Vancouver Separation Date Lawyers has extracted the key parts of Wilson v. Wilson, 2016 BCSC 761 and bolded the really good parts:
[86] In this case, division of property is governed by the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. For a separation to be effective, the party must show a physical separation, combined with at least one spouse’s intention to live separate and apart: Dhillon v. Dhillon, [1989] B.C.J. No. 823 (Q.L.) (C.A.), a case decided under the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.).
[87] With respect to separation for the purposes of property division, s. 3(4) of the FLA provides:
(4) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) spouses may be separated despite continuing to live in the same residence, and
(b) the court may consider, as evidence of separation,
(i) communication, by one spouse to the other spouse, of an intention to separate permanently, and
(ii) an action, taken by a spouse, that demonstrates the spouse’s intention to separate permanently.
[88] The actions referred to in s. 3(4)(b)(ii) typically include the avoidance of “accepted characteristics of marriage”, including carrying on activities in public, sharing financial resources, participating in significant family events, and having sexual relations: Nearing v. Sauer, 2015 BCSC 58 at para. 54, citing Kaur v. Sing, 2013 BCSC 313 at para. 87. The absence of such indicia may suggest a separation. Sexual relations are not, however, conclusive either way: Newth v. Booth, 2011 BCSC 317 at para. 17.
[89] There are many cases that address the characteristics of marriage, most often in the context of whether the parties formed a “marriage-like relationship”. Here the question is not whether such a relationship was formed but whether it ended, and if it ended the question is whether the parties reconciled. In all instances the focus is on the various characteristics of marriage.
[90] In M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 the Supreme Court of Canada considered an element of the definition of “spouse” in the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, that conferred certain rights on either a man or woman who are not married to each other but who live together in a “conjugal relationship”, or marriage-like relationship:
[59] Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal. While it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same‑sex couples, there is agreement that same‑sex couples share many other “conjugal” characteristics. In order to come within the definition, neither opposite‑sex couples nor same‑sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationship is “conjugal”.
[91] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal addressed the indicia of a spousal relationship in the context of the FLA. In doing so, the court cited Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586 where that court, after concluding that financial dependence is no longer considered an essential element of a marital relationship, said:
[58] It is understandable that the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like. This is because equally there is no checklist of characteristics that will invariably be found in all marriages. In this regard I respectfully agree with the following from the judgment of Ryan-Froslie J. in Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124:
[10] 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.
[92] In the paragraph following that quote, the court in Weber continued:
[22] Austin establishes that the question of whether a cohabiting couple are in a “marriage-like relationship” is a question of mixed fact and law that requires a broad approach:
[62] The chambers judge properly took a holistic approach in finding that Ms. Goerz and Mr. Austin “were in a committed, marriage-like relationship for all purposes.” She had regard to all aspects of their relationship, including that there was minimal sharing of expenses and no commingling of assets. Based on the evidence it was open to the chambers judge to reach the conclusion she did and there is no basis on which this Court can interfere: Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33, at para. 22.
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[93] With that legal framework, I now turn to an analysis of the facts in this case.
[96] I am satisfied, for reasons I will expand upon shortly, that the parties separated in or around 1995. There is no real question about that. The real question is whether the parties reconciled later on.
[109] Although there was continued interaction between the parties after 2003, including loans or monies given to Mr. Wilson by Ms. Wilson, occasional car rides, attendances by Ms. Wilson at a few Wilson family events and an attendance by Mr. Wilson at Ms. Wilson’s citizenship ceremony, given the preponderance of contrary evidence I find these limited aspects to be insufficient to establish that the parties reconciled or maintained a marriage-like relationship after 1995.
[110] For these reasons, I conclude that: (1) the parties separated in or around 1995; and (2) the evidence does not establish that they reconciled or otherwise resumed or maintained a marriage-like relationship after that date.
In this case the former husband received no share of a real property and no support and had to pay damages for trespass for staying on property after the former wife demanded he leave. If he hired a Vancouver Separation Date Lawyer early on perhaps things would have gone differently. Call us today 1-877-602-9900.
