# Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread



## Greywolf (19 Jan 2005)

Why is it that married or common law people get more benefits than single people?  E.g. married/common law people get more allowance for moving when they get posted and they don't have to pay for rations.


----------



## Scott (19 Jan 2005)

Just off the top of my head, there are two people in a married/common law relationship...


----------



## Greywolf (19 Jan 2005)

What about 2 people (of a couple) who are both in the military?  Do they each still get more than a single person?


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Jan 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> What about 2 people (of a couple) who are both in the military?  Do they each still get more than a single person?



Nope, one member claims the movement expenses and gets the "bonus's". 

The only bennifit that accounts for married service members to get more AFAIK is SEF. In a place where there is an SEF each member get's 75% of the SEF $ for a 150% share between the two.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Nope, one member claims the movement expenses and gets the "bonus's".
> 
> The only bennifit that accounts for married service members to get more AFAIK is SEF. In a place where there is an SEF each member get's 75% of the SEF $ for a 150% share between the two.



The posting allowance ( one months pay) is paid in full to the senior member and the junior member gets half, in the case of service couples.


----------



## drive2live (1 May 2005)

i am on the merit list right know and i had a important ? 
 when i signed up i went in as common law. i have been with my girlfriend for 4 years and we are getting married when i am done my training.my question is! when i am done my training and i get based with they put us in a pmq or will i have to live in barracks? because that would not be good. also what are the pmq's like, are they big,nice ? if you have any answers it would be a great help.


----------



## frank249 (2 May 2005)

When you enroll, they let you fill out a form declaring your marital status.  If you have been together at the same address for over a year you can declare common-law.

You have to stay in barracks only for the basic training.  Depending on how long your QL3 training is, you can decide if you want to get a PMQ or an apartment down town.  PMQs are small, most 700-900 sq ft and are becoming just as expensive as an civie apartment.  The advantage is that they are close to work.


----------



## drive2live (2 May 2005)

thank you for the answer. just what i needed t know,. i did fill out the paper work as well as i gave them a credit card statement with both our names on it and a lease from our apartment.


----------



## chriscalow (3 May 2005)

frank249 said:
			
		

> When you enroll, they let you fill out a form declaring your marital status.  If you have been together at the same address for over a year you can declare common-law.



This form (declaring marital status) when you enroll, is this done when you get sworn in?  I don't remember seeing such a form.  I've been living with my Girlfriend for about 2 years now, in my parents basement, down the street from her parents.  There is no paperwork showing her living here.  Is this going to be a problem do you think?  This might be a wee bit hard to explain to her if I screwed this up somewhere   ???  :warstory:  ???  LOL I think I'm in the fecal refuse for sure now.


----------



## kincanucks (3 May 2005)

QY Rang said:
			
		

> This form (declaring marital status) when you enroll, is this done when you get sworn in?   I don't remember seeing such a form.   I've been living with my Girlfriend for about 2 years now, in my parents basement, down the street from her parents.   There is no paperwork showing her living here.   Is this going to be a problem do you think?   This might be a wee bit hard to explain to her if I screwed this up somewhere     ???   :warstory:   ???   LOL I think I'm in the fecal refuse for sure now.



You have to prove that you were living together for at least one continuous year and the best way to do that is to produce a lease with both your names on it.  So living in your parents basement without any paperwork is not going to cut it unless you have had a child together which is another way to prove your common-in-law relationship without the one year living together requirement.  Otherwise get a shovel because you are in deep shyte.


----------



## drive2live (3 May 2005)

I was told that it only has to be 6 month to be considered common law. I have a friend that lives in the pmq's in gagetown, he said they are pretty big,from 1200 to 1500 sq ft, are they all the same or are they different, and do you get to pick what one you want?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 May 2005)

In the military its a year.


----------



## drive2live (3 May 2005)

good to know. i will have to get my lease from moncton then , the one i gave the recruiter was only 8 months.


----------



## PhilB (3 Aug 2005)

Hi a few quick questions about being commonlaw

a) What is the definition of commonlaw for the CF
b) What is the process for declaring yourself commonlaw
c) What proof/documentation must be provided
d) what additional benefits do you receive (in a deployed overseas context)
e) I have heard that your HLTA allowance may only be applied to your own expenses, or that of a wife/commonlaw partner. Is this the case?

Thanks very much for the help


----------



## Shadow Cat (3 Aug 2005)

Dont quote me on this but this is what my understanding is.

1.  One year for CF.  This seems ridiculous becuase for income tax purposes it is 6 months or immediate when children are involved.
2.  Don't know.  I think that it is proof and make sure you fill out your income taxes as common-law.
3.  Documentation can be in the way of a lease or mortgage where both parties are named,
4.  I dont know about overseas tours but for the newly recruited you get a seperation pay and your room/board and meals are free.
5.  Haven't moved yet, hopefully soon.

I know that this isn't much help but hey it is a start to the answer of a few of your questions.


----------



## Springroll (3 Aug 2005)

_a) What is the definition of commonlaw for the CF_

The definition for a common law spouse through DND is the same as the rest of Canada. With the CF, you have to wait 1 year before being able to "sign the papers" to officially make you common law.

_b) What is the process for declaring yourself commonlaw_

Well there is a form that both you and your partner have to sign which is then givent o your command

_c) What proof/documentation must be provided_

We were not required to give any back in '99, but by what i have heard, anything will do as long as both your names are on it.

_d) what additional benefits do you receive (in a deployed overseas context)_

You will receive the same benefits as a married couple, such as separation pay etc

_e) I have heard that your HLTA allowance may only be applied to your own expenses, or that of a wife/commonlaw partner._ 

It is used to get you to your next of kin, or whomever is on your PEN form, be it your mother, father or spouse(common law or otherwise)


----------



## teltech (3 Aug 2005)

Try this - it should answer some questions.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30772.0.html

Using the search function might find other info  8)


----------



## Eowyn (3 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> _a) What is the definition of commonlaw for the CF_
> 
> The definition for a common law spouse through DND is the same as the rest of Canada. With the CF, you have to wait 1 year before being able to "sign the papers" to officially make you common law.
> 
> [



In Alberta it's 3 years, unless you have children or sign some papers.


----------



## Serenity (25 Jul 2006)

I have searched this topic but need a bit more clarification.  And advice.

My boyfriend and I were living together for the year before he left for training.  He moved in with me and we never bothered to put his name on the lease.  It seemed there was no point as he was awaiting notification for when he would be leaving.  He kept his previous mailing address, bills stayed in my name.  So there is no actual proof that he lived here. 

Now the subject of common-law has come up (we have been together for 6 years but only lived together one).  From everything I have read, there needs to be paperwork for the Military to recognize this as common-law. 

I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2006)

Take a look at CFAO 19-41 http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/019-41_e.asp

It details the CF definition of common law and the paperwork needed to establish it.

Hope this is what you're looking for.


----------



## Jake (25 Jul 2006)

I was just coming on to Army.ca to post this same question, thanks.


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jul 2006)

A mutually filed tax return will help prove you've been living together in the same residence as husband and wife.  The timeliness of the application to have your CLR recognized may raise eyebrows if you're doing it just prior to a long seperation, such as a tour or TDY.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2006)

After reading all the info, you must meet the criteria to be considered "common-law".  If you don't have the proof then you are out of luck.


----------



## Serenity (25 Jul 2006)

Callsign Kenny said:
			
		

> The timeliness of the application to have your CLR recognized may raise eyebrows if you're doing it just prior to a long seperation, such as a tour or TDY.



I wondered about this.  Really don't want to cause any problems.

I can't find anything that shows he was here.  Not a bill, not even a Blockbuster membership.  We may be out of luck.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2006)

Per the CFAO, it takes an affidavit from the member (Annex C to the CFAO) submitted along with a copy of the Annex A Memorandum.  That is the first step.  The unit or school orderly room should be able to give more guidance on what to do.


----------



## Serenity (25 Jul 2006)

I was also wondering about signing a Common-Law Partner Agreement.  From what I have read, it would satisfy the requirements of the Military.  But to get it notarized we may have the same issue with proof.

Has anyone used one of these documents to prove common-law status?


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Jul 2006)

See:

Affidavits and Statutory Declarations
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/7000/0_e.asp


----------



## ccdec (26 Jul 2006)

It happens often that people start living together and one already has an appartment or other accommodation under their name. If your landlord knew that he was living with you you can ask them for a letter stating this.  Bring the letter in when you fill out your Comon Law Recognition paper work.  Your CO should be satisfied with this, if not he would have someone call the landlord but in my experience the CO will be satisfied.  The Adjutant would normally check it out.  This happened alot when I was clerking with the Bn.


----------



## sunshine (26 Jul 2006)

Hi ... I'm sorry, I'm new to all of this.  I have a boyfriend starting Basic soon - I'm not really sure how any of this works.  When he's done all of his training, what will happen?  When he's posted to a base, would we need to be married or common-law for me to live with him there?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2006)

Sunshine,
No one can answer your questions for the future as no one knows what it holds. I suggest you start reading this section of the forum and a lot of different scenario's will be presented to you....

Good luck.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Aug 2006)

Serenity et al - when it comes to Common-law relationships there is a sure fire method of convincing the CF that you are in one.  The two of you should get together, visit a Notary and get a notarized document stating that you have been living in a Common-Law relationship for X years.  This document is considered law (as you are swearing before a Notary) and no further proof is required.  Submit this civil document along with your memorandum and you're golden.  Get it done before he leaves St-Jean.  Your change in status cannot be processed mid-move or after he has been posted (i.e. if you want to move your stuff too).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Aug 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> ...The two of you should get together, visit a Notary and get a notarized document stating that you have been living in a Common-Law relationship for X years.  This document is considered law (as you are swearing before a Notary) and no further proof is required.



This is needed anyway, however they do not have to use or pay a Notary (except perhaps in Que & Sask).  When making application for recognition of a common-law relationship under CFAO 19-41, the member and his common-law spouse are required to complete and submit an affidavit/statutory declaration.  It can be sworn or solemnly declared to a CF officer IAW DAOD 7000-1 (CFAO 59-1).

Stat declarations are not per se military documents but are done under authority of provincial or territorial law.  The CFAO that refers to them specifically outlines the requirements and jurats for each individual province.


----------



## CL84 (6 Sep 2006)

I'll message you.


----------



## JDMCRX (29 Oct 2007)

Wondering what I need exactly to get the paper work in process.

I know 3 months or more. Drivers lic in the same address. What else.

Just want to do this in one shot at the BOR im not in the building for a while. Can anyone shed some light?


----------



## JBoyd (29 Oct 2007)

Not sure what you need it for, but I was told that to have Room & Board subsidized while at BMQ i would have to prove that my Wife and I have been common-law for 6 months or longer. Despite having a child together, which I believe makes you common-law, I was told that simply a rental/lease agreement signed by both of us would prove that we live in the same dwelling.

Hope this helps a bit


----------



## navymich (29 Oct 2007)

JDMCRX said:
			
		

> Wondering what I need exactly to get the paper work in process.
> 
> I know 3 months or more. Drivers lic in the same address. What else.
> 
> Just want to do this in one shot at the BOR im not in the building for a while. Can anyone shed some light?



Ref:  CFAO 19-41 -- COMMON-LAW RELATIONSHIPS

BTW, for the military it is a one year requirement.


----------



## 284_226 (29 Oct 2007)

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/019-41_e.asp (ignore reference to "opposite sex" - the CFAO hasn't been amended, but the reference QR&O has been).

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch001_e.asp - see QR&O 1.075

FYI - it's one year.


----------



## JDMCRX (29 Oct 2007)

I guess ill have to go to the BOR and see ive been with my GF for over 5 years and ive been helping her pay rent for a few years. Im just wondering what i need paper work wise and so forth.


----------



## 284_226 (29 Oct 2007)

JDMCRX said:
			
		

> Im just wondering what i need paper work wise and so forth.


_
9. The member shall make application:

     a.   by completing the memorandum at Annex A; and

     b.   by completing and attaching to the memorandum, the affidavit or
          statutory declaration shown at Annex C, signed by both parties to
          the common-law relationship._

Doesn't get much simpler than that.


----------



## kincanucks (29 Oct 2007)

Been with her or lived with her?  At least one year in the same residence (not her parents basement) and proof as in a driver licenses (older than a year) with same address, utility bills in both of your names, and/or a lease with both your names on it.   This is in order to get the stat dec signed by an officer. Clear as mud?


----------



## JDMCRX (29 Oct 2007)

Funny no she rents a apartment. But i only just transfered my lic to her residants cause ive been all over with the mill. Hmm


----------



## exgunnertdo (31 Oct 2007)

This discussion always annoys the heck out of me...

If you really truly live together, you will be getting mail at the same address.  Period.  You don't even need a lease or a joint utility bill.  Just something like a bank statement, credit card bill, university marks, anything.  You produce something dated a year ago in your name, he/she produces something in his/her name dated a year ago.  Bingo, common law status acheived.  If you're not getting mail there, you don't really live there.  Whatever reason you have to get your all of your mail sent somewhere else indicates a lack of true "common law" status.



> have resided together as *husband and wife* continuously for at least one year immediately preceding the application


  (from CFAO 19-41) (emphasis mine)

When I was on SLT there was a bunch of guys trying to prove common law status, but only after they found out that they won't have to pay R&Q.  You're asked your marital status on enrollment, if you answer "single" then you find out there is financial benefit to being common law, then change your mind...come on!  There were guys who were "common law" in university, joined the CF, girlfriend moved back in with her parents and they still wanted/expected the free R&Q.

Common law status is the equivalent of married.  It is not a convenient relationship for some financial benefit.  Here's a question when deciding your status - who gets your Supplementary Death Benefit, SISIP, and pension when/if you die?  If the answer is (at least in part) "my spouse" then go ahead.   If you can't stomach the idea of him/her being your beneficiary, then you're not really common law, you're room-mates.



			
				JDMCRX said:
			
		

> ive been helping her pay rent for a few years.


  That's not common law.

[/rant]


----------



## PMedMoe (31 Oct 2007)

exgunnertdo, excellent statement!! +1


----------



## kincanucks (31 Oct 2007)

Another +1 from me.  Maybe the act of banging their foreheads into a brick wall might work too.


----------



## PO2FinClk (31 Oct 2007)

Most bases, Wing's/ASU's etc have set SOP's to this effect which include their specifi8c form which need to be used. As such many OR's have packages ready for this purpose.

Go see them and apply anyways. Trying to substantiate or explain any particular scenario over the internet will likely only get you sporadic accuracy. Just FYI only, I have seen people be granted by the powers that be (read NDHQ) Common-Law status even if they had not lived together at all. This is only to say that each situation must be looked at individually.


----------



## oksun7103 (1 May 2009)

I heard that only wives are allowed to live on CFB, is this true? Does this exclude girlfriends and common law wives?


----------



## armyvern (1 May 2009)

Well, technically, they sure can't live in "*singles* quarters" which are the accomodation that are actually located "ON base", but they can live in PMQs (99% of which are located "OFF base" - IE a 5 minute drive from work instead of a two minute walk).


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, technically, they sure can't live in "*singles* quarters" which are the accomodation that are actually located "ON base", but they can live in PMQs (99% of which are located "OFF base" - IE a 5 minute drive from work instead of a two minute walk).



There is a new policy here in Cold Lake that only common law partners/wifes are allowed in the PMQs.  

oksun:  to the eyes on the military, marriage/common law is virtually the same thing.


----------



## navymich (1 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There is a new policy here in Cold Lake that only common law partners/wifes are allowed in the PMQs.



Quite the policy!  Since you can't declare common law until you actually live together for a year, that means that it forces a couple to buy or rent off base until they qualify.  Is it set by the base or CFHA?  I'm surprised really, that they can get away with that.


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 May 2009)

airmich said:
			
		

> Quite the policy!  Since you can't declare common law until you actually live together for a year, that means that it forces a couple to buy or rent off base until they qualify.  Is it set by the base or CFHA?  I'm surprised really, that they can get away with that.



It was in an email sent by the WComd before Christmas.  The problem was that PMQ Tenants rented parts of their PMQs to Oil Workers, creating problems on base (ie: Drugs, noise late at night, etc.).  I'm sure if one requests permission up his chain of command to have his/her Girlfriend/Boyfriend in the Qs, it would be accepted, but it's not a given anymore.


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2009)

I thought that there were regulations against "renting out" PMQs or parts of, by tenants.  I am sure that somewhere in the fine print of the "agreement' signed when the occupant took possession of the PMQ that there would be such a clause.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 May 2009)

I'm not sure that there are regulations against renting out rooms in a PMQ (feel free to correct me), however, I'm pretty sure that you have to get permission (from CFHA?) and sign a waiver stating that you are responsible for the tenants' actions.


----------



## navymich (1 May 2009)

Conditions of Occupancy

I took a quick scan through it and didn't see anything on renters, just on 'guests'.  But even if there was a regulation, I'm sure there are ways around it like declaring the person is gf/bf, relative etc.  Although given the prices in Cold Lake, who could blame people for trying to get a few of their bucks back!


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 May 2009)

AFAIK, the only thing you can't do it rent it an live somewhere else.  To do that, you have to go through CFHA.  When you take possession, you are required to provide a list of who is going to live with you in the Q.  There was no problem whatsoever in Kingston to put my then girlfriend on it (even though technically, I'm "renting it out" to her).


----------



## armywife/cadetmom (1 May 2009)

airmich said:
			
		

> Quite the policy!  Since you can't declare common law until you actually live together for a year, that means that it forces a couple to buy or rent off base until they qualify.  Is it set by the base or CFHA?  I'm surprised really, that they can get away with that.



Im sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me when you consider how many Families are on wait lists for PMQ's, and also if you take into consideration how many people "fall in love" on course and get posted, take the GF/BF to the new posting and they dont want to be there.  The relationship dissolves and there is then a single person occupying a Q that a Family could be occupying.  I dont fault the member for this, it happens.  but IMHO, having rules for occupancy makes perfect sense.  Why should a single guy and a few buddys or a 'new love' be given a Q while a guy with a wife and three kids ends up separated from his family because there isnt a Q available?  Im certain down the road when the single guy has a family and needs a Q and is told there isnt one, he will be singing a different tune!

in response to the origional Question, common-law do qualify for a Q. You dont have to be Married.


----------



## navymich (1 May 2009)

If you look at the policies for PMQ occupancy, you will see that it is on a first come first served basis.  Single members are eligible for occupying a PMQ.  Family size does come into play if there is a waiting list, and it is then based on Q size.  Unfortunately it happens, a family waiting while a single guy or girl has a place all to themselves.  It might not sound fair to you, but that's the way it works.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 May 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but, according to the policy, it would be OK to adopt your bf/gf and live in PMQs together vs. just shacking up as significant others? 

Whoa, is that banjo music I hear?  iper:

Nope, just the bagpipes again...


----------



## startbutton (2 May 2009)

airmich said:
			
		

> If you look at the policies for PMQ occupancy, you will see that it is on a first come first served basis.  Single members are eligible for occupying a PMQ.  Family size does come into play if there is a waiting list, and it is then based on Q size.  Unfortunately it happens, a family waiting while a single guy or girl has a place all to themselves.  It might not sound fair to you, but that's the way it works.



Most bases have waiting lists.  If there is a Q already occupied by a single person thats one thing, but a Single person wanting a Q this summer in perse Pet or Edmonton, they will find themselves quite low on the list.  CFHA doesnt base it on who applied first, it is by family size.  Ive also known of people being bumped down the list for having dogs.


----------



## PMedMoe (2 May 2009)

startbutton said:
			
		

> Most bases have waiting lists.  If there is a Q already occupied by a single person thats one thing, but a Single person wanting a Q this summer in perse Pet or Edmonton, they will find themselves quite low on the list.  CFHA doesnt base it on who applied first, it is by family size.  Ive also known of people being bumped down the list for having dogs.



Wow, so not only do they discriminate based on marital status, but also for what kind of pet you have??


----------



## smale436 (4 May 2009)

On the other hand, it could be said that the fact that single members (which are referred to in the CFHA policy guide as of April 2007 as "family of one") are allowed to occupy RHU's nowadays (they are no longer called Private Married Quarters anymore due to the fact they are no longer for married members) says that CFHA is not discriminating at all. Here in Cold Lake they have been giving HU's to single members for close to a decade plus surplus ones to RCMP, NPF, DND, and commissionaires. As a single person in an HU, I am not taking up space that could be given to someone with more than one child, as they give the single members either a 2BR bungalow or a 2BR 1.5 story.
    The problem with the people here renting out rooms also stemmed from the fact that military members were renting individual bedrooms of the unit out for rent amounts of much higher than the monthly shelter charge of the HU. (As in: renting 3 rooms out to people at anywhere from 500-1000 per room) The WCom's email to the entire wing had an attachment from the CFHA policy book that clearly stated the monthly shelter charge is to be divided equally by the number of military members living there (In the case of 2 military members living together who are not a service couple. Hence, my roommate and I divide everything 50-50 split.


----------



## LukerB (5 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There is a new policy here in Cold Lake that only common law partners/wifes are allowed in the PMQs.
> 
> oksun:  to the eyes on the military, marriage/common law is virtually the same thing.



To the eyes of the Criminal Code of Canada, marriage/common law are virtually the same thing as well. Minus a few rules pertaining to testifying in court against your spouse.

airmich: If you lived together for at least a year prior to moving on the military base.. would that not make you common law as well? You are correct though, the Criminal Code states that to be considered in a common law relationship you must live with that person for at least one year.

This is my understanding of it all from a Police Foundation's perspective, as I have only learned about these rules pertaining to the Criminal Code. Does the CF have its own completely different set of rules regarding common law marriage?


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

From the DCBA Aide Memoire:

*6. Common-Law Partner

Common-law partner, in relation to a member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship:

a. for a period of at least one year (or non-continuous period if they are living separately for military reasons); or

b. for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child.*

I would assume the "non-continuous" period brings up a lot of questions.  Do they still have to reside together for a year?  I've known people who have had the common-law status declared even though they weren't living together for a full year because one was on a course.  I guess that qualifies as "military reasons".


----------



## murrdawg (5 May 2009)

Hi there,

I'm a third year OCdt at RMC and am an expecting father in December. Unplanned but expected. I've been with my girlfriend for a little over 6 months now. According to the definition listed about common-law, I've applied for common-law status and waiting for the paperwork to go through. The reason for this is, at what point in the pregnancy is the baby considered a child? Is it as soon as it's known that the girlfriend is pregnant?

I've been verbally approved of the request, not sure how COR is going to handle it though with putting everything together on my medical plan haha. For those of you reading this out of curiosity and looking at housing in a similar boat as myself, PMQ's are 25% of the total household income.

My question would be: Can anyone simplify what my spouse and soon to be child are entitled to on behalf of the military benefits? I'm having a hard time trying to find documentation to say everything we are entitled to. The reason we are wanting to know, is that since the two of us will be "surviving" off of my pay, we could really use the most amount of resources, etc. that are available to us and maximize their use. If anyone can summarize up what the benefits are that they would be allowed to, and possibly some links to support it (so I can bookmark them) it would be GREATLY appreciated.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

Medical

Public Service Health Care Plan

Dental

Great West Life Insurance


----------



## startbutton (5 May 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> From the DCBA Aide Memoire:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is pretty much what it means, so long as they can prove that they were living with them before they went on course ect.


----------



## murrdawg (5 May 2009)

Ok, so now if I'm looking at other things too, like financially, what information should I know besides the fact that I'll keep making what I'm making? Also, is there any entitlement etc, to things such as the gym?


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

Since you are at RMC, I suggest you contact the Kingston Military Family Resource Centre.

11 Paardeburgh Pl.
CFB Kingston
(613) 549-3085

and 

Contact:
Reception:613-541-5010 x5195 
CSN: 271-5195 
Fax: 613-541-4474


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2009)

If you have access to the DWAN, I found this link: http://winnipeg.mil.ca/aft/trgsys/trgspt/TD_posting_guidance/AideMemoire_DCBA_FAQ_e.doc


----------



## kincanucks (5 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Hi there,
> 
> I'm a third year OCdt at RMC and am an expecting father in December. Unplanned but expected. I've been with my girlfriend for a little over 6 months now. According to the definition listed about common-law, I've applied for common-law status and waiting for the paperwork to go through. The reason for this is, at what point in the pregnancy is the baby considered a child? Is it as soon as it's known that the girlfriend is pregnant?
> 
> ...



You can apply for common law if you have a child together not because she is pregnant.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 May 2009)

Hmmm.

CFAO 19-41 Common-Law Relationships was Cancelled - Change 3/09, 2009-04-09.  I searched DAODs..nadda.

Anyone know what is used as the authoritive policy/directive for this now?


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2009)

QR&O 1.075 defines a common law relationship; CANFORGEN 126/01 also discusses it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 May 2009)

ack


----------



## CountDC (5 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Ok, so now if I'm looking at other things too, like financially, what information should I know besides the fact that I'll keep making what I'm making? Also, is there any entitlement etc, to things such as the gym?



financially there is no special entitlements from the military.  When the child is born you could take PATA leave and the military will top off your pay to 93%.  Check with your mess - some have benefits for members and dependants that are hospitalized.  Your taxes could also be decreased as you now have 2 dependants- see your fin clk. Look up the info for child tax benefits - you may qualify - and find out how to get it started.

Gym - you will have to check the local policy.

Budget off your regular pay - do not include such things as PLD or child tax benefits - use these for all the nice to have but not required things if you have to spend it.  Do not count on them to cover your bills as they are not garunteed.  Get posted and you could find PLD disappear and/or child tax benefits reduced.

Best advice I can give:  prepare for mood swings, lots of nights with little or no sleep, hopefully you do not have a weak stomach as there will be lots of diapers and other things, and no matter what the child does always remember - it will get worse  ;D   relax and enjoy (spiked coffee may help).


----------



## DonaldMcL (5 May 2009)

In regards to the gym,

Once the common-law application has been processed and on your file, head to your local MFRC and have a "spouse card" made. Whole process takes about 5 minutes.

From there, she will be able to access the base gym free of charge.


----------



## jacksparrow (5 May 2009)

DonaldMcL said:
			
		

> In regards to the gym,
> 
> Once the common-law application has been processed and on your file, head to your local MFRC and have a "spouse card" made. Whole process takes about 5 minutes.
> 
> From there, she will be able to access the base gym free of charge.



What he said! McMuffin how are you doing fella?  ;D


----------



## murrdawg (5 May 2009)

Thanks everyone! I'm really absorbing all of this in. I just put in my application for an apartment in today and they told me that they have no room right now, so it's a waiting list game. The girlfriend is 10 weeks into her pregnancy now, so we are trying to collect as much info as we can now, so we have a better idea and better prepared for the birth.

I heard bases aren't equal in regards to looking at common-law. Is this true?


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I heard bases aren't equal in regards to looking at common-law. Is this true?



I should think not, seeing how the definition comes from a *Forces* wide authority, not a base.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I heard bases aren't equal in regards to looking at common-law. Is this true?



The CF rule is 1 year or when a child is born as per the QR&O. Provinces have different regulations for their common-law status, but most are either 1 year, or 3 years if they even recognize it at all, that may be what people are referring to when they tell you bases aren't equal.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

The bases are on Federal property, not Provincial, so they must abide by the QR&Os.  Once you are common-law in the military, you're common-law no matter where you get posted, as far as the military is concerned.


----------



## CountDC (6 May 2009)

Perhaps they are referring to OUTCAN locations?  If you are posted outside of Canada some countries will not recognize your common-law status so will treat her as a single woman.  Could get a bit complicated in some locations.  You will (or at least should) be warned of this if such a posting does happen as part of your briefing.

In Canada - she is your spouse and treated the same as every other military spouse (according to some that is not a good thing   ).


----------



## CountDC (6 May 2009)

We used to ask for copy of the rental agreement with both names on it or/and a copy of a bill with the partners name and address on it to confirm both were at the same address for the required period.  Of course not everyone plans or thinks of this so everything has only one name.  In those cases we have used a letter from the landlord certifying that they have both lived there since x date.  Not sure if drivers license is something that could be used everywhere - in Ontario it has the address and the issue date so could be used.


----------



## murrdawg (7 May 2009)

The way it sounded when I was told about different bases recognizing common-law on different levels, was that when it comes to moving expenses and what not, some bases offer the benefits to the spouse as a wife (i.e. their stuff gets moved too) but then I heard some bases don't offer all the same benefits as if she were my wife, i.e. she'd have to find a way to move her own things. So this is wrong? A spouse is a spouse is a spouse?


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> The way it sounded when I was told about different bases recognizing common-law on different levels, was that when it comes to moving expenses and what not, some bases offer the benefits to the spouse as a wife (i.e. their stuff gets moved too) but then I heard some bases don't offer all the same benefits as if she were my wife, i.e. she'd have to find a way to move her own things. So this is wrong? A spouse is a spouse is a spouse?



If you are common-law and IF you have had her added onto your personnel records as such through your OR ...

She is legally a dependant spouse, thus move expenses during your postings are covered ...

And, "her stuff" should be "our stuff" if you're common-law. If she has stuff stored somewhere other than where "you both" reside ... it is not the CFs obligation to move it. It is their obligation to move you, your spouse (common-law or married), and your dependants from the address of your current residense to your next one --- if you are moving at the Government's behest.


----------



## CountDC (7 May 2009)

Agree with everything in Vern's post except the "our stuff" part - they say this but in reality everything is hers at her convenience.    ;D


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Agree with everything in Vern's post except the "our stuff" part - they say this but in reality everything is hers at her convenience.    ;D



Ahh, that sucks for you. 

I'm more of a "what's mine is mine; what's yours is ours, kind-of-girl."


----------



## Occam (7 May 2009)

I thought this might be pertinent to the original question.

------------

01  01  071554Z MAY  09  PP PP      UUUU                 CMP 037/09

            NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
            CANFORGEN 083/09
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 083/09  CMP 037/09
SIC WAC
SUBJ: CLARIFICATION COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP IN THE CANADIAN FORCES(CF)
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS:  A. QR AND O 1.075
B. CFAO 19-41
C. ADM HR MIL INSTR 15/06
1.  BASED ON THE NUMBER OF QUERIES RECEIVED FROM COMMANDERS AT 
VARIOUS LEVELS, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT SOME CLARIFICATION OF 
THE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP SHOULD BE PROVIDED.  
THIS IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT GIVEN THE OP TEMPO BEING EXPERIENCED 
AND THE CASUALTIES SUSTAINED BY THE CF ON DEPLOYMENT.  THIS 
CANFORGEN WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING BENEFITS 
AND LIMITATIONS OF CF RECOGNITION OF COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP
2.  FOR THE CF, COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP IS DEFINED BY REF A.  REF B 
WAS BASED ON A PREVIOUS VERSION OF REF A AND HAS BEEN CANCELLED.  
WORK IS UNDER WAY TO UPDATE THE CONTENT OF REF C
3.  WORDING IN REF C MAY HAVE LED MEMBERS TO BELIEVE THAT AN INTENT 
TO COHABIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR COMMON-LAW 
PARTNERSHIP.  IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT MEMBERS MUST HAVE 
COMMENCED COHABITATION WITH THEIR PARTNERS PRIOR TO ANY PERIOD OF 
SEPARATION FOR MILITARY REASONS.  TO BE CLEAR TWO PERSONS WHO HAVE 
NEVER COHABITED CANNOT BE IN A COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP, DESPITE 
MEETING ANY OR ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARA 4.4 OF REF C
4. I ASK CF LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS TO REMIND THEIR PERSONNEL THAT 
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP RECOGNITION BY THE CF HAS A LIMITED EFFECT, 
NOTABLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO BENEFITS AND 
ENTITLEMENTS GOVERNED BY OTHER ACTS.  COMMANDERS SHOULD ALSO TAKE 
STEPS SO THAT MOUNTING BASES AND DEPARTURE ASSISTANCE GROUP (DAG) 
OPI S GIVE THIS MESSAGE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION SO THAT 
ALL DEPLOYING PERSONNEL ARE FULLY INFORMED ON ITS CONTENTS. 
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ON COMMON LAW PARTNERSHIPS IS BEING DEVELOPED 
FOR INCLUSION IN DAG BRIEFINGS. IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPERATIVE THAT 
MEMBERS SCREENING FOR DEPLOYMENT BE REMINDED WITHOUT DELAY OF THE 
EXISTING FRAMEWORK GOVERNING COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP AND ITS IMPACTS 
ON CF ENTITLEMENTS AND BENEFITS
5.  ALL MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT RECOGNITION OF COMMON-LAW 
PARTNERSHIPS, AS SET OUT UNDER REFS A AND C, APPLIES ONLY TO 
REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE CF UNDER THE 
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT (NDA). ACCESS TO BENEFITS UNDER ANY OTHER ACT, 
SUCH AS SURVIVOR S BENEFITS OR REHABILITATION PROGRAMS FOR SPOUSES, 
CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION. IN SHORT, 
THE EFFECT OF COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP RECOGNITION BY THE CF IS 
LIMITED AND DOES NOT DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS AND 
ENTITLEMENTS GOVERNED BY OTHER ACTS
6.  CO S ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR CF RECOGNITION OF 
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP AND ARE TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS APPLYING FOR 
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT 
THAT THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED AT REFS A AND C. CO 
S SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR LOCAL AJAG/DJA IF LEGAL ADVICE IS 
REQUIRED IN THIS MATTER. YOU MAY CONTACT DHRD 2-3, MAJ EDMILAO FOR 
POLICY CLARIFICATION
7.  SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## ruckmarch (7 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahh, that sucks for you.
> 
> I'm more of a "what's mine is mine; what's yours is ours, kind-of-girl."



There you have it lads.....touche' 

Vern just proved the stereotype right  LOL


----------



## murrdawg (7 May 2009)

Here's a question, can someone find for me a quote for at what time can common-law status can be declared in the instance of pregnancy? I know in QR&O 1.075 it says  "for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child" but what is the legal definiton of a child? Is it as soon as the spous is pregnant? Is it a certain time before the spouse gives birth? Is it when the baby is born???


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Here's a question, can someone find for me ...



Can't you find for yourself? I'm sorry if this answer offends you or anyone else, but people have to learn to do their own research somewhere along the way - especially those at RMC about to be our future leaders...


----------



## murrdawg (7 May 2009)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Can't you find for yourself? I'm sorry if this answer offends you or anyone else, but people have to learn to do their own research somewhere along the way - especially those at RMC about to be our future leaders...



I have been trying to find it, for the last month, still haven't found it and if you haven't noticed, I'm recently new to the air force forums as well, so I have been trying to look for it on my own, and not having much luck. I wouldn't be asking if I JUST literally had to find out what the definition is. This has been a problem I have been working on for weeks. So in this case, you are a tad mistaken, I have been trying to do my own research, and not having much luck therefore I am using resources to try and help me out.


----------



## beach_bum (7 May 2009)

It's once the child is born.


----------



## murrdawg (7 May 2009)

Can common-law be granted earlier in the pregnancy?


----------



## Occam (7 May 2009)

A few people now have said that you cannot claim common law prior to the birth of the child.  Either take their word at face value, or make a phone call to the Kingston AJAG office, and I'm sure someone there can give you a definitive legal answer.  There aren't many occasions where a member can get legal advice from an AJAG lawyer - this would probably be one of them.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2009)

I doubt it.  The QR&O clearly states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child.

QR&O Vol 1

CMP Instruction 15/06
Commom-Law Partnerships


----------



## murrdawg (7 May 2009)

I might take a look into advice from AJAG, because of the situation we are in. I have seen the QR&O, and yes, it states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child, but then again, by their terms, what is the definiton of a child legally? Because according to the American Fetal Rights, there is up to a certain point in pregnancy where an abortion cannot happen, and the child is considered a child, but yet Canada has no such right since the bill got shot down because it would have ruined Women's Rights.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I might take a look into advice from AJAG, because of the situation we are in. I have seen the QR&O, and yes, it states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child, but then again, by their terms, what is the definiton of a child legally? Because according to the American Fetal Rights, there is up to a certain point in pregnancy where an abortion cannot happen, and the child is considered a child, but yet Canada has no such right since the bill got shot down because it would have ruined Women's Rights.



This is Canada, not the US.

1) Call the AJAG as you obviously aren't believing what you are reading and being told; you've been provided with the regulations.

2) recently here, it was "when the child was born" ... that's the date they allowed him to go pick up some PMQ keys; not a nano-second before that birth.

3) Here's the definition of "Custody" for you:


> cus·to·dy (kst-d)
> n. pl. cus·to·dies
> 1. The act or right of guarding, especially such a right granted by a court: an adult who was given custody of the child.
> 2. Care, supervision, and control exerted by one in charge. See Synonyms at care.
> 3. The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police:



Hmmm. Number 2 is close, but I guess you actually have to have that child in order to be caring for, supervising and controlling it no?

And, to quote from those exact regulations given you:



> (b) for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly *assumed the support of a child*.





> (3) In the definition “common-law partner”, child means *a child or legal ward* of the common-law partner or the member or both, or *an individual adopted legally * or in fact by the common-law partner or the member or both.



Does that sound like they're speaking of a fetus to you? If you think so, wow. Until you've experience a "live-birth" ... there simply is not a "child" be supported or able to be adopted - think about it.

Obviously, you'll need to confirm with the AJAG to satisfy your "but in America" argument ... however, it's also quite obvious that you won't be happy with their answer either.


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 1) Call the AJAG as you obviously aren't believing what you are reading and being told; you've been provided with the regulations.
> 
> 2) recently here, it was "when the child was born" ... that's the date they allowed him to go pick up some PMQ keys; not a nano-second before that birth.
> 
> ...



All I was trying to say was that in the States they have a variation of a definition of a child. That's what this issue was about. What is the legal term of a child. Because according to some locations I was reading, people refer to a certain moment in time during pregnancy when the baby is past the point of an abortion where it is then a child. Others, it's as soon as it is born between infancy and adolescence. So I was really looking for an exact definition so that perhaps, with slight hope, that I might be able to put my girlfriend under my medical plan (mainly for the meds portion).  It's not that I was disregarding regulations, because I've done the research on the policies regarding common-law, but they all refer to a child, so then it's defining at what point is it a child? Because some technicality is out there where it is a child as soon as my girlfriend became pregnant. Yes, I see in general they refer to when the child is born, but I was trying to have a glimmer of hope that somewhere's, there is a glimpse where it is written under government policy that a child exists as soon as someone is pregnant.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 May 2009)

The regulations state the joint support/custody of the child.  They don't need to define when the fetus becomes a child because you *cannot* support or have custody of a child that is still in the womb.

Does that make it any clearer??


----------



## CountDC (8 May 2009)

:brickwall:  Please tell me you are not Log


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM VERN:

Condoms, sometimes, should not be an option.


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

I am not Log, and there were medical reasons behind why the child came about in the first place.

But as "The regulations state the joint support/custody of the child.  They don't need to define when the fetus becomes a child because you cannot support or have custody of a child that is still in the womb.", this is incorrect, because you can support the child by taking care of its environment, meaning the spouse. The spouse also becomes dependant upon the male in the last little bit of the pregnancy in many ways since she is unable to work and limited in her movements etc. Also, you need a safe environment for the child in the womb, which means taking care of the mother. See what I'm getting at? Sure, directly, no you cannot support the child that is in the womb, however, you can indirectly support it by trying to support the environment in which it is in.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> The spouse also becomes dependant upon the male in the last little bit of the pregnancy in many ways since she is unable to work and limited in her movements etc.



Only in extreme circumstances would a woman have difficulties like that in the latter stage of her pregnancy.  I worked right up to 17 days prior to giving birth.  I would have worked longer but I was a Reservist and was not allowed to work into the month in which I was due.  I wonder if they've changed that rule?

What you are arguing is semantics.  The regulations are clear.  If you're willing to declare common-law, why not just get married?  Then she is covered on your benefits effective on your marriage date.


----------



## CountDC (8 May 2009)

:rofl:

All the single mothers in the world and you think women are dependant on men???  How about the military spouses that are having babies while their husband is away?  How ever do they do it?


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

Yes! Semantics, that is what I was looking for earlier.

As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 May 2009)

> . . . there were medical reasons behind why the child came about in the first place . . .



Asexual reproduction? . . . or immaculate conception! . . .

While you may continue hoping that by some loophole of semantics you can make a case that you have custody/support of "the child" prior to its birth, the legal reality is that it does not exist as an individual person until it is delivered alive outside its mother.  One of the documents you will most likely have to provide to make your claim of common-law status is the child's birth certificate - to prove that it exists.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.



Then why do you want to declare common-law?  You do realize that's as legally binding as marriage, right??  Maybe you *should* speak to a lawyer.......


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Yes! Semantics, that is what I was looking for earlier.
> 
> As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.



Dude,

Word up.

Understand fully that she's getting your pension if you're common-law and you split - if she wants it. Just like being married. 

PS: I went to the field until 6 weeks before I had my oldest; and carried a ruck two days before. I LIVED.

A man required to "support" me simply because I'm pregnant? Admirable, but laughable --- that's exactly why Gawd sees to it that she has us girls give birth instead of men.

GET MARRIED ONLY IF YOU LOVE EACH OTHER!!??

Holy fuck. You shouldn't be having KIDS if you having been able to confirm yet that you actually "LOVE EACH OTHER".

Refer to earlier Public Service Announcement from Vern. Point proven.


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Asexual reproduction? . . . or immaculate conception! . . .
> 
> While you may continue hoping that by some loophole of semantics you can make a case that you have custody/support of "the child" prior to its birth, the legal reality is that it does not exist as an individual person until it is delivered alive outside its mother.  One of the documents you will most likely have to provide to make your claim of common-law status is the child's birth certificate - to prove that it exists.



More like allergies, and sickness.... As for the legal reality, I am beginning to come to terms with it.

As for the common-law, and why... Well there's two reasons. One is because without it, I am not able to live off campus next year because I am on a UPR for physical fitness because I am not meeting RMC's standard of fitness (however, I am passing the CF Expres standard) and the people chosen for live-offs have already been chosen. The second reason is my girlfriend and I had originally been thinking of taking our relationship to the next level by living with one another. Fortunately my live-off status has been approved because they see it could be difficult paper trail wise to allow me to live off 1.5 months before the baby is due, so they said I might as well start living off from the beginning.

On the benefits side, since she is just finishing school (just placement left... had to be delayed because she had mono), it will be tight for her to get the 600 hours of work to be entitled to maternity leave, and with me being on an OCdt's salary, any medications that might need to be required (she has asthma, and she has already been given a prescription for morning sickness (she has it to the extreme) but we can't afford either because she's not working right now, and I don't have a lot left over after my bills) we can't cover, so at least with the benefits package, at least the medications can be covered. That was the main benefit I was looking at. It wasn't just everything as a whole, it was moreso focused on the meds.

So there's a few reasons why I'd want common-law. Marriage is being looked at that if next year living together works out well (sure there will be rough times, but in every relationship there is) and if we can handle the baby alright (which is also a rough time... and with the baby due In December, at least it gives some time of our relationship first, then having the baby) and if we can pull through everything ok, and still want to be with one another, then I'd be looking at proposing at the end of next school year.


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Holy frig. You shouldn't be having KIDS if you having been able to confirm yet that you actually "LOVE EACH OTHER".



Things happen. Everything happens for a reason. The way things are looking, everything will turn out fine, but it's still going through the steps. Do you know how bad it would sound to say to your child that you got married BECAUSE of them?


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Things happen. Everything happens for a reason. The way things are looking, everything will turn out fine, but it's still going through the steps. Do you know how bad it would sound to say to your child that you got married BECAUSE of them?



So, you telling them this instead ... ??

"Sorry, you were an accident - your mom & I still weren't sure that we even loved each other when you came about. Please wear a condom if you grow up to decide to do silly things like this yourself (PLEASE!!)."

Vern shakes head and mutters to self: "Gawd, apparently you can experience worse."


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

No, we are not looking at it as a mistake, but rather a gift meant to happen. So we are going to be telling them that they were an unexpected gift from God. I think this is straying from the original thread topic.


----------



## CountDC (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> More like allergies, and sickness.... As for the legal reality, I am beginning to come to terms with it.



Which allergy kept you from putting a sock on it or her from keeping her legs close??  Please stop - do not make excuses for a preganancy.  It happened because you both made a choice even though it is obvious now that neither one were prepared.  Now you are looking for some little loop hole to help you deal with the repercussion of your actions. 

As for telling your chiild you got married because of them - is it better to say we shacked up for a year because of you??


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

CountDC, I think you took things the wrong way... We aren't making excuses for the pregnancy. When we discovered she was allergic to condoms, and when we discovered birth control made her sick, we had discussed options of alternatives, etc. Abstinence is a little harder to go at for a 19-21 year old male... It's in human nature. Yes we made the choice, and we are taking responsibility for our actions. I'm not looking for a loophole to help deal with the repercussions, but merely using the most of the resources available on all technicalities. 

If we were already considering living together in the first place, the reasoning isn't because of the child...


----------



## beach_bum (8 May 2009)

Back to the original focus of this thread (though the sidetracks are entertaining), the fetus is NOT considered a child (or a dependant) until it is born.  You can argue all you want about the point after an abortion can't be performed or any other point, but that's the cold hard reality of the matter.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> No, we are not looking at it as a mistake, but rather a gift meant to happen. So we are going to be telling them that they were an unexpected gift from God. I think this is straying from the original thread topic.



Good, then waiting until you're entitled to claim Common Law should not be an issue.

Topic closed now - I presume?

Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada may be of assistance to you ... it clearly lays out just exactly when a "person" is legally condiered a "person" ... a "human" considered a "human" etc etc ...

And it all says "after fully emerging from the birth canal, live."


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

Perfect, what I was looking for. Thanks.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Perfect, what I was looking for. Thanks.



Yes, yes it was.

I've read it. Bet your next step now is to argue that as it reads "a child becomes a person when it emerges fully ...." that your next step will be:

But, the Criminal Code of Canada says "the child doesn't become a person until it's born", but your Common Law calls the fetus a "child" in this context ...

That one's already been to the Supreme Court a couple of times now - brought forward by Anti-abortionists in response to the Morgentaller ruling ...

They lost, numerous times.


----------



## CountDC (8 May 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> CountDC, I think you took things the wrong way... We aren't making excuses for the pregnancy. When we discovered she was allergic to condoms, and when we discovered birth control made her sick, we had discussed options of alternatives, etc. Abstinence is a little harder to go at for a 19-21 year old male... It's in human nature. Yes we made the choice, and we are taking responsibility for our actions. I'm not looking for a loophole to help deal with the repercussions, but merely using the most of the resources available on all technicalities.
> 
> If we were already considering living together in the first place, the reasoning isn't because of the child...



A person is not allergic to condoms - they may be allergic to the material used in one type such as latex (which my wife happens to be).  Use a non latex condom such as sheep skin.  You can even get the non latex from the military pharmacist.   Guess you didn't check enough on alternatives.

I was 19-21 too - abstinence was not really that hard - it was a choice that one made.  Do I want to have a baby or not?  Age has no bearing on it - the same choice is just as easy now.

and it still sounds like excuses - abstinence is hard?? So is life - deal with it, stick a sock on it or keep it in your pants until you are ready for kids.


----------



## murrdawg (8 May 2009)

No, I'm not to go that far, and  besides, anti-abortionists did win in one aspect when the bill about fetus rights came up, however, they saw that it overruled women's rights, so therefore lost because of that reason.

ArmyVern, this topic is now closed. No more on it, I had what I was looking for, that's it. Don't need to make the molehill into a mountain. Thanks for your courtesy to accept this, and say no more on this.

And as for CountDC, I'm not sure if it might be just allergic, but we tried all kinds of condoms, latex and non, and all caused her pain, and lubricant causes her to have yeast infections. Say what you want, but you were young once too...

Moderators who see this topic, if you can close and lock it, it is now done.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 May 2009)

With pleasure.
Locked


----------



## Danjanou (8 May 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CF rule is 1 year or when a child is born as per the QR&O. Provinces have different regulations for their common-law status, but most are either 1 year, or 3 years if they even recognize it at all, that may be what people are referring to when they tell you bases aren't equal.



That probably is correct

Info for Ontario re C/L relationships/definitions etc. and some other useful info

http://www.ontarioinsurance.com/english/pensions/policies/active/S500-101.pdf

http://www.ontario.ca/en/life_events/baby/012220

http://www.ontario.ca/ontprodconsume/groups/content/@tsso/documents/document/stel01_078588.pdf

http://www.ontario.ca/en/life_events/moving/004437


----------



## 21trucker (7 Aug 2009)

At what point does the CF recognize a common law relationship?  I'm CTing to Reg force, and presently, we are not considered common law (4 months). Do they go by the date of the application to CT, or the signing of the offer? What about her 11 yr old son?  Would i still be able to take her to my first posting, if it hasn't been a full year?

Thanks
 :yellow:


----------



## CountDC (7 Aug 2009)

Basic you have to either live together for one year or have a child together.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2009)

Or you can always go to the courthouse and do a quick civil marriage ceremony.


----------



## 21trucker (7 Aug 2009)

Did a search and did not find the answer to my question.
Is the relationship recognized when you start your CT, or the date you sign your offer?

 :yellow:


----------



## CountDC (7 Aug 2009)

and as I already said - one year or a baby - the relationship is recognized when you meet the requirements.


----------



## 21trucker (7 Aug 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and as I already said - one year or a baby - the relationship is recognized when you meet the requirements.



I know it's 1 year, or a baby.  What i'm trying to get at is, i'm reseve, i put in for CT to Reg force, what if my offer comes back before the 1 year mark(chances are it won't), am i stuck in SQ, or can i get a PMQ?  Will i be able to move them as well, or do i have to run out and get married?


----------



## gcclarke (7 Aug 2009)

If you haven't met the requirements to be considered common-law, then you will not be considered common-law. Whether you are going through a component transfer matters not. You may very well have to run out and get married.


----------



## CountDC (7 Aug 2009)

21trucker said:
			
		

> I know it's 1 year, or a baby.  What i'm trying to get at is, i'm reseve, i put in for CT to Reg force, what if my offer comes back before the 1 year mark(chances are it won't), am i stuck in SQ, or can i get a PMQ?  Will i be able to move them as well, or do i have to run out and get married?



now see that is different than your original primary question:  At what point does the CF recognize a common law relationship?

The answer was still covered in other posts - No one is "stuck" in SQ - they make the choice to live there.  PMQ depends on where you are posted - look up PMQs there are lots of posts on them.

You will be able to move them, just that it will be at your own cost if you do not meet the requirements of a married/common-law family. If you are driving to your new post this should be little additional cost out of your pocket - upgrade of hotel rooms and meals.

The household F&E will be moved by DND under your move.

No need to run out and get married - in fact IMO that would be a stupid reason to get married, just to save a few dollars on a move.


----------



## gcclarke (7 Aug 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> No need to run out and get married - in fact IMO that would be a stupid reason to get married, just to save a few dollars on a move.



Ahhh yes good point. Allow me to retract my previous statement and amend it thusly:

You may very well have to run out and get married if you desperately wish to avail yourself of the financial benefits provided at the Crown's expense upon posting to those with a spouse. 

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have the benefits associated with a long-term relationship without the commitment (either in the form of vows, a child, or time spent living together) needed to establish said relationship, in the eyes of those doling out said benefits.


----------



## 21trucker (7 Aug 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ahhh yes good point. Allow me to retract my previous statement and amend it thusly:
> 
> You may very well have to run out and get married if you desperately wish to avail yourself of the financial benefits provided at the Crown's expense upon posting to those with a spouse.
> 
> Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have the benefits associated with a long-term relationship without the commitment (either in the form of vows, a child, or time spent living together) needed to establish said relationship, in the eyes of those doling out said benefits.



The commitment is there. We are planning on children.  She and her son have been living with me for 4 months, so when they come for "my" F&E, it will actually be hers.  I had next to nothing, except the bare necessities.  

I've heard CT are taking a considerable amount of time right now, so we will see.


----------



## gcclarke (7 Aug 2009)

I believe it was the last 9 words of my last post that were the key. You may feel that there is sufficient commitment in your relationship. The Government of Canada does not yet agree. That may change on its own by the date of your posting. If it does not, well then, your girlfriend will be expected to pay out of her own pocket should she wish to move to join you.

And yes I suppose we had yet to really answer your question. The date that matters is your COS (Change of Strength) date on your posting message. It's the date that you stop belonging to your old unit, and start belonging to your new unit. The CT application date and the signing of the offer and all that jazz don't come into account, as it is very well possible for someone to undergo a CT without a subsequent posting. Since you feel that it is rather likely that you will be posted after your CT, I assume that the date of the signing of your offer and the date of your posting will likely be rather close.


----------



## BinRat55 (7 Aug 2009)

I would also look into RLRS policies on first postings on CT's - there are some restrictions you may encounter and become very frustrated by...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2009)

Such as no Posting Allowance (either the BAE or DAE portions) on your first posting after your CT.  So, if you "go out and get married", don't count on cashing in on your PA either.

I have to ask this question;  you are CTing.  How come you folks never call your Res Unit OR and talk to a Clerk, or your immediae superior in your CoC?  How come you never go look thru the CFAOs, CANFORGENs, DAODs, etc on your own at the Unit?

There was recenty a CANFORGEN released WRT this exact subject.  Now, because I had XL Timmies already and oiled the ol brain up, I did this thing called "a search" using "CANFORGEN common law" and found...CANFORGEN 083/09 CLARIFICATION COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP IN THE CANADIAN FORCES(CF).

The last thing I will say is, your current or next CO does not HAVE to recognize your Common Law Status, at all.  It doesn't say the word "shall", it says "may".  It is at the CO's discretion to say yes/no to your application for CL Status.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Aug 2009)

21trucker said:
			
		

> Did a search and did not find the answer to my question.
> Is the relationship recognized when you start your CT, or the date you sign your offer?



Your CT date and signing your offer have nothing to do with how long you and your girlfriend have lived together.  As long as you can produce something (a bill or lease) with *both* your names on it, then they will have considered you living together on (or around) that date/month.


----------



## dream3r (20 Mar 2010)

Hi everyone, ???
I was wondering if there is any policy about common-law partner in army... we are both in reserve but in different unit. right now, my partner is pregnant for about 34 month, somehow she get alot of problem with her boss. everytime she does/did never enough for him. EVERYTIME i call or send a email to her boss, he told her "it's your job to call us not your partner..." . Well if she can't call because she can't talk! she got a fever. All i want to know if there is any policy for me to show him that i can do my job as a new daddy "common-law partner" . sorry for my bad English


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2010)

I don't think you'll find any policy that states "your partner can act on your behalf with your Chain of Command".  However, *most* units and mbrs can use common sense in a situation where 1 mbr isn't able to contact them because they are ill/feeling sick.

Did you mean to say she is 34 weeks pregnant vice months?   ;D

Try searching this site for "common law" or "common law status", it should provide you with some links and info on common law status within the CF.  If not, your units Ordely Room should be able to get you the references.  If your partner isn't able to make training because of how she feels and is far along in the pregnancy, maybe it is time for her to look into an authorized period away from her unit, whatever they are now for PRes members who are pregnant.  Maybe someone on here knows more about that aspect, the only thing that comes to mind for me is a period of ED & T ( Exempt Drill and Training).


----------



## dream3r (20 Mar 2010)

lol, yeah 34 weeks 

I did search around to see anything that could help me. 
as you said "common sense" i dont think her boss have any. it isn't our first time, and it wont be our last time to get piss off by her boss. well she does have a ED&T...she work in OR... I was wondering if my partner can write a memo to give me some kind of authority to call her unit if she does have a pb or just "common sense"... ... is it possible?¿


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2010)

I've never heard of someone submitting a memo like that.  However, if she is on an ED & T, then I am not exactly sure what the issue is.  She is authorized a period of absence from the unit.   ???

Maybe if you can explain exactly what the problem is in some more detail, someone who has dealt with this before can chime in.


----------



## Ayrsayle (18 Jun 2011)

I have found lots of information on what is required to prove common-law status, etc - I am curious about when it should be done. I have read/heard many complaints/issues with individuals claiming Common-law status simply for the benefits and that it tends to look bad when you attempt the process directly before shipping out, etc. We've just recently qualified as Common-law, and not when I had first submitted my application.

Should I be changing my status now (currently Merit listed and waiting, like many others) or would it be more appropriate to wait until after I have an offer?


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jun 2011)

Go to the Recruiting Centre and ask them what you need to do to have the change made on your file. You may have to swear a statutory declaration regarding your status and may be asked to provide documents (such as bills with matching addresses, lease with both names, etc.) showing you have been resident together for the requisite period of time.


----------



## CFR FCS (19 Jun 2011)

When you get an official job offer from your CFRC your marital staus will be requested. At that time you will be told what documents to bring in to prove your status.  Doing so before you get an offer is counter productive as the CFRC are not allowed under the privacy act to ask about your marital status, religion and dependants until you accept a job offer.   If you bring it in when it isn't required it might get misplaced.

Bottom line: wait for it.


----------



## Lare (26 Jun 2011)

When I swore in, we were asked our relationship status. I put common-law, the Cpl. brought out a form, I brought the form home with me, my girlfriend and I signed it, and when I came to St. Jean I brought a bill with both of our names on it, her birth certificate and drivers licence, our daughters birth certificate, and all my ID. As long as the addresses on your photo ID's match with the address on the bill with both your names on it your good to go. A rental agreement or mortgage with both your names on it is required as well, and if you want to get medical coverage for you spouse bring her medical card or a photo copy of it.

The only problem I ran into was the CFRC only giving me one page of the statutory declaration, that was easy enough to fix though.

In short, when you go to St. Jean, bring everything you can that will assist in proving you two have lived together for over a year and you'll be good to go.


----------



## Ice97 (27 Jun 2011)

Changing to status to Common-Law doesn't look bad...no matter when you change it.  They can't really do anything about the fact that you're common-law....if you're able to change it...then do it ASAP so you can not only get benefits....but separation expense as well.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2011)

Ice97 said:
			
		

> Changing to status to Common-Law doesn't look bad...no matter when you change it.  They can't really do anything about the fact that you're common-law....if you're able to change it...then do it ASAP *so you can not only get benefits....but separation expense as well*.



Depending on your individual situation and don't forget the old Chinese proverb "Be careful what you wish for."


----------



## fauntania (5 Nov 2011)

I've tried a few searches on this and come up empty-handed, so I thought I would ask.  Hopefully this is the right place!  

My boyfriend and I have been living together for over five years.  We live in BC, near the US border.  He is an American citizen, working whatever jobs he can shake up on the US side of the line, and I work in Canada, being a Canadian citizen.  For all intents and purposes, this is a marriage relationship - we have a joint bank account, a joint tenancy agreement for our home, etc.

Will the CF consider him my "common law spouse" and move him along with my kids and I to wherever I am posted?  Or is the fact that he is an American a potential issue?

We plan to get married once I can get the divorce done with my ex-husband.   

Any input you may have, or any experience with this would be appreciated.  Thank you so much!


----------



## Pusser (5 Nov 2011)

Is he a landed immigrant in Canada?  If he's not legally resident in Canada (the fact that he spends most of his time here and goes back to the US often enough - at least every six months - in order to not violate his permission to enter Canada, is irrelevant), I don't see how you can be considered common-law.  How can you "live together," if he's not allowed to "live" in Canada (i.e. if he's only visiting for long periods of time).

On the other hand, if he is a landed immigrant (complete with appropriate paperwork) and you meet all the criteria for common-law status, then yes, the CF will move him, if you and when you are entitled to a move at public expense.


----------



## Zoomie (6 Nov 2011)

When you join the CF - put him down as your common-law spouse.  If you don't do this before you join - you will have a bit more difficulty proving that he is indeed your common-law spouse.


----------



## Spring_bok (6 Nov 2011)

If your still legally married to someone else then you are not common law.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> If your still legally married to someone else then you are not common law.



Not true at all.  QR&O 1.075 deals with this. 

I know service members who jumped through the hoops to declare a common-law relationship and end the same common-law relationship before they were successful in obtaining a divorce agreement for a pre-existing failed legal marriage.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Common-law status is besides the point, the guy is a visitor to Canada and thus he is not "living with her". Unless that changes, i don't seem him being moved from anywhere at public expense.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

QR&O 1.075 doesn't care about his nationality or immigration status, it merely says if you've been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for one year (or had a child within the relationship), then you are common-law in the eyes of the CF.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> it merely says if you've been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for one year



Ok but he is not a resident here. How can he be cohabiting if he's not even legally residing in Canada ?


----------



## Pusser (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> QR&O 1.075 doesn't care about his nationality or immigration status, it merely says if you've been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for one year (or had a child within the relationship), then you are common-law in the eyes of the CF.



However, you cannot be cohabitating if one of the persons is not legally living in Canada.  If the guy is just a visitor (which he is if he's not a landed immigrant) then his residence is in the US, while her's is in Canada.  Unless the house is one of those that straddles the border....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> QR&O 1.075 doesn't care about his nationality or immigration status, it merely says if you've been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for one year (or had a child within the relationship), then you are common-law in the eyes of the CF.



I think the operational phrase here is, _"if you've been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for one year._"  I would take that to mean that that the two people in question have to be living together continuously. In this case, that's not happening because he is spending a significant portion of the years living in the U.S.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

You guys ought to know that the CF doesn't involve itself in matters which don't concern them.  The guy's immigration status is between him and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  There's a stat dec that has to be filled out when claiming common law status - I'm nearly certain that there are no questions pertaining to the citizenship and immigration status of the spouse.  The CF doesn't get involved with civil matters, either - such as having one legal spouse and one common-law spouse at the same time.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Nov 2011)

We may be reading too much into this. My take on her question is that her partner works in the US. It may be that he travels daily across the border and comes home at night. To do so, he would have to be legal in Canada otherwise CBSA would tag him. This is fairly common practice in other border cities, like Windsor, St Stephen NB, etc.

To answer the question. IF he's legally in Canada, and IF you have a demonstrated common law relationship, then there's likely no problem.


----------



## medicineman (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> You guys ought to know that the CF doesn't involve itself in matters which don't concern them.  The guy's immigration status is between him and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  There's a stat dec that has to be filled out when claiming common law status - I'm nearly certain that there are no questions pertaining to the citizenship and immigration status of the spouse.  The CF doesn't get involved with civil matters, either - such as having one legal spouse and one common-law spouse at the same time.



They might not be too worried about immigration status until there is a red flag about it while doing your security clearance...just tossing that out there. 

MM


----------



## fauntania (6 Nov 2011)

To clarify, he is sleeps in Canada at our place every night, and travels across the border for work during the day.  With the exception of one six month period where we split up and he returned to he US during that time, we have been cohabiting in Canada for five years.   

We've looked at every avenue to for filing immigration paperwork, but the only one he will qualify for is common law spouse once I can get the ex-husband dealt with.  I really didn't want to rock the boat by filing divorce papers so soon before I leave for basic training, because my ex can be volatile and I could see him getting the bright idea to file for custody of the kids while I'm "indisposed".  Plus, the expense to file is difficult to come up with at the moment.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> They might not be too worried about immigration status until there is a red flag about it while doing your security clearance...just tossing that out there.



That might well be, but that affects the security clearance issue, and has no bearing on the common law status.

What some seem to be getting caught up on is that you can't read something into the QR&O that isn't there.  The QR&O is pretty clear and unambiguous.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> The QR&O is pretty clear and unambiguous.



 :rofl:


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:



Care to share with us what you find so amusing?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Care to share with us what you find so amusing?



I find it amusing that you said "QR&O" and "clear and unambiguous" in the same sentence. I have been through the military justice system and admin system enough to know and have proven otherwise.


----------



## Greymatters (6 Nov 2011)

fauntania said:
			
		

> To clarify, he is sleeps in Canada at our place every night, and travels across the border for work during the day.  With the exception of one six month period where we split up and he returned to he US during that time, we have been cohabiting in Canada for five years.
> 
> We've looked at every avenue to for filing immigration paperwork, but the only one he will qualify for is common law spouse once I can get the ex-husband dealt with.  I really didn't want to rock the boat by filing divorce papers so soon before I leave for basic training, because my ex can be volatile and I could see him getting the bright idea to file for custody of the kids while I'm "indisposed".  Plus, the expense to file is difficult to come up with at the moment.



I dont see how this is possible - shes been co-habitating for five years  and she hasnt even filed yet for divorce?  The CF may try to stay out of personal lives, but they dont recognize multiple relationships either.  How can the CF recognize co-habitation when she is is still legally married to her current husband with no demonstrated intent to dissolve the marital status?


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I find it amusing that you said "QR&O" and "clear and unambiguous" in the same sentence. I have been through the military justice system and admin system enough to know and have proven otherwise.



I deliberately used "QR&O", as in the singular.  The QR&O we're discussing is clear and unambiguous.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> I dont see how this is possible - shes been co-habitating for five years  and she hasnt even filed yet for divorce?  The CF may try to stay out of personal lives, but they dont recognize multiple relationships either.  How can the CF recognize co-habitation when she is is still legally married to her current husband with no demonstrated intent to dissolve the marital status?



Quite simply, she doesn't have to file for divorce, as obtaining a divorce isn't a prerequisite for starting a common law relationship.  The CF only cares insofar as you can only have one marriage or common law relationship on the go at a time and will only recognize the most recent unless a court orders otherwise.

edit: for clarity


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Nov 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I dont see how this is possible - shes been co-habitating for five years  and she hasnt even filed yet for divorce?  The CF may try to stay out of personal lives, but they dont recognize multiple relationships either.  How can the CF recognize co-habitation when she is is still legally married to her current husband with no demonstrated intent to dissolve the marital status?



While the CF does not recognize multiple conjugal relationship, they do permit a member to be in a common-law relationship (and recognizes it to be the current valid relationship) at the same time as being married to, but separated from, someone else.  During my time in, I knew several who were in that boat.  One had even been in a common-law relationship for over 20 years (while still married to someone else) while serving (he's now retired); I think they are still common-law only because the original wife is too mean to die.

The CF recognition of common-law relationships is only for purposes deriving from the National Defence Act and thus in turn providing eligibility for benefits and such that are affected by having a spouse or spouse-like substitute.  That CF recognition does not convey any concurrent recognition of a common-law relationship for any other purpose that may be outlined in other legislation or regulation or is in the purview of any other entity (federal, provincial, municipal, band, tribe, gang, congregation or rabble).

The OP seems to have confirmed that her "common-law spouse" is not a permanent resident of Canada and has no legal authority to live or work here (or receive any public benefits like health care etc).  At one time the QR&Os were very clear in its defintion of "common-law" - it expressly stated that being able to live in Canada legally was one of the requirements.  Amendments have made the applicable QR&O much more vague and open to interpretation.


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The CF recognition of common-law relationships is only for purposes deriving from the National Defence Act and thus in turn providing eligibility for benefits and such that are affected by having a spouse or spouse-like substitute.



Good one! Just don't try calling her that. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> The QR&O we're discussing is clear and unambiguous.



Nope, it is not. One of the key words in that QR&O is "cohabiting". 

He is not residing in Canada, thus they are not cohabiting.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> At one time the QR&Os were very clear in its defintion of "common-law" - it expressly stated that being able to live in Canada legally was one of the requirements.  Amendments have made the applicable QR&O much more vague and open to interpretation.



QR&O 1.075 is currently showing the last effective change being 1 September 2001.  

I also have a copy of the OLTRS July 1997 CD-ROM, which contains the valid QR&Os at the time.  QR&O 1.075 read, in part:

_A commanding officer may, upon application by an officer or
     non-commissioned member in the manner prescribed in orders issued by
     the Chief of the Defence Staff, recognize the member's common-law
     relationship where the member establishes by affidavit or statutory
     declaration signed by both persons in the relationship that they:

     (a)  are of opposite sexes;

     (b)  are not prevented by law, for any reason other than one or both
          of them being legally married, from entering into a legal
          marriage in Canada;

     (c)  have resided together as husband and wife continuously for at
          least one year immediately preceding the application or, if a
          child has been born to them, are residing together as husband and
          wife with the child;

     (d)  undertake to hold each other out as husband and wife; and

     (e)  are authorized by law to reside in Canada on a permanent basis.
_

*Disclaimer:  The above text in italics is a superceded version of QR&O 1.075, and is posted to show the changes made to the regulation over time.  *

It's pretty easy to see why this particular QR&O was amended.  COs were no doubt driving themselves batty trying to find out legal issues like whether any given two people are prevented by law from entering into a marriage, and immigration law.  Oh, and that pesky opposite sex thing.   ;D


----------



## J.J (6 Nov 2011)

He CANNOT be declared a common-law spouse in Canada as he has no legal status here. Living here he is breaking the law (IRPA) and if/when he is caught he can be excluded for up to year or deported and that would make any future legal immigration near impossible.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> You guys ought to know that the CF doesn't involve itself in matters which don't concern them.  The guy's immigration status is between him and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  There's a stat dec that has to be filled out when claiming common law status - I'm nearly certain that there are no questions pertaining to the citizenship and immigration status of the spouse.  The CF doesn't get involved with civil matters, either - such as having one legal spouse and one common-law spouse at the same time.



That is ridiculous statement. What is the difference between this situation and someone serving in Afghanistan and wanting to bring a Afghan citizen home because they fell in love? Would the CF transport the person back to Canada, contrary to Immigration laws?
The person in the CF who would authorize or arrange this can be charged for counselling misrepresentation contrary to IRPA;
Counselling misrepresentation

_http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html

126. Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.

_


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He is not residing in Canada, thus they are not cohabiting.



Sure he's residing in Canada.  He has a Canadian mailing address.  He might even legally own land here.  He might sleep on that land every night.

You seem intent on not seeing the difference between residing in Canada, and residing in Canada _in compliance with immigration law_.  The CF no longer sees the difference between those two scenarios, as my previous post shows.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada does see the difference, however.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

So, Para (e) seems to be it. He's not a resident of Canada thus she cannot have him as common-law partner. He is a visitor to canada. He is not authorised by law to reside in Canada.




			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Sure he's residing in Canada.  He has a Canadian mailing address.  He might even legally own land here.  He might sleep on that land every night.





> The CF no longer sees the difference between those two scenarios, as my previous post shows.



I disagree and nothing you have posted so far points to that.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> He CANNOT be declared a common-law spouse in Canada as he has no legal status here. Living here he is breaking the law (IRPA) and if/when he is caught he can be excluded for up to year or deported and that would make any future legal immigration near impossible.
> 
> That is ridiculous statement. What is the difference between this situation and someone serving in Afghanistan and wanting to bring a Afghan citizen home because they fell in love? Would the CF transport the person back to Canada, contrary to Immigration laws?
> The person in the CF who would authorize or arrange this can be charged for counselling misrepresentation contrary to IRPA;
> ...



Now you're just being silly.  How many times now has it been said that the QR&O dealing with common law status is for the purposes of CF benefits only?  Blackadder1916 put it pretty clearly:



> The CF recognition of common-law relationships is only for purposes deriving from the National Defence Act and thus in turn providing eligibility for benefits and such that are affected by having a spouse or spouse-like substitute.  That CF recognition does not convey any concurrent recognition of a common-law relationship for any other purpose that may be outlined in other legislation or regulation or is in the purview of any other entity (federal, provincial, municipal, band, tribe, gang, congregation or rabble).



The example you gave is just silly.  Of course they wouldn't be transported, because people tend to look for things like passports before letting you board a plane.  As I'm sure you're aware, crossing the US border with Canada isn't exactly like trying to board an aircraft in Afghanistan to travel to Canada.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So, Para (e) seems to be it. He's not a resident of Canada thus she cannot have him as common-law partner. He is a visitor to canada. He is not authorised by law to reside in Canada.



Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The para (e) you're referring to is out of QR&O 1.075 *as it existed back in June 1997*.  I posted it to show the changes the QR&O has gone through over the years.  That para no longer exists in the current QR&O.


----------



## J.J (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Now you're just being silly.  How many times now has it been said that the QR&O dealing with common law status is for the purposes of CF benefits only?  Blackadder1916 put it pretty clearly:
> 
> The example you gave is just silly.  Of course they wouldn't be transported, because people tend to look for things like passports before letting you board a plane.  As I'm sure you're aware, crossing the US border with Canada isn't exactly like trying to board an aircraft in Afghanistan to travel to Canada.



The CF will relocate a person without legal status in Canada? Correct me if I am wrong, relocation is a CF benefit?

Whether you cross a border in a plane or car, you still need legal status to live here. My example is extreme, but not an unfair comparison.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> I also have a copy of the OLTRS July 1997 CD-ROM, which contains the valid QR&Os at the time.  QR&O 1.075 read, in part:
> . . . . . . .
> 
> (e)  are authorized by law to reside in Canada on a permanent basis.
> ...



Actually, having that particular item in the QR&O *prevented* many COs from going batty.  You have to remember that at one time we had a large number of Canadian military members residing outside the country and it was not unheard to have many young men living with local (non-Canadian) young (and not so young) women.  There were even a few Canadian women co-habiting with the local herren.  On more than a few occasions, soldiers received their posting instructions back to Canada and (forgetting that there was another government department called Immigration Canada) started their out-clearance procedures in blissful ignorance that the delightful fraulein who had been sharing their bed for (in some cases) years was not going to be on any flight home unless legally joined in marriage.  That was the immigration rule back then.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> The CF will relocate a person without legal status in Canada? Correct me if I am wrong, relocation is a CF benefit?



They sure will!  The CF will because the CF won't know that person doesn't have legal status, because proving you have legal status isn't part and parcel of claiming you're in a common law relationship in the CF.  It used to be, as my post of the QR&O as it existed in 1997 shows, but it hasn't been required since 2001.


----------



## J.J (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> They sure will!  The CF will because the CF won't know that person doesn't have legal status, because proving you have legal status isn't part and parcel of claiming you're in a common law relationship in the CF.  It used to be, as my post of the QR&O as it existed in 1997 shows, but it hasn't been required since 2001.



Then why wouldn't the CF transport Afghans back to Canada if a member said they were common law? By your example and refusal to consider to consider you may be wrong there is nothing in CF regulations to prohibit it....


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> Then why wouldn't the CF transport Afghans back to Canada if a member said they were common law? By your example and refusal to consider to consider you may be wrong there is nothing in CF regulations to prohibit it....



Because the claim would be clearly fraudulent?

The current QR&O 1.075 still states:
_
“common-law partner”, in relation to an officer or non-commissioned member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship

(a) for a period of at least one year; or
(b) for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child._

Explain to me how a deployed soldier could possibly meet the criteria of cohabitating with an Afghan for one year.

Your example is not relevant.


----------



## J.J (6 Nov 2011)

Are there not CF members at the embassy? Their posting would be 2-3 yrs. Are there not some that are posted to Kabul for up to a year?


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Nov 2011)

WR, 

You are talking about a very, very remote possibility.  Common Law with an american in a city close to the border is much, much more likely.  A bit of common sense perhaps?


----------



## J.J (6 Nov 2011)

I did state it is an extreme example, but Occam is stating the CF will commit an illegal act because it is not in the policy.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> I did state it is an extreme example, but Occam is stating the CF will commit an illegal act because it is not in the policy.



I said nothing of the sort.  It is you making that claim, not I.

I said the CF doesn't require its members to prove the immigration status of prospective common law partners for the purposes of obtaining CF benefits, and hasn't for at least the last ten years.

Your example would necessitate that the prospective common law spouse would have to board a civilian aircraft to come to Canada, since that is how someone who is posted to a Canadian embassy would be travelling if they were in the middle of a relocation move.  I suspect that Citizenship and Immigration Canada is going to have something to say about that when they show up at a Canadian airport, assuming they even get that far.

The CF quite clearly decided at the turn of the century that they weren't going to get involved in immigration law when it comes to common law relationships, and so removed the clause requiring someone to prove they were legally authorized to reside here.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Now you're just being silly.  How many times now has it been said that the QR&O dealing with common law status is for the purposes of CF benefits only?  Blackadder1916 put it pretty clearly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't use my quote as a partial defence of your position.  In my opinion, while the CF recognition of common-law relationships is limited to things deriving from the NDA, the interpretation of that article should probably be similiar to interpretation by immigration authorities.  In that case because the immigration status of the non-Canadian partner precludes him from "living" in Canada (technically he's just visiting) he would probably not be considered a "common-law partner" but a "conjugal partner".  Under immigration rules he might be treated the same (whether he is violating other aspects of immigation law is another matter) but for regulation purposes they are different.  The CF does not have a category of "conjugal partners", there is only "common-law" and in my opinion, he doesn't fit.  

The amendments to that particular QR&O was in response to a number of issues, e.g. same sex relationships being recognized by both the CF and Immigration Canada, changes in immigration regulations that included common-law partners in the family category of sponsorships.  Back in the "old days" a soldier could not legally establish a common-law relationship while serving (and residing) on foreign soil because no Canadian could establish a common-law relationship in similar circumstances and then bring back that partner in the same manner as a legal wife/husband.  Now, any Canadian living overseas can shack up for a year and then try to bring the partner home without having to get that pesky piece of paper.

My suggestion to the OP, if/when she enrolls and is asked about her marital status is to provide a complete and truthful explanation of her relationship circumstances.  It will probably spark a likewise debate in the recruiting centre and the question will likely be referred to a higher authority for a ruling.  Doing anything else would (in my opinion) be an attempt to deceive.


----------



## fauntania (6 Nov 2011)

I don't understand how there can even be an immigration category for "common law spouse" which requires you to be cohabiting for a period of at least a year, if its not okay for him to be living here under the same roof with me.  How does that make any sense at all?  If its not legally possible under immigration law to BE common law, then why would the category even exist?

I am swearing in January 19, and the situation will be made crystal clear to the CF.  I do not believe in anything less.  I have every intention of dissolving my former marriage which collapsed five and a half years ago.  We also have every intention of getting married once that is done, and filing all necessary paperwork for his status as a legal Canadian immigrant.


----------



## Occam (6 Nov 2011)

I don't have a position on the issue, other than to state that the current QR&O 1.075 does not require a CO to obtain proof that a prospective common law spouse is legally authorized to reside in Canada.  I posted Blackadder1916's passage because it accurately describes what the QR&O is granting - access to CF benefits.  Being deemed in a common law relationship under QR&O 1.075 doesn't confer any additional privileges than CF benefits.

QR&O 1.075 has no bearing on immigration law whatsoever.  I'm sure Citizenship and Immigration Canada would have a pretty good giggle if you tried to use QR&O 1.075 as substantiation to try and bring a spouse into the country (from the USA or otherwise) as a legal immigrant.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Nov 2011)

fauntania said:
			
		

> I don't understand *how there can even be an immigration category for "common law spouse" which requires you to be cohabiting for a period of at least a year, if its not okay for him to be living here under the same roof with me*.  How does that make any sense at all?  If its not legally possible under immigration law to BE common law, then why would the category even exist?
> 
> I am swearing in January 19, and the situation will be made crystal clear to the CF.  I do not believe in anything less.  I have every intention of dissolving my former marriage which collapsed five and a half years ago.  We also have every intention of getting married once that is done, and filing all necessary paperwork for his status as a legal Canadian immigrant.



Because a likely scenario (and expectation by immigration aurthorities) is that the co-habitation occurs outside Canada.


----------



## Pusser (7 Nov 2011)

One of the things that is clouding the issue is the relative ease with which Americans and Canadians can physically live in the other country.  As long as one returns to one's country of citizenship approximately every six months, then one never needs to obtain landed immigrant status to "live" in Canada or a Green Card in the United States (obtaining legal employment in the other country and dealing with taxes, medical care, etc are an entirely different matter, though).

However, this does not mean that you are actually "living" in the other country.  The fact remains that unless you are a citizen or landed immigrant, you are only visiting Canada and have to leave after six months (at which point you can immediately return).  How can you cohabitate with someone in a country, if you're just visiting that country?  Does the CF investigate immigration status for applications for common-law status?  No, no more than the Mounties or CBSA go around checking for Americans who've overstayed the six month limit.  However, if a CO is aware that something is a little off, he should be asking questions (particularly of the local AJAG).  i suspect that the AJAG would be reluctant to support the granting of common-law status to a couple where one member is not a legal resident of Canada, especially when it would involve the expenditure of public funds (derived from tax revenues to which the visitor does not contribute because he/she cannot legally work in Canada).


----------



## fauntania (7 Nov 2011)

Excellent point, Pusser.  It would seem that this is definitely a potential issue, and it would probably be in our best interests to get the necessary paperwork underway in order to bring him to legal immigrant status.

Thank you, everyone, for your opinions and advice on this matter.  It is much appreciated.


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2011)

Further to Pusser's point, be aware that if in the future it was determined that your common-law spouse was indeed not legally allowed in the country, thereby negating the common law status in view of Immigration, Rev Can, etc, the CF may try and recoup any expenditures paid out for benefits for which you were deemed not entitled.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2011)

My understanding is that CF Common Law status has nothing to do with Revenue or Immigration Canada Common Law status.


----------



## Occam (8 Nov 2011)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My understanding is that CF Common Law status has nothing to do with Revenue or Immigration Canada Common Law status.



I wouldn't bother, Max.  Everyone seems caught up trying to apply other government departments' definitions to QR&Os.  The applicable QR&O simply says "cohabiting", which likely has completely different meanings depending on which gov't department you ask, and at which level (federal, provincial or municipal).  Hell, the provinces can't even agree on the definition of "cohabiting" - and common law relationships/marriages are a provincial matter.  The only definition that matters here is the one that DND chooses to use - and since the rather explicit reference to being legally authorized to reside in Canada got binned with a past revision of the QR&O, I just don't see how anyone could be expected to meet it.  

That said, the advice given to the OP to get the matter sorted out legally sooner than later will negate the need for a CO to even have to consider this issue.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2011)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My understanding is that CF Common Law status has nothing to do with Revenue or Immigration Canada Common Law status.



The point I'm making is that if the person was deemed not to be a common law spouse (by whatever measure is used), the CF would be entitled to recover any costs incurred from providing benefits that the person was not entitled to receive.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2011)

Just to throw it out there, now that Canada recognizes same sex marriage, does part a) of 1.075 still apply?



> A commanding officer may, upon application by an officer or
> non-commissioned member in the manner prescribed in orders issued by
> the Chief of the Defence Staff, recognize the member's common-law
> relationship where the member establishes by affidavit or statutory
> ...


----------



## Occam (8 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Just to throw it out there, now that Canada recognizes same sex marriage, does part a) of 1.075 still apply?



Ugh....go back and read the post again, paying particular attention to the big red bold letters I put underneath.

If you want a current version of QR&O 1.075, see the link partway down the page here - http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/15-06-eng.asp


----------



## Occam (8 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> The point I'm making is that if the person was deemed not to be a common law spouse (by whatever measure is used), the CF would be entitled to recover any costs incurred from providing benefits that the person was not entitled to receive.



The person would be deemed a common law spouse by the CF's definition, therefore any other gov't interpretation would be irrelevant.  The person met the CF rule for the benefits and no repayment would be required.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Ugh....go back and read the post again, paying particular attention to the big red bold letters I put underneath.
> 
> If you want a current version of QR&O 1.075, see the link partway down the page here - http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/15-06-eng.asp



 :sorry:

I didn't realize that the same sex issue was covered in the more recent revisions.

My Bad!


----------



## Occam (8 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> :sorry:
> 
> I didn't realize that the same sex issue was covered in the more recent revisions.
> 
> My Bad!



No worries.  I knew there would be a risk that posting a seriously outdated QR&O could result in someone interpreting it as current policy, but I didn't think it would happen this quickly...   ;D

If you look at the old one I posted and compare it to the current, you'll see it got completely overhauled.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> No worries.  I knew there would be a risk that posting a seriously outdated QR&O could result in someone interpreting it as current policy, but I didn't think it would happen this quickly...   ;D
> 
> If you look at the old one I posted and compare it to the current, you'll see it got completely overhauled.



Yeah, I saw that. I guess we're all persons now. 

So now that the US Supreme Court has deemed Corporations to be people, can you claim to live common law with GM? ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> So now that the US Supreme Court has deemed Corporations to be people, can you claim to live common law with GM? ;D



Yeah, but when the relationship is over, GM will want a hand-out.


----------



## captloadie (9 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> The person would be deemed a common law spouse by the CF's definition, therefore any other gov't interpretation would be irrelevant.  The person met the CF rule for the benefits and no repayment would be required.



I wouldn't be so quick to jump to this conclusion. Where benefits are concerned, such as relocation, it is the TB policy that will have the last say. Last year's revelation that we weren't entitled to some benefits as they contravened TB policy is proof of this. Just because the CF thinks it is correct, and may have written policy backing certain decisions, doesn't mean at the end of the day an external organization won't look back and say we were wrong. In the Op's current province the rule is (as per Wikipedia):
_ In British Columbia, a person who has lived and cohabited with another person, for a period of at least two years is considered a common law spouse, unless one or both of them were married to another person during this time, according to the "Estate Administration Act"_.
By BC definition she cannot be common law. The same restriction is placed on declaring common law status while still married by CRA, Immigration Canada, and all other provinces that I have researched.

It would appear then that the CF regulations on common law status are less stringent. At first glance, one could say this is done to grant members entitlements (Relocation, Health, Pension, etc.) sooner, or that they would not otherwise be entitled to (in the case of not being legally divorced) if other federal or provincial regulations were applied. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that if the OP's particular case were to come up to one of the external organizations (CRA, Immigration Canada) because of perceived irregularities, pointed questions may be asked of  current CF policy.


----------



## CountDC (9 Nov 2011)

interesting case and I hope you keep us up to date on this. I hope it works out for you.

A point for consideration.  Common Law requires a stat dec to be completed and one of the lines on it reads:

that we have resided together for at least one year preceding the application for recognition.

As he does not have status in Canada and has to return to his home, the states, every 6 months it could be argued that you could not have resided together for a year.   You also mentioned a break up of 6 months - was that over a year ago as the one year period would be counted from when you got back together.


----------



## Occam (9 Nov 2011)

CountDC said:
			
		

> As he does not have status in Canada and has to return to his home, the states, every 6 months it could be argued that you could not have resided together for a year.



Status is something determined by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and isn't asked on the Stat Dec.  Hopping across the border, doing a U-turn and coming right back could hardly be used to say that there was an interruption to the period of cohabitation.  Hell, if you can get shacked up, and then one of the couple gets deployed, the 12 month clock doesn't stop counting as long as you still meet the rest of the requirements of the QR&O.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Nov 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> . . . . . .
> 
> It would appear then that the CF regulations on common law status are less stringent. At first glance, one could say this is done to grant members entitlements (Relocation, Health, Pension, etc.) sooner, or that they would not otherwise be entitled to (in the case of not being legally divorced) if other federal or provincial regulations were applied. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that if the OP's particular case were to come up to one of the external organizations (CRA, Immigration Canada) because of perceived irregularities, pointed questions may be asked of  current CF policy.



I could reply with a sarcastic "have you read any of the other posts in this thread", but I'm much too nice a guy for that.  The recognition of a common-law relationship by the CF is only for the purpose of the National Defence Act.  It has no bearing on the administration of any other law or regulation by any other federal or provincial government agency (slight correction - it 'may' have some bearing when the other law/regulation is applied to an individual whose only connection to the other law/reg is because of status conferred by the NDA).  That being said, the conditions set for recognition of a common-law relationship by all the agencies falling under federal jurisdiction is consistent (and always has been).  Whether the 'interpretation' of those conditions is consistent  (and enforcement of the laws/regulations pertaining) across all federal departments is another matter.  There is no "irregularity" in the CF definition of common-law.  When the major amendments to that particular QR&O was made (_as noted in the differences between the current version v. the circa mid-90s version posted in this thread_) similar changes were made to those definitions used by other federal agencies.  As open to interpretation (IMO) as this particular QR&O is (and probably many others) they are not conceived in a vacuum.  Nothing gets published in QR&Os without being vetted by the lawyers (of course I've never accused lawyers of being infallible).

There are two separate and distinct issues raised by the OP's question with regards to common-law recognition.  There is no connection between the CF's recognition for any purposes under it's purview and the requirements of CIC for immigration purposes.

As this question interested me, I posed the circumstances to an acquaintance who worked for immigration.  Though the examination of potential sponsors/immigrants is no longer part of his job, he did inform me that there had been a change a few years ago pertaining to this issue.  At one time recognition of common-law status for the purpose of sponsoring a "Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada" class of applicant was only given when the foreign national partner was legally in Canada under a student or temporary worker visa (foreigners who can legally be in Canada continually for more than a year).  This has changed in that someone who has overstayed a visitor's visa and has been co-habiting conjugally for more than a year *"may"* be considered in the same class.  There are a number of other conditions that also have to be met.

When I presented the situation as per the OP (American partner, multiple year relationship, most financial items conjoined, partner frequently returns to USA for employment ,etc), he opined that the common-law relationship *"could possibly in some cases depending on the officer examining"* be recognized by CIC.  One particular factor that could be a bar to recognition is the frequent returns to the country of origin without the Canadian partner also moving.  He noted that by going back to the USA and returning to Canada, the individual may have been in Canada legally when he was here, but he also likely kept restarting the clock on the one year co-habitation requirement.

What does this have to do with the CF recognizing a common-law relationship?  Absolutely nothing!  However, my expectation would be (if this situation was examined by CF authorities) that a similar view would be held - that leaving Canada without the Canadian partner would restart the clock.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be so quick to jump to this conclusion. Where benefits are concerned, such as relocation, it is the TB policy that will have the last say. Last year's revelation that we weren't entitled to some benefits as they contravened TB policy is proof of this.


The example you point to is more complicated than you make it out.  Within DND, the hierarchy of policies sees approved DND policy as overriding TB policy.  That is because both policies have to go to the same heights of government for approval, and at those heights, unique policies can be approved for DND to cover the department's unique requirements.  The benefits fiasco from last year was the result of practices that were sanctioned neither by TB nor DND approved policies.  Some of the practices were the result of CANFORGENS (CDS authority as opposed to TB & Cabinet) and others were the DCBA aide-memoire (the work of an NDHQ Col's subordinate).

QR&O are approved from high enough above the department that they will not be overturned by conflict with the policy of another department.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

Regardless what DND policy is the person that authorized and/or arranged the entry and movement of a person without legal status in Canada would be subject to criminal charges. I doubt a CO would take that chance.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> Regardless what DND policy is the person that authorized and/or arranged the entry and movement of a person without legal status in Canada would be subject to criminal charges. I doubt a CO would take that chance.


The CO is taking no "chance" by recognizing the common law status.  Such recognition does not "authorize entry" into the country.  There are plenty of guys who gain recognition of common law status while living abroad.  The responsibility is on the member and the common law spouse to gain the legal approvals to enter and reside within the country.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

If a person or organization transports someones belongings when that person has no status and/or assists them entry into Canada is committing a criminal act. 
Would DND transport stolen property? How about a grow op?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2011)

Lots of semantics and grade level word play going on in this thread.

Lots of barrack room lawyering.

I'm just going to side with the guy that does immigration for a living.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> If a person or organization transports someones belongings when that person has no status and/or assists them entry into Canada is committing a criminal act.
> Would DND transport stolen property? How about a grow op?


Granting of common law status does not invite anyone into the country.  You are ascribing permissions into the recognition that do not exist.

Let's look at it this way - common law status is being granted to service members living outside the country.  It happened in the past, it is happening now, and it will continue to happen.  The sky is not falling and nobody is going to jail.  The responsibility is still on the member and common law spouse to sort out all the other approvals required for gaining entry to the country.  Precedent is in disagreement with your conclusion.

Does DND have mechanisms in place to ensure that moves into the country don't happen unless those entry approvals are in place?  I don't know.  If you care, you can investigate the relocation policies.  At the same time, you can investigate your stolen property question and see if the move policies require service members to provide proof of ownership for vehicles and other property that is transported during a posting.  Regardless of the answers you come to, this issue is separate from the recognition of common law status because granting of common law status does not grant anyone access into the country.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

Other than offence under IRPA as I already quoted, there are service offences for breaking laws for other Acts of Parliament. The CF is not immune from them and the head in the sand defense would not work.
The Criminal Investigations arm of CBSA would care less what the DND policies are, they only care what legislation says.

http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-103.pdf




> 103.61 – OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER
> CANADIAN LAW
> 103.61 – INFRACTIONS À D’AUTRES LOIS DU
> CANADA
> ...


----------



## Occam (9 Nov 2011)

How's this - I've claimed common law while in the CF.  *Twice*.

Neither time did the CO (and they were different COs at different units) or anyone else ever ask what nationality my spouse was.  Why?  I'm willing to bet it's because they weren't required to under the QR&O.  I'm also willing to bet that particular QR&O got particularly close scrutiny by AJAG when it was amended due to the other clauses that it used to contain.

If checking that the prospective spouse was legally allowed to reside in Canada was such an important requirement, why was it stricken from the revised QR&O?  Would seem to be a legal oversight of immense proportions, if you ask me.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

I too am aware of Sect 130 of the NDA.  In fact, I have used it.  Your reference to it is about as illogical as suggesting that since it is illegal to shoot someone with a gun it is also illegal to allow a service member to own a gun.

Granting of common law status does not grant/authorize entry into this country.

Recognizing common law status does nothing illegal.  The QR&O requirement for the partner to be eligible for legal entry into Canada would not have been dropped if somehow this would have opened a magical door for entry.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

I will concede that common law status does not grant you legal status in Canada, but completing a Statutory declaration that you have been living in Canada for 1 yr, without status is a confession to a criminal offence. The penalty is generally deportation, possibly jail and there is nothing that can help you at then to live in Canada.

The world I live in says that legislation always trumps policy. We are living in two different worlds.

I give up....a smart man told me once to stop pissing into the wind


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> I will concede that common law status does not grant you legal status in Canada, but completing a Statutory declaration that you have been living in Canada for 1 yr, without status



Just curious, does it ask on the Stat Dec if you've been "living in the country for a year without status", or if you have been in cohabitation with the person in question?

Who cares if someone has to leave once every six months?  Do you really think that changes the status?  If that's the case, I guess I'm divorced.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Just curious, does it ask on the Stat Dec if you've been "living in the country for a year without status", or if you have been in cohabitation with the person in question?
> 
> *Who cares if someone has to leave once every six months? * Do you really think that changes the status?  If that's the case, I guess I'm divorced.



The discussion is concerning immigration issues, not with someone who has status or is a citizen. You don't have a problem with illegal immigration? 
FYI the 6moths thing is for someone visiting Canada and intending to leave. It is different for someone who lacks ties or roots in their home country. 

It is interesting on the dynamics out here some days. If I was to argue aspects concerning Preventative Medicine or Naval traditions, I would get told to STFU and stay in my lanes, but there seems to be several "experts" and "barracks room lawyers: when it comes to immigration issues....


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> The world I live in says that legislation always trumps policy. We are living in two different worlds.


No.  Legislation does always trump policy.

You will note that I have not commented specifically on the OPs scenario, and that is because there are too many information voids for me to do so.

Where you and I have disagreed has simply been on the issue of the CO's recognition of common law status being an act that _authorized and/or arranged the entry and movement of a person without legal status in Canada_ and as such opening the CO to criminal or NDA prosecution.  I think we agree now that such is not the case.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> FYI the 6moths thing is for someone visiting Canada and intending to leave.


Is there a defined period of time that such a person must remain outside Canada before returning?


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

There is no defined time, but it is a bit complicated and a bit Opsec, but I will use an example;

If your parent was from the US, owns a home in the US, has a job or means of income they can stay here up to 6 months. Where it gets confusing is if the parent does a turn around, they cross back into the US and immediately returns to Canada, in essence resetting the "6 month clock". At that point the officer at the border can refuse the person entry because they believe they may be living here, they can allow entry with conditions or they can give a specific amount of time (ie 2 weeks) and they must report upon exit.
The same parents has no job or no permanent residence wants to visit for the day the same conditions as above could apply.g

IRPA has a regulatory and a criminal component and can be used simultaneously. The regulatory portion has a lot of leeway for the officer at the border and their decisions can affect any future immigration issues.


----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2011)

I know when leaving the US, the minimum period is 24 hours, but the clock resets as soon as you leave. I believe the same requirement hold for leaving Canada, but don't hold me to that. 

The fun part is how do you prove that you were actually out of the country for that period of time, or how can they verify that you were not out for the minimum period.

Unless you actually check in with the agent at the border as you leave, they really have no way of verifying (for land crossings anyway). I know every time I drive back to Canada, I just cruise past the US border inspection station, and pull into the Canadian border line-up. And when I come back to the US, they ask how long I was out, the day I left, but I've never been asked to verify.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> You don't have a problem with illegal immigration?



Actually, yes I do.  The _original_ topic was about common-law status.  Not immigration.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> If I was to argue aspects concerning Preventative Medicine I would get told to STFU and stay in my lanes



Darn right you would.  It's *Preventive* Medicine.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2011)

fauntania said:
			
		

> I've tried a few searches on this and come up empty-handed, so I thought I would ask.  Hopefully this is the right place!
> 
> My boyfriend and I have been* living together for over five years*.  We live in BC, near the US border.  He is an *American citizen*, working whatever jobs he can shake up on the US side of the line, and I work in Canada, being a Canadian citizen.  For all intents and purposes,* this is a marriage relationship - we have a joint bank account, a joint tenancy agreement for our home, etc.*
> 
> ...



I actually see a lot of immigration questions and issues in the original post....


----------



## Occam (9 Nov 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> It is interesting on the dynamics out here some days. If I was to argue aspects concerning Preventative Medicine or Naval traditions, I would get told to STFU and stay in my lanes, but there seems to be several "experts" and "barracks room lawyers: when it comes to immigration issues....



Just thinking out loud here - is it possible that you're more focused on who is making the arguments, and not what the argument is?

I'm curious to hear if you have a logical explanation to the question I posed before - "If checking that the prospective spouse was legally allowed to reside in Canada was such an important requirement, why was it stricken from the revised QR&O?"

As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me...


----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me...



Just playing devil's advocate  :stirpot: knowing that it wasn't a requirement under the QR&O, but is possible that the question wasn't asked because it was assumed (correctly or incorrectly) by the CO or Admin staff that the spouse was legally present in Canada? Or that they already knew same?


----------



## Occam (9 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Just playing devil's advocate  :stirpot: knowing that it wasn't a requirement under the QR&O, but is possible that the question wasn't asked because it was assumed (correctly or incorrectly) by the CO or Admin staff that the spouse was legally present in Canada? Or that they already knew same?



Sure, it's possible.  The question also might not have been asked because it wasn't on the list of prerequisites in the QR&O, too.  But it used to be...

And I'm afraid that unless someone can explain the reasoning that was going on when that prerequisite was removed from the QR&O, we're probably not going to get very far here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Just thinking out loud here - is it possible that you're more focused on who is making the arguments, and not what the argument is?
> 
> I'm curious to hear if you have a logical explanation to the question I posed before - "If checking that the prospective spouse was legally allowed to reside in Canada was such an important requirement, why was it stricken from the revised QR&O?"
> 
> As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me...



I used the term. Was it pointed at you? I have you on ignore. I only saw your post because someone quoted it. It's not always about 'you' and I seldom read anything you have to say. So to calm your fears about it being aimed at you, maybe not.


----------



## Pusser (10 Nov 2011)

OK.  I've done something novel.  It's crazy I know, but I've called a friend at JAG on this subject.  The initial response was, "Wow!  Good question.  We'll have to get back to you on that."  So, I'm waiting.  We'll have to see.  Hopefully, we'll be able to put this to bed soon.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Nov 2011)

Stop imposing common sense on this thread.  Where would barrack room lawyers be if real ones stick their nose in?


----------



## Pusser (10 Nov 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Stop imposing common sense on this thread.  Where would barrack room lawyers be if real ones stick their nose in?



I thought my idea was so crazy, it just might work...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> OK.  I've done something novel.  It's crazy I know, but I've called a friend at JAG on this subject.  The initial response was, "Wow!  Good question.  We'll have to get back to you on that."  So, I'm waiting.  We'll have to see.  Hopefully, we'll be able to put this to bed soon.



Might help if you send him the link for the thread so he can see what's what.

Get back to us when you get an answer and a Mod will open this  :worms: back up, for his answer.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Wilamanjaro (21 Mar 2012)

I imagine that during MOC is where I could start living off base/school and my girlfriend and I could rent a house in the nearby city. Is this correct? If not, when is it possible? What are the procedures?


----------



## dangerboy (21 Mar 2012)

As a general rule it is usually not possible to do that until you have finished your trades training and are posted to your first unit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Mar 2012)

Wilamanjaro said:
			
		

> I imagine that during MOC is where I could start living off base/school and my girlfriend and I could rent a house in the nearby city. Is this correct? If not, when is it possible? What are the procedures?



Just to add something here, if you said what MOC you are going, perhaps there is a staff member from that Training Establishment, or a recently-former student/trainee, who could say "yes they allow/no they don't allow", etc.  Some TEs do, some TEs don't, so its hard to answer your question as you've presented it.

 :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2012)

Is she your girlfriend or your common law partner?  It makes a difference in terms of benefits.


----------



## RCDtpr (22 Mar 2012)

My info is a few years old but to give you a ballpark figure here.  I left for basic in Jan 2007 and arrived in Petawawa in Oct of that year.  So we were apart roughly 10 months.  Mine was a best case scenario though as I only spent 2 weeks in holding (pat platoon).  The stars sort of aligned for me by not spending much time in holding and then being in a trade where DP1 (moc training) is only another 13 weeks.

If you are in a trade that requires you to live in during your QL3's or DP1 I'd say it's safe to expect at least 10 months apart but probably longer than that.


----------



## jeffb (22 Mar 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> if you said what MOC you are going,



Looks like he's going to be a Vehicle Tech. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105005/post-1126132.html#msg1126132


----------



## ht90 (31 Mar 2012)

I did my QL3 in Esquimalt a couple years ago and most of my class were living out-of-base. The only thing you need to do is to send a memo and a request form up your CoC. The worst they can reply is No. In my situation they approved my request even though i had no dependents so I'm sure there won't be a problem in your situation having a wife.. Out of curiosity what trade are you?


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

We submitted an application to be recognized as common-law partners in late March to my partner's CO, and found out a month later that, after the application was sent to the JAG, it was rejected on two basis:

(1) Even though he has lived with me for over a year now (slept and consumed his meals at home with me, contributed to the maintenance and upkeep of the house, hosted parties here that his colleagues and boss attended, etc.), the military doesn't recognize it because he is in a "residential program". We however submitted written affirmations from friends and colleagues who attested to having witnessed us living together. We also submitted, as evidence of an existing precedent for this situation, the case of R v Acting Sub-Lieutenant J.J. Rotchford (he was accused of making a false statement in a document when he claimed to be living common-law with his spouse while at the same time paying ration and quarters at RMC, and was found not guilty). The military judge concluded that someone can pay rations and quarters while still live somewhere else. 
(2) Which brings me to point 2... We were told that this case is rejected as evidence for us because it was a martial law court case, not civil law.

We are now looking at finding out what we can do to appeal the decision. He will be posted two provinces away in less than 3 weeks so we are running out of time in terms of being able to have this relationship recognized by the CF and have his posting message reflect it. *How can we appeal this?* Have you ever heard of common law applications being rejected, for reasons other than the applicant was lying????? From what I've seen, there are several court cases where people falsely claimed to be living together - but that isn't the case for us. We've been living together for over a year and presenting ourselves as life partners, and we're both Canadian citizens (so no issues of trying to get together for visa purposes). Has an application that meets those criteria ever been rejected before??


----------



## luke_l (24 Apr 2013)

The marital status needs to be changed prior to the COS date on the message, so that is the date you need to worry about... I can almost guarantee that you won't resolve the common law issue in that amount of time.  Want to be reflected as a spouse for the purposes of the posting?  You might have to do it the "old fashioned" way...  March on down the court house, and get a justice of the peace to marry you.  Just check that what I said about the COS date is correct, I'm just going off of memory.


----------



## technophile (24 Apr 2013)

If you really want to live up to your username, and want the benefits, I suggest a trip to your local JP and get a marriage certificate.


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

Yes, I have seen such cases rejected but at the "CO" level.  Then on request from the member subsequently staffed to the AJAG for legal review.

As you don't go into detail regarding your "living" arrangements, it is hard to say just what the "actual" basis for rejection is and I would only be able to speculate at this point but I do have some ideas as to why.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

We'd love for nothing more than to make it legal and get married, but I was previously married. I applied for and got granted a divorce, but I won't get the divorce certificate until at least June, and you need the divorce certificate when you go to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license. So common-law was the only available option.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Apr 2013)

Strange as it sounds, have you considered going to a chaplain? One may be able to negotiate/work out a solution, or at least get your case reconsidered.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

No, we hadn't considered a chaplain. I'll discuss it with him tonight and see if we can go and talk to him. 

As for the living arrangement/situation: We're in the exact same situation as the court martial case we quoted. He's an OCdt, pays rations and quarters at RMC. I own a house, and he slept at my house every night for over a year. I pay the mortgage but he contributes what he can in terms of utilities/groceries/maintenance of the house. He has been up-front with his chain of command about the fact that he doesn't sleep or eat his evening meal at RMC (and it was recorded every day in the "sign out book"), and they had no issue with it. I have tried to find a definition of "living together" in regulations or the military administrative law manual but there is nothing I can find.


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Apr 2013)

QR&O 1.075 - COMMON-LAW PARTNER AND COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP

(1) This article applies to all regulations, orders and instructions issued to the Canadian Forces under the National Defence Act.

2) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this article.

"common-law partner", in relation to an officer or non-commissioned member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship

Etc, etc... and then:

4) For greater certainty, a common-law partnership does not end solely because the officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner are living separately for military reasons.

Stress on "military reasons..."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> I have tried to find a definition of "living together" in regulations or the military administrative law manual but there is nothing I can find.



CF Mil Admin Law Manual, Chap 27.  Section 3.


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Apr 2013)

BUT:

Beware this - CANFORGEN 008/11 CMP 002/11 191815Z JAN 11

1. THIS CANFORGEN IS PROMULGATED TO CLARIFY THE CF COMMON LAW PARTNERSHIP (CLP) POLICY. CLPS ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE CF FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING ACCESS TO ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS.

Etc, etc... and then:

2. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING CLP (REFS A TO C) CLEARLY STATE THAT COHABITATION IS A MANDATORY CRITERION THAT MUST BE SATISFIED IN ORDER FOR CLP TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CF. IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT CLP IS BEING RECOGNIZED FOR SOME CF MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN A CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS, BUT WHO ARE NOT COHABITING (I.E., THEY ARE PHYSICALLY APART) AT THE 12-MONTH MARK. IAW REF B, PARA 4.2, CLP SHALL ONLY BE RECOGNIZED AT THE 12-MONTH MARK IF THE CF MEMBER AND PARTNER ARE PHYSICALLY COHABITING. IF THEY ARE EXPERIENCING AN INTERRUPTION THAT SPANS THE 12-MONTH MARK, THEY MUST RESUME COHABITATION FOR THE CLP TO BE RECOGNIZED. A CLP SHALL NOT BE RECOGNIZED DURING THE INTERRUPTION OF COHABITATION, THAT IS TO SAY, WHEN THE COUPLE IS NOT PHYSICALLY LIVING TOGETHER, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON FOR THE INTERRUPTION.

Stress on "regardless of the reason for the interruption..."

Sorry!!


----------



## captloadie (24 Apr 2013)

I believe the issue you are running into is there is a difference in his CoC "being aware" that he was doing this, and he having actually sought out permission to do so. Had he submitted a memo requesting to live off campus grounds? Does he have anything official with your shared homes address on it (driver's license, lease/rent agreement, utilities bills)? Any of these would be hard evidence of cohabitation. If not, then, from the military's point of view, his place of residence was his room on the college.


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Apr 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> ... Had he submitted a memo requesting to live off campus grounds? Does he have anything official with your shared homes address on it (driver's license, lease/rent agreement, utilities bills)? Any of these would be hard evidence of cohabitation. If not, then, from the military's point of view, his place of residence was his room on the college.



This is a VERY good point...  Was "OCdt Bloggins" single and alone upon entrance to RMC?


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

His name is on the deed of the house and his driver liscence lists our address. He was single when he started at RMC


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> His name is on the deed of the house and his driver liscence lists our address.



This is a _good _ thing...


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> He was single when he started at RMC



This, however, may prove to be an issue if nar memo was produced...


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

Exactly as I thought.  Because you did not "establish" cohabitation, you do not meet the conditions for being granted Common-Law status.

As mentioned above, had he submitted a request to "live off campus" and that request were to have been granted, then you now have a "starting point" for establishing co-habitation.  Even though you have clearly demonstrated the relationship aspects of holding each other out to be "husband and wife" and have documents in each others names, the co-habitation thing will trump you everytime.

The last level of review is the AJAG and I don't think you have any recourse other than him submitting a Grievance, which will more than likely be turned down by the IA (his CO), in which case it would have to go to the CDS and that can take quite awhile.


----------



## jwtg (24 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Exactly as I thought.  Because you did not "establish" cohabitation, you do not meet the conditions for being granted Common-Law status.
> 
> As mentioned above, *had he submitted a request to "live off campus" and that request were to have been granted,* then you now have a "starting point" for establishing co-habitation.  Even though you have clearly demonstrated the relationship aspects of holding each other out to be "husband and wife" and have documents in each others names, the co-habitation thing will trump you everytime.
> 
> The last level of review is the AJAG and I don't think you have any recourse other than him submitting a Grievance, which will more than likely be turned down by the IA (his CO), in which case it would have to go to the CDS and that can take quite awhile.


It isn't very common for these requests to be granted at RMC.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

As of this year its impossible for these requests to be granted at RMC. The live-off program was cut, so even cadets who are married have to live-on. Only exceptions are for those with kids and Otter squadron.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> The last level of review is the AJAG and I don't think you have any recourse other than him submitting a Grievance, which will more than likely be turned down by the IA (his CO), in which case it would have to go to the CDS and that can take quite awhile.



Actually if AJAG was the decision-maker, I don't think the CO would be the IA; can a CO overturn a AJAG decision?  I could be wrong but it just doesn't strike me as the 'appropriate' IA and I am doubtful a CO would take it on willingly, assuming the "AJAG" level it was decided on was way above the ULA lvl.  That is just my WAG though, perhaps FJAG or someone will wander thru here for some perspective from that world.  I'd be interested to see who DGCFGA assigned as IA though, and if it went to FA lvl, would it be a CFGB referral (discretionary).

Fully agree on griev timeline, especially for one that is going to likely *go the distance*.  I'd suggest you are looking at about an 18 month timeline, assuming no major speedbumps or quick resolution.   :2c:


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> As of this year its impossible for these requests to be granted at RMC. The live-off program was cut, so even cadets who are married have to live-on. Only exceptions are for those with kids and Otter squadron.



So you now need to have a serious discussion and decide what you want to do, as you mentioned that he is leaving shortly.

Also, because of the AJAG ruling, you cannot try and claim Common-Law at a later date because you still have the cohabitation problem.  There are also other administrative issues down the road which may come up if the two of you do decide to get married after he is posted, which I am inclined not to mention as these should not form part of your discussions.


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Actually if AJAG was the decision-maker, I don't think the CO would be the IA; can a CO overturn a AJAG decision?  I could be wrong but it just doesn't strike me as the 'appropriate' IA and I am doubtful a CO would take it on willingly, assuming the "AJAG" level it was decided on was way above the ULA lvl.  That is just my WAG though, perhaps FJAG or someone will wander thru here for some perspective from that world.  I'd be interested to see who DGCFGA assigned as IA though, and if it went to FA lvl, would it be a CFGB referral (discretionary).
> 
> Fully agree on griev timeline, especially for one that is going to likely *go the distance*.  I'd suggest you are looking at about an 18 month timeline, assuming no major speedbumps or quick resolution.   :2c:



The approving authority for CL Status is the members Commanding Officer.  The AJAG is merely the consultant in this case and has provided legal advice to the CO on which to allow him to make a decision.  So it is "technically" not the AJAG that turned this down, it is the CO who denied the request based on the AJAG's advice.

The CO would, in my opinion, therefore be the IA and the legal advice would form part of the file which would be forwarded to the CDS for final review, shoudl the member choose to grieve it.

I would have to take a closer look at the Grievance regulations as it is entirely possible that the IA may very well be the next level above the CO or whom ever it was that denied the request.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2013)

Ack!  I misread or misunderstood; I thought the CO had approved and *after* that, AJAG denied.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

We're aware of the issues that would arise if we got married once he's posted out... that we would have "chosen" to "start" our relationship when we're separated and while he's paying rations and quarters, that we'd have to continue to be separated and pay out quarters until his next posting.


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> We're aware of the issues that would arise if we got married once he's posted out... that we would have "chosen" to "start" our relationship when we're separated and while he's paying rations and quarters, that we'd have to continue to be separated and pay out quarters until his next posting.



That's only one part of the equation.  What about the fact that he will need to relocate you eventually, at "his own expense" and that there also exists the possibility that Real Estate and Legal fees to sell "your" home may not be reimburseable, even though his name is on the deed, because he never "occupied" the residence.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

Well that's exactly what we're talking about, there are significant financial implications, especially if I decide to follow him to this posting and pay for it on my own (then we potentially have 2 cross-country moves to finance on our own)


----------



## DAA (24 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> Well that's exactly what we're talking about, there are significant financial implications, especially if I decide to follow him to this posting and pay for it on my own (then we potentially have 2 cross-country moves to finance on our own)



He is covered, while you are not.  I was hesistant to even bring the financial aspects up because "money" is always a touchy subject and did not want to see the two of you basing your personal decisions on "what if's" and "how much will it cost".  Sometimes $$$ is the maker of bad decisions.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the two of you are considering all aspects and possibilities.


----------



## PAdm (24 Apr 2013)

I can see why it was denied, and I would agree.  The fundamental criteria were not met.  As you have no starting point for your relationship clock, I do not see it being recognized.  You have to remember that dating or living together is not the same as holding yourself as husband and wife.  I have seen a number of applications where folks try to say their year as husband a wife started soon after they started dating. They thought that because they were living together for e.g. 15 mths, they were good to go.  Not true and COs will deny.  Common Law requires very little for a mbr to have the same status and privileges from a benefits perspective than someone who actually gets married and puts a commitment in a public forum - thus the need for scrutiny.  While there is a definite need for common law, some folks try to hold a casual or very new relationship as common law just in order to gain access to a significant benefit package.

My intent with this post is not to judge your arrangement or question your commitment or personal situation.  I just wanted to provide comment as to why the CF scrutinizes common law applications.


----------



## armywife2013 (24 Apr 2013)

I understand that there are rules, but we have been living together, and presenting ourselves as life partners, and intend to get married when we legally can... what I don't understand is the rationale for the decision that was given to us, since its based on the fact that he pays R&Qs at RMC, but there is legal precedence in R v Acting Sub-Lieutenant J.J. Rotchford that you can pay R&Q but not actually live there. We have both signed affidavits as to the nature of our relationship and the start date of us living together, which is a legal document that should be weighted in establishing the start date of the "living together". We even had in our application a sworn affidavit from our former roommate in the first apartment that we lived in!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2013)

Bottom line is even if all that is true you both screwed up by not having him file something official and now it's time to start living with that and making future plans.
Sorry......


----------



## jwtg (24 Apr 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bottom line is even if all that is true you both screwed up* by not having him file something official* and now it's time to start living with that and making future plans.
> Sorry......


What do you mean by official?  Do you mean a request to live off campus?  Or the request to be recognized as common law? 

To the OP, I know you said that requests to live off are never granted at RMC anymore; did you guys submit one?


----------



## Shamrock (24 Apr 2013)

jwtg said:
			
		

> What do you mean by official?  Do you mean a request to live off campus?  Or the request to be recognized as common law?
> 
> To the OP, I know you said that requests to live off are never granted at RMC anymore; did you guys submit one?



When I moved in with my (now) wife, I submitted a memo.  Subject line, "Intent to form common-law relationship"


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Apr 2013)

jwtg said:
			
		

> What do you mean by official?  Do you mean a request to live off campus?  Or the request to be recognized as common law?
> 
> To the OP, I know you said that requests to live off are never granted at RMC anymore; did you guys submit one?



And that's probably the problem right there.  If the mbr did not submit a request to live off campus, his "residence" was the campus, at least to the CF.  Whether or not he paid R&Q and/or didn't spend his night there would be a moot point.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## DAA (25 Apr 2013)

If anyone is interested, have a look at CANFORGEN 008/11 which amplifies Mil Pers Instr 15/06.  The CANFORGEN provides additional guidance and clarification regarding CL Status requirements.


----------



## BinRat55 (25 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested, have a look at CANFORGEN 008/11 which amplifies Mil Pers Instr 15/06.  The CANFORGEN provides additional guidance and clarification regarding CL Status requirements.



Crap man - welcome to the thread!! I quoted that yesterday, about 20 posts back!!  :nod:  I also brought up the very valid point of "OCdt Bloggins failed to request to live on the economy VIA memo" I believe this is the sticking point here - ArmyWife, you have to understand that it is a matter of protocol and paperwork. I know you are trying to battle with a "my sworn word should be good" defence, but the bottom line is if I DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION to move out of the shacks, my CoC will not recognize anything until I do. VIA Memorandum. Especially RMC.


----------



## PAdm (25 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> but there is legal precedence in R v Acting Sub-Lieutenant J.J. Rotchford ......



Please appreciate that this is an admin process and not a legal one. I have been doing admin for 25 years now and the millisecond someone makes any reference to legal precedent I immediately suspend both the file and the conversation as I am not a lawyer and cannot have the conversation. As I read this thread, the Cf believes his place of residence is R&Q as there is nothing formal requesting otherwise. We live and die with our paperwork. This is a classic case of inadequate paper trail. The mbr can redress and perhaps emerge vindicated when the CDS renders a decision in your favour in 2 yrs time. Welcome to the CF. just chat with my wife and she can tell you all about the wacky world you are entering. While there is tremendous reward with the military lifestyle, come to grips with the fact that life is not fair or timely. We live by BOHICA - bend over here it comes again.


----------



## 392 (26 Apr 2013)

armywife2013 said:
			
		

> No, we hadn't considered a chaplain. I'll discuss it with him tonight and see if we can go and talk to him.
> 
> As for the living arrangement/situation: We're in the exact same situation as the court martial case we quoted. He's an OCdt, pays rations and quarters at RMC. I own a house, and he slept at my house every night for over a year. I pay the mortgage but he contributes what he can in terms of utilities/groceries/maintenance of the house. He has been up-front with his chain of command about the fact that he doesn't sleep or eat his evening meal at RMC (and it was recorded every day in the "sign out book"), and they had no issue with it. I have tried to find a definition of "living together" in regulations or the military administrative law manual but there is nothing I can find.



What was his primary address listed in Peoplesoft one year ago? If it was your address, you may have some additional ammo to redress this. That being said, if he did not request to live out (and odds are because he didn't, his primary address is most likely RMC) and his primary address in Peoplesoft is still either where his F&E are or RMC, they will start the 1 year clock from when his residence officially changed in HRMS. 

Guaranteed once the CL paperwork went up, the first thing the Chief Clerk did was open up Peoplesoft to confirm the date of residence change to the one he said he was "living at". I know both times I claimed CL status, Peoplesoft was the first place the clerks looked after my memo was submitted to confirm what I was saying. Things were very different in my case because in both instances I was already living out, but the process isn't.  :2c:

Edit because I removed the last of my last sentence before hitting "send"  :facepalm:


----------



## ances (29 Jun 2013)

I'm hoping someone might be able to help me out.

I'm entering 4th year at RMC this summer and will be a MSEO. I met my girlfriend 2 years ago ago on basic training, she is an army LOGO and posted to pet. When I graduate this year I will be off to Halifax for training an then serving on a ship. We want to get posted together. she has already tried an elemental change with no luck. I'm now going to pursue a VOT to EME. The problem is, even if successful there is no guarantees of being posted to pet. (Yes I understand there are never any guarantee,  and you go where you are needed). However we have no way to improve the odds I.e can't pursue common law because we are posted to different bases. Besides getting married (or having a child) is there any way to hedge the bet?


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

ances said:
			
		

> I'm hoping someone might be able to help me out.
> 
> I'm entering 4th year at RMC this summer and will be a MSEO. I met my girlfriend 2 years ago ago on basic training, she is an army LOGO and posted to pet. When I graduate this year I will be off to Halifax for training an then serving on a ship. We want to get posted together. she has already tried an elemental change with no luck. I'm now going to pursue a VOT to EME. The problem is, even if successful there is no guarantees of being posted to pet. (Yes I understand there are never any guarantee,  and you go where you are needed). However we have no way to improve the odds I.e can't pursue common law because we are posted to different bases. Besides getting married (or having a child) is there any way to hedge the bet?



Until you're married or common law, she does not exist to the CF and the vice versa for her.


----------



## PAdm (29 Jun 2013)

Prairiethunder made point 1. Until you are married, there is no conversation. 

2.  Once married, DMilC will try to co-locate if at all possible, but service needs rule. Co-location can be Pet-Ottawa vice under one roof. By being a MSC, you must appreciate you are knowingly choosing a very difficult path. 

3.  If your "soul mate" has to be in uniform, you again have to appreciate that your career path is driven by uniform colour and MOS.  the reality is a field engineer marrying a sea log officer will never be co-located. This would be an example of a bad combination from the get go. You are entering a similar path. She has a set career path that will not be able to intersect with yours for many years even if you marry today. And my opinion is that as you will undoubtedly try to force the paths to merge, one of you will be sacrificing your career. One of you will have to accept lesser jobs to be near the other.  The CF does not like complications. The CF would be happier/more able to cope if you married the girl next door. 

In summary, I am not criticizing or judging. As an HR guy, I just want you to know you are looking to follow a very difficult path that the CF will never be able to fully facilitate. You cannot hedge this bet so make decisions now vice be unhappy in three years time when you are trying to start a family via long distance. 

Good luck.


----------



## grizzly25 (6 Jan 2015)

I have been living for now a year with my girlfriend under the same roof. Just don't know what proof the CF needs to become common law ? These are the ones we have ; driver's licence , health card , bank statement, insurance policie , a letter from CFHA saying she's living with me , all these showing the same address.  

Thanks !!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2015)

Unit requirements seem to vary, might be good to enquire thru your Orderly Room on what your CO has set as the acceptable supporting documents.  Having said that, I'd also look up the regs and see what the CAF requirements are as well;  my experience is units like to make their own shit up.  In one former relationship I was in years ago, my CO signed off and recognized my CLS but CFLRS refused to (at the PO2 level in the clerk world; my now-ex was attending trg there as a DEO).  However, once my units Admin O called the CFLRS Admin O, the problem mysteriously went away...


----------



## grizzly25 (6 Jan 2015)

ok thanks but anybody would know where to get the answer? Which section ?  It has to be wrote down somewhere I guess .


----------



## Ayrsayle (6 Jan 2015)

ETIS was hinting at the problem with it just being "written down somewhere" - it will be in your best interest to actually go speak with your orderly room to find out exactly what THEY will need to see before they confirm it.

To my understanding (and how it worked for me): you will need to make a declaration of your Common Law status (and provide proof) - which in turn gets signed off on by the CO (or designated authority) who confirms they are satisfied with your claim of being common law.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2015)

Yeah, I had an issue with this but it was more than several years ago.  IIRC there was a CANFORGEN that clarified/amplified the CLS requirements in the past few years.  However, being home I can't get to the DWAN to give an exact ref right now BUT your OR should have it and also know what unit specific direction says.

I thought there was a DAOD on CLS but...I didn't see one.  Not a 100% answer but...should have you firing on the right target at least to start with (unit OR).


----------



## Tibbson (6 Jan 2015)

I don't have the exact references but I was involved in a matter one time in which someone's Common Law status (not mine) was an issue.  At one time you needed to swear a document before your CO (or his/her designate) saying you were living with your partner for so long and that you not considered yourself in a Common Law relationship and then you had to reverse the process if it dissolved by swearing a document saying you were no longer living in a Common Law relationship.  Then the policy got to be that you just had to make the verbal declaration (tell your OR) stating you were no longer living Common Law if it fell apart.  

To top that all off there was some issues between the criteria by which the CAF considered someone to be living Common Law and what various Provinces required.  Did the CAF declaration of Common Law status apply only to someone's service estate and dealings with the CAF or did it apply also to matters outside the CAF?  If the time requirements for living together before being Common Law were different between the CAF policy and provincial standards...which one applied?  Especially in cases where the Common Law status was dissolved, or was believed to be dissolved between the parties.  It had the potential to be a real mess and in at least one case that came before a federal inquiry it was a real mess and the inquiry has yet to make it's final findings.

The long and sort of it all is that you are best served to consult your own OR staff and get the answer from them in order to ensure the answer is in line with both CAF policy and what ever Provincial policy you fall under.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2015)

There is a Military Personnel Instruction that provides additional details.  I recommend going to the CMP DWAN homepage, select the Mil Pers Instructions link, and read the Common Law policy document.


----------



## DAA (7 Jan 2015)

CANFORGEN 008/11 outlines the Common-Law Partnership (CLP) requirements for recognition.

CLP is a very "testy" topic and one which usually isn't administered properly.  Unit CO's are the recognizing authority and when in doubt, should seek local AJAG guidance prior to denying a request.  You'd be surprised just how many times an AJAG will recommend recognition of a previously denied request for CLP status.


----------



## bruyns (22 Dec 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Good luck - my only advice to you - get married or be common-law before he signs up - make sure he claims you as his dependent before signing the line.



Can anyone elaborate on this? I leave next month for BMOQ as a DEO pilot and my GF and her son have been living with me for 2 years. She is separated not officially divorced and I didn't see the point in claiming common law status. Are their a lot of benefits to doing it before I leave? I was planning on doing it before I leave for Moose Jaw assuming she still wanted to accompany me.

I'm aware I would get $120 a month less in deductions at BMOQ, are there other benefits?


----------



## bruyns (22 Dec 2015)

Thanks for the links, but unfortunately they were no help for my question as the information had nothing to do with if there are benefits to declaring common law before BMOQ rather than at a later point in time. I am already aware of the pay bump and that the dependents would have more benefits, but the post earlier made it seem like it was important to declare common law status before basic so I was wondering if there was any other reason for that.

I also came to the realization it would be impossible anyways since my GF lost her birth certificate and it is required for me to bring it to BMOQ if I am naming her a dependent so I will stick to my plan of naming her as common law in the future and forgo the extra few bucks I could have made while in St. Jean.


----------



## BC Old Guy (23 Dec 2015)

The rules may have changed since I retired.  The reason to be married or common-law before BMOQ//BMQ was if you are married you would qualify for a cost move of spouse and dependents.  Of course, then you have to be authorized for the move.  If married after enrollment, you would be responsible for the cost of their move.

BCOG


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Dec 2015)

bruyns said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links, but unfortunately they were no help for my question as the information had nothing to do with if there are benefits to declaring common law before BMOQ rather than at a later point in time. I am already aware of the pay bump and that the dependents would have more benefits, but the post earlier made it seem like it was important to declare common law status before basic so I was wondering if there was any other reason for that.
> 
> I also came to the realization it would be impossible anyways since my GF lost her birth certificate and it is required for me to bring it to BMOQ if I am naming her a dependent so I will stick to my plan of naming her as common law in the future and forgo the extra few bucks I could have made while in St. Jean.



Bruyns - as BC said, upon completion of your training (BMOQ, Phases...) on your initial posting to where ever DND will pay to move you. If you are not at least common law they will not pay for her and son. Trust me - just that alone makes a big difference. Add to this - if you are planning to get a PMQ - well, you're single aren't you? Now think about the 80% coverage in drugs for her and the boy. Not a dependant? Pay out of pocket. What happens (knock wood) if you're injured while on BMOQ? SOL for any type of care for your non-dependants.

The cost of replacing the lost birth certificate - $30. The benefit of adding her as a dependant - well beyond the 30 bucks!

Now, all that is well and good but the bottom line is only do it if you're ready to commit to that relationship. Weigh the seriousness to your bachelor ways. That's from a heart standpoint. But if you are going to do it anyway, my simple opinion would be to do it now. My  :2c:


----------



## runormal (23 Dec 2015)

Regardless of anything related to the military finalize the flipping divorce. Do it while people aren't bitter. It can come back to bite you. My aunt is currently crawling back to my uncle to try and get more money out of him now years after.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Dec 2015)

bruyns said:
			
		

> She is separated not officially divorced and I didn't see the point in claiming common law status.


It simplifies things that polygamy has been upheld as illegal in Canada; you cannot be common-law 'married' to a person already legally married. It's a non-starter.


----------



## bruyns (23 Dec 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Bruyns - as BC said, upon completion of your training (BMOQ, Phases...) on your initial posting to where ever DND will pay to move you. If you are not at least common law they will not pay for her and son. Trust me - just that alone makes a big difference. Add to this - if you are planning to get a PMQ - well, you're single aren't you? Now think about the 80% coverage in drugs for her and the boy. Not a dependant? Pay out of pocket. What happens (knock wood) if you're injured while on BMOQ? SOL for any type of care for your non-dependants.
> 
> The cost of replacing the lost birth certificate - $30. The benefit of adding her as a dependant - well beyond the 30 bucks!
> 
> Now, all that is well and good but the bottom line is only do it if you're ready to commit to that relationship. Weigh the seriousness to your bachelor ways. That's from a heart standpoint. But if you are going to do it anyway, my simple opinion would be to do it now. My  :2c:



Thanks for the responses 

For the above she has looked at getting her birth certificate, but needs a guarantor that has known her for 2 years with a certain profession and not living in Barrie long she didn't have anyone. We do have someone now so there is a chance that she could have it before I leave JAN 16th.

I definitely would need to declare common law before my first posting and that makes complete sense. I am a home owner and have her tax return from 2014 with her name and my address on it so proof we live together is taken care of. Her and her son have native status so they already have some benefits through that so I wasn't that concerned with the benefits while I'm away. I also have asked that she finalize her divorce before we declare common law, but her ex is refusing to sign the papers she sent which complicates things further. I did read in the links posted above that separated people can still declare common law status so it shouldn't be an issue and there are ways to finalize a divorce when one partner refuses too.


----------



## Pusser (26 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It simplifies things that polygamy has been upheld as illegal in Canada; you cannot be common-law 'married' to a person already legally married. It's a non-starter.



Not true.  Having a spouse does not prevent anyone from having a common-law relationship with someone else (as long as the spouses are separated).  The QR&O states:

1.075 - COMMON-LAW PARTNER AND COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP
(1) This article applies to all regulations, orders and instructions issued to the Canadian Forces under the National Defence Act.

(2) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this article.

"common-law partner" (conjoint de fait)
in relation to an officer or non-commissioned member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship
for a period of at least one year; or
for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child.

"common-law partnership" (union de fait)
means the relationship between an officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner of that member.

(3) In the definition "common-law partner", child means a child or legal ward of the common-law partner or the member or both, or an individual adopted legally or in fact by the common-law partner or the member or both.

(4) For greater certainty, a common-law partnership does not end solely because the officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner are living separately for military reasons.

*(5) When an officer or non-commissioned member has a spouse from whom the member is separated and a common-law partner, a reference to a "spouse or common-law partner" in respect of that member means the common-law partner.*

(G) [P.C. 2001-1508 effective 1 September 2001]


----------



## Journeyman (26 Dec 2015)

I stand corrected.


----------



## GearHead (18 Jan 2016)

hi, I'm trying to get common law status for my partner and I. We have a 5 month old son and have a joint bank account and a lease together. The problem I'm having is my recruiter tells me I need a piece of mail, bill or something with our address on it for them to sign off on our common law status. The only mail that comes to our address is the power bill which is in my name. We've lived together in other places and our lease is always a year and to be constantly changing addresses and re routing mail would be a headache so we both left it at our parents until we purchase a house and won't be moving every year. Am I wrong to assume a lease, joint bank account, and joint responsibility of our 5 month old son is enough to declare common law?


----------



## GearHead (18 Jan 2016)

Thank you for your response. However they require the bill to be back dated a year. Which isn't going to happen as there's only the one bill in my name for power. I think a piece of mail is an inadequate assumption that 2 ppl are in a marriage like relationship. A joint bank account, a lease and a child should be enough to establish common law but he said the captain won't sign without a piece of mail back dated a year with this address and our names on it. I'm not about to sign as single when I clearly have her and the child as dependants just because they don't want to recognize it due to not having a piece of mail.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Jan 2016)

Not a recruiter, but if you have a child with your spouse, you just need to prove you live together.  It doesn't have to be for a year. Change the name on your bill to both your names and you'll be fine.


----------



## Pusser (19 Jan 2016)

Not a recruiter, but I have some expertise in this area.  The applicable regulation (QR&O 1.075) is clear:

*1.075 - COMMON-LAW PARTNER AND COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP*

(1) This article applies to all regulations, orders and instructions issued to the Canadian Forces under the National Defence Act.

(2) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this article.

*"common-law partner"* (conjoint de fait)in relation to an officer or non-commissioned member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship 

a.  for a period of at least one year; or

b.  *for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child*.

* "common-law partnership"* (union de fait)means the relationship between an officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner of that member.

 (3) In the definition "common-law partner", child means a child or legal ward of the common-law partner or the member or both, or an individual adopted legally or in fact by the common-law partner or the member or both.

(4) For greater certainty, a common-law partnership does not end solely because the officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner are living separately for military reasons.

(5) When an officer or non-commissioned member has a spouse from whom the member is separated and a common-law partner, a reference to a "spouse or common-law partner" in respect of that member means the common-law partner.

*(G) [P.C. 2001-1508 effective 1 September 2001*]

Your child's birth certificate showing your name as a parent should suffice, especially when combined with a bank statement for a joint account (it would have both names on it).  If you get electronic statements, simply print one off or ask your bank to give you one.  In this case, the dates on any of these documents are irrelevant (because you have a child together).  You don't need a piece of mail.  The list of acceptable things proving of a common-law relationship (that the Recruiting Centre seems to be using) is only a list of examples.  It is not all-inclusive, nor is it exhaustive.  The person telling you that you need a piece of mail is quite frankly, wrong (although I wouldn't advise you tell them that quite so bluntly).  If the "captain won't sign off on it," politely ask why, considering that the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, state that what you have is sufficient.


----------



## da1root (19 Jan 2016)

Good Day,

I'm a Recruiter and a Clerk.
  
Pusser's post is 100% accurate, when you have a child together you do not to be living together for a year, the birth of child makes it so that legally in the eyes of the military you are Common Law.
As a clerk all I've ever asked for in that case is a copy of the birth certificate with both names on it and I drafted the appropriate paperwork for the Commanding Officer to sign granting Common Law status.

If you have further issues with claiming Common Law status please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

Cheers,
Sgt Laen


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2016)

Saw this in Ask a CAF Recruiter. Adding it here for future reference,

Common law requirements  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/121767/post-1412222/topicseen.html



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Not a recruiter, but I have some expertise in this area.  The applicable regulation (QR&O 1.075) is clear:
> 
> *1.075 - COMMON-LAW PARTNER AND COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP*
> 
> ...





			
				Sergeant Laen said:
			
		

> I'm a Recruiter and a Clerk.
> 
> Pusser's post is 100% accurate, when you have a child together you do not to be living together for a year, the birth of child makes it so that legally in the eyes of the military you are Common Law.
> As a clerk all I've ever asked for in that case is a copy of the birth certificate with both names on it and I drafted the appropriate paperwork for the Commanding Officer to sign granting Common Law status.


----------



## opcougar (1 Feb 2016)

Late to the discussion, but just a couple of things single guys hooking up with women with kids need to know.

1. Quebec is the ONLY province in Canada that doesn't recognize common law. The owner of cirque soleil won a landmark case that went all the way to the supreme court and set a precedent in the last couple of years. He didn't have to pay alimony to his Brazilian gold digger gf, she only got child support

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unmarried-quebec-couples-have-no-right-to-alimony-court-rules-1.1322347







http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/quebec-court-decision-means-common-law-spouses-can-sue-for-alimony/article1784205/

2. If you hook up with someone with kid(s), and even though they are already collecting child support from bio dad, they can come after you (new guy) for double-dipping child support if you had that kid as a dependent, disciplined (not beat) the kid, attended PTA, went on vacay together, kid called you daddy/mommy, etc.....look up in-loco parentis (i.e step parent) child support cases

3. This is something nobody tells you and you just find out the hard way after. A lot of the women going round doing this, know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt.

4. Don't let sex cloud your judgement, and even worse if the person doesn't work as you will have to pay child support and alimony, which can leave you with nothing after your wages is being garnished via the OR.

Checkout this federal table for child support alone, without spousal support / alimony. You wonder why some men have turned to alcohol and drugs due to their own ignorance, and letting looks/sex get the better of them.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/fcsg-lfpae/2011/pdf/ona.pdf

Step-parent trap

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/InLocoParentis.aspx







			
				bruyns said:
			
		

> Can anyone elaborate on this? I leave next month for BMOQ as a DEO pilot and my GF and her son have been living with me for 2 years. She is separated not officially divorced and I didn't see the point in claiming common law status. Are their a lot of benefits to doing it before I leave? I was planning on doing it before I leave for Moose Jaw assuming she still wanted to accompany me.
> 
> I'm aware I would get $120 a month less in deductions at BMOQ, are there other benefits?


----------



## Pusser (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> 4. Don't let sex cloud your judgement, and even worse if the person doesn't work as you will have to pay child support and alimony, which can leave you with nothing after your wages is being garnished via the OR.



Good advice, but please be careful.  The OR does not garnish anybody's wages.  They simply execute a court order and have no input whatsoever into the decision.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

You are right. Let me clarify what I meant: The OR gets sent a copy of the court order by the family responsibility office (FRO in Ontario) or Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP in Alberta), if/after they've made an attempt to contact the payor with no luck i.e. deadbeat

Some people pay their CS voluntarily to the payee, with both parties opting out of the FRO and MEP process.

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/familyResponsibility/Recipient/delayed_payments.aspx

https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/mep/Pages/default.asp

Just to add, it doesn't end at child support....there is also section 7 payments ( funds towards extracurricular activities, medical, dental, education, etc).

All this for kid(s) that isn't your own, and whom you might not get to see if the mother is a vindictive type who believes in alienating you.




			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Good advice, but please be careful.  The OR does not garnish anybody's wages.  They simply execute a court order and have no input whatsoever into the decision.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> ...A lot of the women going round doing this, know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt.



After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.   :


----------



## captloadie (2 Feb 2016)

And if you were involved enough in their lives to attend PTA meetings and have them call you Daddy, wouldn't you want the best for them, regardless of your feelings for their mother?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2016)

Strike said:
			
		

> After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.   :



Although he does come across as "just a little bitter".   He is partially correct as I remember being privy to conversations where the girls were deciding who they wanted to impregnate them in Pet back in the 80's. [18 years mothers allowance]  One girl said she wouldn't even be telling him as she had her sights on a 'good guy' but wanted this guys looks for the child, and I know that is how it worked out for her.

 But to even the rhetoric, I'm sure that if men could get pregnant there would be the same scenario happening that way so it's not that we wouldn't..........

"Of course it's yours Halle Berry, you're the only girl I've ever been with." ;D


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Although he does come across as "just a little bitter".   He is partially correct as I remember being privy to conversations where the girls were deciding who they wanted to impregnate them in Pet back in the 80's. [18 years mothers allowance]  One girl said she wouldn't even be telling him as she had her sights on a 'good guy' but wanted this guys looks for the child, and I know that is how it worked out for her.
> 
> But to even the rhetoric, I'm sure that if men could get pregnant there would be the same scenario happening that way so it's not that we wouldn't..........
> 
> "Of course it's yours Halle Berry, you're the only girl I've ever been with." ;D



The equivalent would be the guy that does SFA while the wife works, cooks, cleans, shovels, etc.

And yes, there are guys that are like that as well, but you don't see women painting all guys with that same brush and it's unfair to do that to women.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2016)

That was me agreeing with you Strike......I brought it back to "some'.  Just like some guys would......if they could.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That was me agreeing with you Strike......I brought it back to "some'.  Just like some guys would......if they could.



Call me hormonal.    32 weeks down and less than 8 to go before I spontaneously lose at least 10 lbs.

Consider this a reason for the snarkiness of my previous posts and a warning that my future posts are just going to get worse.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Ideally yes, but do you enjoy paying for a car you are not driving? Oh wait...you are going to tell me it's different?



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> And if you were involved enough in their lives to attend PTA meetings and have them call you Daddy, wouldn't you want the best for them, regardless of your feelings for their mother?


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Hmmm...since when does "a lot of women that go round doing this", equate to ALL WOMEN? Perhaps you should read my post agin, rather than just knee-jerk a reaction. Quebec has it right, and am sure if people knew of all this money grab taht awaits them if things go South, many might think twice before taking the leap.

What is the incentive for someone collecting payments for the next 18yrs from 2, 3 4 guys wanting to go back to work? NONE



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.   :


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Feb 2016)

Wow....just....wow. And I can't even blame hormones....or maybe I can... :


----------



## captloadie (2 Feb 2016)

When I right off a vehicle, or trade it in for a new model, I might shed a tear, but I don't worry about how its doing after I hand over the keys. I'd support my kids, any and all of them, until my last breath.

Yes, there vindictive ex-spouses and baby mommas out there, but guess what, when you bring a life into this world, or take responsibility for that life, your 50% responsible for the rest of yours. Maybe if more parents took on this mind set, we'd have less troubled kids out there.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

The archaic laws have to change. In some States in the US....50-50 parenting after a marriage breakdown is the de-facto until one party can reasonable prove (no hearsay) that the other parent shouldn't have their kid(s). In Canada most of the time, the system is skewed / bias towards one party. If the courts make it that both parents get to keep the kids (unless one doesn't want to), then the mentality will change. The length some peopel will go to get full table amount is mind blowing...allegations, etc. Point in case: False allegations is what made this case (Gregory Alan Elliott not guilty in Twitter harassment case) collapse, They were making false allegations he was sexually assaulting 13 yr old girls or something....Pretty ridiculous.... 

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016oncj35.html

The story below is sad and of a vindictive nature

http://www.wkyc.com/news/nation-now/dallas-dad-not-guilty-for-taking-tween-daughters-phone/23249542


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Again....the point made is with regards to step-parent, which is what the person going off to basic above is. I am responsible for my child also and every sane/rational parent should be. Also a kid(s) have rights to have both parents in their lives without one parent using spitefulness to alienate the kids (hapens in many divorce cases).

Again, nobody likes paying for something that isn't theirs, especially if you are not given a chance to be part of it. Our current system allows for people to just go round hooking up, and later expect the new spouse to payout on top of what they are currently getting i.e. double, triple dipping. The system is whack.




			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> When I right off a vehicle, or trade it in for a new model, I might shed a tear, but I don't worry about how its doing after I hand over the keys. I'd support my kids, any and all of them, until my last breath.
> 
> Yes, there vindictive ex-spouses and baby mommas out there, but guess what, when you bring a life into this world, or take responsibility for that life, your 50% responsible for the rest of yours. Maybe if more parents took on this mind set, we'd have less troubled kids out there.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Again, nobody likes paying for something that isn't theirs, especially if you are not given a chance to be part of it. Our current system allows for people to just go round hooking up, and later expect the new spouse to payout on top of what they are currently getting i.e. double, triple dipping. The system is whack.



Or...again, nobody likes people who get in above their heads who realize that parenting isn't for them even though it's expected when they get involved with a person with kids.  Our current system makes sure that these people are left accountable for affecting more than the lives of grown adults so hopefully they take some responsibility for their actions.

My friend, the pendulum swings both ways and, even though you're going to rebut that, well, of course it does and you NEVER suggested otherwise, your posts suggest quite the opposite.

If you're going to provide advice to the poster please try to do so without inflicting your personal biases and feelings about how the laws need to be 'fixed.'


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Feb 2016)

op:


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

I don't have any vested interest in the whole matter, but I have had to deal with people who were going through the unforeseen circumstances. Yes it swings both ways, but how many of the collectors of all these payments, will themselves like to be dishing out payments every month?

If you think the money being paid actually goes to the kid(s), then you are deluded.

A lot of people that get into relationship don't see past the sex, and some just do it becaus ethey are useless on their own due to how they've been raised. Some people always have to be in relationships, and they don't care what the circumstances are as long as they are getting laid when they can get it. Each to their own, but you only have yourself to blame is you shack up with someone that doesn't work or have any markatable skills.

The federal child support guidelines and alimony calculations should be taught as a class in high school just like sex ed




			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Or...again, nobody likes people who get in above their heads who realize that parenting isn't for them even though it's expected when they get involved with a person with kids.  Our current system makes sure that these people are left accountable for affecting more than the lives of grown adults so hopefully they take some responsibility for their actions.
> 
> My friend, the pendulum swings both ways and, even though you're going to rebut that, well, of course it does and you NEVER suggested otherwise, your posts suggest quite the opposite.
> 
> If you're going to provide advice to the poster please try to do so without inflicting your personal biases and feelings about how the laws need to be 'fixed.'


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> I don't have any vested interest in the whole matter, but I have had to deal with people who were going through the unforeseen circumstances.  . . . . .



Yeah sure, but your bitterness (skewed?) point of view comes through every time you enter a discussion that even marginally touches on marriage breakdown.  In your post that touched off this latest contretemps, you label of one of the parties in the legal battle that you use as an example of Quebec's right approach as "his Brazilian gold digger gf" and even include a photo of the other party to that legal action (with his "current" girlfriend).  Since the current one is also a model (ex-model?) who the Canadian billionaire also met and hooked up with at the age of 17 and has since had a couple of children together, there seems to be a pattern.  Is she also a gold digger? Though the two women seem to be almost identical in appearance (except for their ages - trade in for a newer model comes to mind), there is a difference.  Hopefully, there must have been some emotional aspect to the relationships that the gentleman in question formed with these ladies.

No, I don't follow social media or the sex lives of the ultra rich and sleazy, but I was wondering why you included a picture that was not in the linked news article and identified an individual even though the article stated "a court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names" .  Since I rarely take anything spewed out on the internet at face value, it didn't take much to find on the internet (ironic, I know) enough to identify the inconsistencies of your post.  I only bring it to light, not that I have a "vested interest in the matter" ( ;D), but, because if there is a Canadian court order that precludes identifying the individuals in the case, the owner of this site may be open to legal action due to your post.  You could have just as easily cited the CBC article as background to your argument without including a visual example (mistaken though it was in the identity of the woman) of a "gold digger" or the identities of the parties involved.

Now, excuse me while I go award your post negative milpoints.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

The Brazilian giflfriend mother of his kids who wanted more than she was being offered is the same person. Yes there was a publication ban, but in this day and age you don't have to look far to get pictures. I don't follow the ultra rich either, and the discussion only came up in relation to Quebec where common law is not recognized when it comes to alimony.

Trying to put up smoking mirrors by you doesn't take away from the fact that most men getting into relationship with or without people with kids, don't seem to see past the sex. I insist that if many are shown the child support table and what they might end up paying if things go South, many will think twice.

Oh....I don't do social media of any kind and don't have a Facebook account.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Yeah sure, but your bitterness (skewed?) point of view comes through every time you enter a discussion that even marginally touches on marriage breakdown.  In your post that touched off this latest contretemps, you label of one of the parties in the legal battle that you use as an example of Quebec's right approach as "his Brazilian gold digger gf" and even include a photo of the other party to that legal action (with his "current" girlfriend).  Since the current one is also a model (ex-model?) who the Canadian billionaire also met and hooked up with at the age of 17 and has since had a couple of children together, there seems to be a pattern.  Is she also a gold digger? Though the two women seem to be almost identical in appearance (except for their ages - trade in for a newer model comes to mind), there is a difference.  Hopefully, there must have been some emotional aspect to the relationships that the gentleman in question formed with these ladies.
> 
> No, I don't follow social media or the sex lives of the ultra rich and sleazy, but I was wondering why you included a picture that was not in the linked news article and identified an individual even though the article stated "a court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names" .  Since I rarely take anything spewed out on the internet at face value, it didn't take much to find on the internet (ironic, I know) enough to identify the inconsistencies of your post.  I only bring it to light, not that I have a "vested interest in the matter" ( ;D), but, because if there is a Canadian court order that precludes identifying the individuals in the case, the owner of this site may be open to legal action due to your post.  You could have just as easily cited the CBC article as background to your argument without including a visual example (mistaken though it was in the identity of the woman) of a "gold digger" or the identities of the parties involved.
> 
> Now, excuse me while I go award your post negative milpoints.


----------



## Lumber (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Trying to put up smoking mirrors by you doesn't take away from the fact that most men getting into relationship with or without people with kids, don't seem to see past the sex.



Take what I'm sure is your highly qualified and I'm certain statistically supported number of "most men" and subtract 1 from it so as to exclude me from your generalization.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Not something that you will admit in public anyway...that will just be wrong won't it?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Take what I'm sure is your highly qualified and I'm certain statistically supported number of "most men" and subtract 1 from it so as to exclude me from your generalization.


----------



## newwifey (2 Feb 2016)

Wow, just wow.
opcougar you need to get a new coolaid to drink....stay away from canlii.  Maybe find a new hobby....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Trying to put up smoking mirrors by you doesn't take away from the fact that most men getting into relationship with or without people with kids, don't seem to see past the sex. I insist that if many are shown the child support table and what they might end up paying if things go South, many will think twice.



That's it! Here I was wondering whatever kept me together with my girlfriend, and now wife, for the last 34 years, but obviously the answer is clear: Sex. Problem solved. 
/SARC OFF

Oh! and then I noticed, Opcougar, that besides your Milpoints, there is a minus sign. Why am I not surprised ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2016)

Before anyone makes another post:

Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted

---Staff---


----------



## CountDC (2 Feb 2016)

it wasn' t sex - it was the fear of paying all that child support and alimony.   [

From where I lived prior and have sworn not to go back to there is some valid points in what opcougar is posting.  

"A lot of the women going round doing this",  note the key words.  This actually makes the comment about a select group rather than all women, unless you are one of the ones doing this then the comment is not about you. No different than saying a lot of female streetwalkers do so because they don't see any other option.  Unless you are a streetwalker it is not about you.  Too often with all the PC these days people latch on to the word women and translate it to mean all. 

"know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt".  Well of course they know it or they wouldn't be going around doing it. Wouldn't you talk to your friend about it if it was you?  and yeah if guys could do it there would be a number of them doing the same thing.  Male version of this is disability due to the mysterious bad back.

I agree that the system is slanted in a lot of cases whereby the mother gets everything and the father is practically cut out.  In one case a friend was paying more than the court ordered but the mother still didn't adhere to the court order on visitations with no repercussions what so ever.  Another case my co-worker actually was given custody of his child because the mother was declared unfit and a hazard but he had to give up his career as the courts wouldn't allow him to move to another province when posted.  He had to stay where the mother lived in case she should ever get out and be given visitations.  Have never known a mother that couldn't move within the country and I am sure if my friend had not paid there would have been repercussions.

but --- regardless of that I agree fully that they are your children (whether natural or not) and you should be taking responsibilty for them no matter what the mother is like or the courts decide.  Not happy with the court decision on custody or visitation then make the payments while going back to court and fight it out.  ultimately it  is the children that have to be the concern and take priority over you.  In the cases above - my friend always made the payments until his son was of age and my co-worker retired from the military as they too felt their child was the priority.  

Anyone else see this one before - one gentleman I know of actually had his court agreement read that he would not pay child support, giving up all rights and responsibilty for his daughter.  Boiled down - this is not my daughter anymore.  Now that was harsh.

For the OP - if you are sure about things then go for it and good luck.  I imagine a lot of guys have missed out on a good relationship because they feared the child factor.  Yes it may come back on you but then again you could miss out on a life time.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

As a "new wifey" perhaps some of the stuff I brought to light somehow rings true for you, and you know some people who indeed are benefiting from the CS from a couple of guys / pension splits / etc?

Again....if you ask the people receiving the handouts how they will feel if they had to pay out $$$ every month, I am sure you will get a "honest answer"  ;D



			
				newwifey said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.
> opcougar you need to get a new coolaid to drink....stay away from canlii.  Maybe find a new hobby....


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Phew...34yrs and you think that is something to make song and dance to? Let me post you cases from CANLII with 30+ / 40s years of marriage acrimonious splits. Perhaps it's just a case of "sticking to what you've always known", buying into the "happy wife, happy life" malarky that doesn't take the male into consideration, or not being a self sufficient type??????

Like I said before, due to how some people were raised, they NEED that other person in their lives to help them get through daily. You obviously subscribe to "likes" and points more than I do. Let me guess...you have a Facebook account?  ;D



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's it! Here I was wondering whatever kept me together with my girlfriend, and now wife, for the last 34 years, but obviously the answer is clear: Sex. Problem solved.
> /SARC OFF
> 
> Oh! and then I noticed, Opcougar, that besides your Milpoints, there is a minus sign. Why am I not surprised ???


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Before anyone makes another post:
> 
> Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
> opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted
> ...



I guess you're ignored here as well as at home. 


In my previous post I linked to the post in question made by opcougar in which he linked to a 2013 CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unmarried-quebec-couples-have-no-right-to-alimony-court-rules-1.1322347 that contained the following sentence. 





> A court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names.



That was the basis for my belief that using a photo with the image of a well known individual and identifying him as one of the parties involved in the action was perhaps contrary to whatever court order was in place banning publication of the names.

All other (reputable) Canadian news outlets that reported on the case also seem to follow that publication ban, such as this Maclean's piece. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-billionaire-the-law-his-brazilian-ex/


> . . .
> A publication ban prohibits naming the couple, but their names are an open secret in Quebec. The identity of the billionaire, referred to as “Eric,” has been winked at in print and on radio, and divulged outright on several Internet sites. A reporter accidentally named the man’s well-known company on live television.
> . . .



And in this National Post article http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/common-law-partners-in-quebec-not-entitled-to-same-support-as-married-couples-top-court-rules


> It’s widely known as the Eric and Lola case, because the pair can’t be identified under a provincial family law that protects the identity of their three children.



I have not been able to find a link to an original court order imposing the ban, if such an item exists on-line or in English (I regret that my French skills, such as they were, have deteriorated somewhat after years in Alberta)

Though the Supreme Court judgement continues the practice of not naming them (using A and B vice Eric and Lola), I wasn't able to find specific mention as to an order to maintain anonymity, however that's not surprising as it is not one of the issues presented to the court.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/10536/index.do


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Let go by what the courts usually do....according to Blackadder1916, he is "not able to pull any links"  : If the gloves don't fit, I guess you must acquit then.

Oh....lets also take into account that there is hardly more than 1 49yr old (at the time) Billionaire in Quebec at the time shacked up with a young Brazilian partner. Canada's 23 billioanires include seven from Quebec. They are, according to the Globe and Mail: Paul Desmarais, Robert Miller, Charles Bronfman, Stephen Jarislowsky, Emanuele (Lino) Saputo, Jean Coutu, Guy Laliberte. So proceed by process of elimination. The names involved in this case are mentioned elsewhere on the internet if you're determined to find out.

Recce....note I wasn't the one that mentioned a ban. However, the press in Canada at the time refered to them as Eric vs Lola, but Lola's home country (Brazil) and others revealed their real names and details of the split. 

She is getting 34,000 a month, as well as a castle that Guy Liberte gave her, and some luxury cars.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-billionaire-the-law-his-brazilian-ex/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/05/quebec_s_de_facto_spouses_the_bizarre_legal_case_that_could_force_1_2_million_canadians_to_be_married_against_their_will_.html

This is how close it was in the case: 5-4 decision on spousal support, 8-1 decision on splitting of assets.

She was trying to go against what the law said, and she challenged it. The fact that this blatant cash grab (50 mill +36K alimony a month? ****in lol) got to supreme court when the law is firm about common law marriage in Quebec is ridiculous. I mean this dude probably had the best lawyers and they still had to battle for 7 years even though the law is clear that she isn't entitled to ****.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Before anyone makes another post:
> 
> Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
> opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted
> ...


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

Wow. You really don't want to make any friends here, do you?



			
				opcougar said:
			
		

> As a "new wifey" perhaps some of the stuff I brought to light somehow rings true for you, and you know some people who indeed are benefiting from the CS from a couple of guys / pension splits / etc?
> 
> Again....if you ask the people receiving the handouts how they will feel if they had to pay out $$$ every month, I am sure you will get a "honest answer"  ;D





			
				opcougar said:
			
		

> Phew...34yrs and you think that is something to make song and dance to? Let me post you cases from CANLII with 30+ / 40s years of marriage acrimonious splits. Perhaps it's just a case of "sticking to what you've always known", buying into the "happy wife, happy life" malarky that doesn't take the male into consideration, or not being a self sufficient type??????
> 
> Like I said before, due to how some people were raised, they NEED that other person in their lives to help them get through daily. You obviously subscribe to "likes" and points more than I do. Let me guess...you have a Facebook account?  ;D


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

What....alimony and child support is suppose to be a sacred topic that men shouldn't talk about? I guess you are going to set your 2 older brothers on me then  ;D

Honestly though....do you actually condone child alienation, SS and all the money grab by adults that are capable of working????? Only someone who will do such a thing will think it's OK. Thing is though, some of these people that collect these handouts, will probably have the same happen to their sons by their future spouses, and only then will it sink in



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Wow. You really don't want to make any friends here, do you?


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> What....alimony and child support is suppose to be a sacred topic that men shouldn't talk about? I guess you are going to set your 2 older brothers on me then  ;D
> 
> Honestly though....do you actually condone child alienation, SS and all the money grab by adults that are capable of working????? Only someone who will do such a thing will think it's OK. Thing is though, some of these people that collect these handouts, will probably have the same happen to their sons by their future spouses, and only then will it sink in



My issue with your statements are as follows:

1. If anyone disagrees with YOU it's because we are somehow in agreement or benefitting from this apparent broken system. 

2. For every anecdotal evidence example you give of a broken system im sure myself and everyone here could give two of how the system works. I personally know of half a dozen single parents, of both sexes, whose exes have tried screwing them over and the courts have found in favour of the side that played fair.

The problem with anecdotal examples is that they don't show any trend or actual statistic, and being someone with a scientific and logically based through process, if you're going to throw shit, make sure it's backed up by more than anecdotal evidence.  Remember, the papers never report on the success stories.

And as for the personal jabs (newwifey not having enough life experience as far as you're concerned because of the handle she chose or the comment about my sending my bros after you) if that's all you've got then maybe you should just stop now.  Especially since anyone with any time on this site knows that I can fight my own battles.


----------



## mariomike (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> What....alimony and child support is suppose to be a sacred topic that men shouldn't talk about?



It gets talked about,

CF website for child support and whats covered medically?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/69788.0/nowap.html
"A friend of mine is seeking information about the policies the CF has regarding "deadbeat dads" for lack of a better word.
Her babies father, a member of the regular force, is apparently avoiding paying her court ordered child support and sounds like he is feeding her BS like the CF won't cover a child's medical bills if they are not married or living together."

pay Child support  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/116639.0
"Hello, how it works, when you enter the military, to the adjusted child support for children down?"

Merged Child Custody in CF thread (joint custody, etc.) 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85126.0/nowap.html
4 pages.

Dependent Child?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119827.0

Relationship Matter...Help Needed  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/107361.0
"I joined the military 4yrs ago and I have a 4yr old with my wife. It seems of late, we have both come to realize after 10yrs of marriage that our interests and ways just aren't compatible."

General Question Suport for Dependant
https://army.ca/forums/threads/22182.0
"My question is where can a person go to get legal answers as far as some sort of payment for the child etc if I am correct when someone goes to jail pay automatically stop's so how is this young lady supposed to support herself and there son and no one will speak to her because they are not considered common law. 
I would think that DND has somewhat of an obligation to make sure that the child at least is somewhat taken care off." 

Getting separated need help with paperwork?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/103671.0.html
"So my common law fiance has decided to leave me. We broke up October 21st while I was on deployment and I've had to come home to deal with it, but we still live together till she can find a place. I know that's messed up but I didn't want to put her out in the cold so to speak. She will be gone in January. Now I need help drawing up a separation agreement. 
She said she doesn't want any part of my pension, savings accounts, or spousal support from me. Were also going to do 50/50 child custody. I know, it's a freaking miracle. I need to get this stuff in writing and get her John Hancock on it ASAP."

etc...


----------



## Lumber (2 Feb 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It gets talked about,
> .
> .
> .
> etc...



Who needs the search function when you have mariomike doing all the work for us!



+MP


----------



## mariomike (2 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Who needs the search function when you have mariomike doing all the work for us!
> 
> 
> 
> +MP



Thanks, Lumber.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Mariomike...Kudos for pulling all that up. However, my question was rhetorical to the 'new wifey' that said "wow", as if women are the only ones that are suppose to discuss this at coffee meets or on Facebook.

BLUF: the system as it is right now is broken, and family law is biased towards one gender. Well of course there are those that will disagree for obvious reason i.e. why work when someone can give me money that is tax free (CS), and I can split their pension 50%, along with division of assets.

Currently know 2 guys paying mortgage for a house they aren't living in, whilst their STBXs already have a Mr Wonderful move in playing Dr House.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Thanks, Lumber.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Feb 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It gets talked about,
> .
> .
> .
> ...



I was going to say "Don't suggest more threads in which to add his comments", but alas, after checking, he had already posted in at least two of your list.


----------



## opcougar (2 Feb 2016)

Blackadder1916.....Found that "ban publication" link yet? I might have for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08


----------



## newwifey (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> As a "new wifey" perhaps some of the stuff I brought to light somehow rings true for you, and you know some people who indeed are benefiting from the CS from a couple of guys / pension splits / etc?
> 
> Again....if you ask the people receiving the handouts how they will feel if they had to pay out $$$ every month, I am sure you will get a "honest answer"  ;D



Rings true for me?  I'm not sure I appreciate what you're implying. 
Not that you need to know, I have never been the recipient of spousal support, I could hardly get child support from my dead beat ex.  He opted out of being a parent.  His choice.

The reason SOME get child support from more than one person, is people get used to the lifestyle, kids, spouses, the whole family.  ALL that money supports the whole house.  You don't want to pay additional support (maybe), don't date someone with kids, play a parent, then split.  
(And you do know, this can go both ways, it's not just the money grubbing ladies!)

I think you need to fill out a hurt feelings report.  You're not much better than a troll.  Your attitude sucks.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar's point got washed away in his posting style and blanket coverage. The issue here is that the government has determined a certain level of child support to be sufficient based on income/number of children. The cost doesn't change based on how many ex's someone has, that level should be maintained, not increased. If there's 2 ex spouses, the level should be split equally based on income level of each of the former spouses. By allowing double and triple dipping, it incentivizes the very slim minority to abuse the system to their benefit.

This should not be a gender-based issue, it would be just as easy for a male to abuse it. The fact that the courts are slanted towards allowing women custody more often than not, is a completely different debate, and needs to be isolated from this one.


----------



## newwifey (2 Feb 2016)

Maybe he should comment via you.  The message comes across much clearer.  

As with everything, the few ruin it for the masses.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2016)

newwifey said:
			
		

> Maybe he should comment via you.  The message comes across much clearer.
> 
> As with everything, the few ruin it for the masses.



I don't think I have that patience.  :nod:


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Mariomike...Kudos for pulling all that up. However, my question was rhetorical to the 'new wifey' that said "wow", as if women are the only ones that are suppose to discuss this at coffee meets or on Facebook.
> 
> BLUF: the system as it is right now is broken, and family law is biased towards one gender. Well of course there are those that will disagree for obvious reason i.e. why work when someone can give me money that is tax free (CS), and I can split their pension 50%, along with division of assets.
> 
> Currently know 2 guys paying mortgage for a house they aren't living in, whilst their STBXs already have a Mr Wonderful move in playing Dr House.



First of all, CS is only tax free for the person paying if IIRC and must be claimed by the recipient.  Spousal sp in not taxable to the recipient but is to the one paying.

And, if there is any reason that your 'friends' (seriously, enough with the anecdotal evidence. Unless they're specifically monitoring how those specific dollars are being spent they're really just guessing FFS) feel that perhaps the CS needs to be adjusted then maybe they should go back to the courts and ask for an adjustment.  it has been known to happen because *insert more anecdotal evidence here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Feb 2016)

Strike said:
			
		

> First of all, CS is only tax free for the person paying if IIRC and must be claimed by the recipient.



Neither is the case now.  It changed.  Anyone court orders after a certain date, no longer does the payer get a tax break on, and the payee gets the benefit of the $ and not having claim it as 'income'.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Neither is the case now.  It changed.  Anyone court orders after a certain date, no longer does the payer get a tax break on, and the payee gets the benefit of the $ and not having claim it as 'income'.



My bad. Going off old info.


----------



## newwifey (2 Feb 2016)

Spousal support is still taxed for the receiver, tax deduction for the payor.

No deduction or claim for child support unless it was an order from a long time ago.....(Prior to May 1, 1997)


----------



## opcougar (3 Feb 2016)

At least you admitted your mistake. I am sure there are a lot more people out there that don't know family law has changed drastically over the years.

@newwifey....you are right, the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less

SS is tax deductible, but people are able to claw some of that back when they claim the kid(s) in a sole custody situation as dependents comes tax time. There is also CCTB that gets paid on the 20th of each month



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> My bad. Going off old info.


----------



## Strike (3 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> ...the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less



Seriously, you need to stop posting...and don't ever have kids or even date anyone with them because you seem to treat them more like they are pets to be disposed of than an integral part of your life that you would protect with your whole being if it ever came to that.

And I really don't give a hoot how many examples of 'friends' you have whose exes have been treating the kids like commodities and tools for bartering a better deal.  Not saying it doesn't happen, but you're acting and posting like that's ALL that ever happens.


----------



## Lumber (3 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> @newwifey....you are right, the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less



It's _*not*_ like a business. I'll take a page out of your book and make a wild generalization without anything at all to back it up: most people don't go into relationships because it's a good financial investment. Most peopel are actually looking for a committed relationship. If you find someone you think you have a connection with, it won't matter if they have kids or not. In fact, depending on your personality, it might even seem like a bonus. 

Besides, you're recommendation is flawed. If you're just "hooking up", then the kids, CS and SS, *won't* be a problem. If you'd said "don't get into a serious, committed relationship with anyone with kids...", well then you can read my first paragraph. But even if you avoid all of the wonderful, beautiful women out there who have enjoyed the fortune of having children, you could still end up with kids in your life if the relationship becomes a serious one, and you decide to have children.

Seriously, you talk as if children are used by these "evil, money grabbing, gold diggers", but in reality, it's you who are using the children. You're using children as an excuse and a defence mechanism for your bitterness and cowardice.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Before anyone makes another post:
> 
> Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
> opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted
> ...



From the Report to Mod notification:

CBC story referring to publication ban: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unmarried-quebec-couples-have-no-right-to-alimony-court-rules-1.1322347


----------



## opcougar (3 Feb 2016)

Finally we agree on something. Deep down, am sure you know people (friends, acquaintances and perhaps family) who have had their kids alienated from them? Why do you think most custody battles happen? That is because parental access below 40% grants the other person table CS amount . It takes 2 to make kids, but 1 will make you believe "it's their kids"  :



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Seriously, you need to stop posting...and don't ever have kids or even date anyone with them because you seem to treat them more like they are pets to be disposed of than an integral part of your life that you would protect with your whole being if it ever came to that.
> 
> And I really don't give a hoot how many examples of 'friends' you have whose exes have been treating the kids like commodities and tools for bartering a better deal.  *Not saying it doesn't happen*, but you're acting and posting like that's ALL that ever happens.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Phew...34yrs and you think that is something to make song and dance to? Let me post you cases from CANLII with 30+ / 40s years of marriage acrimonious splits. Perhaps it's just a case of "sticking to what you've always known", buying into the "happy wife, happy life" malarky that doesn't take the male into consideration, or not being a self sufficient type??????
> 
> Like I said before, due to how some people were raised, they NEED that other person in their lives to help them get through daily. You obviously subscribe to "likes" and points more than I do. Let me guess...you have a Facebook account?  ;D



I think it's about time you had a hard look at your attitude and delivery. It's notable that the previous listening silence, you were on, doesn't appear to have had an effect.

You are now a member of the formal warning system.

---Staff---


----------



## Sheppard619 (6 Apr 2016)

Hey guys, 

My girlfriend moved into my house Feb of last year. We are now trying to apply for common law prior to getting posted. The problem we are running into is we have zero proof she moved in in that time frame... the earliest paper proof we can find is May 2015. When she moved into my house she kept her apartment for a few months where she kept her cats until she could re-home them (I have a large dog who is not good with cats). Also at the time she didn't change over her licenses, billing addresses etc. until we were living together a few months and knew things would work between us.
My orderly room is telling me I 100% need proof she moved in in February regardless of signing a stat dec stating she did. Is there any way around this? Thanks.


----------



## Pusser (6 Apr 2016)

What's the COS Date on your posting?  If it's after the earliest paper proof you have of living together, it's not an issue.  Your common-law relationship can be recognized as of May 2016 (which is only a few weeks away) and you can proceed on posting with her as your dependant.  Another option is to run down to the court house and get a quick civil marriage.  As long as you are married or in a recognized common-law relationship prior to COS Date, your partner is your dependant.

If this is not possible, what you lose in terms of your partner not being considered a dependant is not huge.  Consider:

1) if you're driving, she can still drive in the car with you.  The amount you receive in mileage is the same;

2)  Even if you have two cars, one can still be shipped at public expense (but not one that is not owned by you) and you can drive the other one; 

3)  you can still take a house-hunting trip (albeit by yourself in this case); and

4)  hotels en route and for any interim lodging periods can still be claimed (generally, hotel rooms cost the same whether they are occupied by one or two people).

The biggest things you would lose out on would be:

1)  the cost of airfare for your partner should you decide to fly to your new posting;

2)  interim meals and meals while travelling for your partner (although the allowance for you alone is actually generous enough to feed both of you in many cases); and

3)  half a month's pay on your posting allowance (if you're entitled to one in the first place).

So yes, it's obviously better if your partner can be your dependant on posting, but it's not the end of the world if she isn't and it does not prevent her from moving with you.


----------



## Sheppard619 (6 Apr 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What's the COS Date on your posting?  If it's after the earliest paper proof you have of living together, it's not an issue.  Your common-law relationship can be recognized as of May 2016 (which is only a few weeks away) and you can proceed on posting with her as your dependant.  Another option is to run down to the court house and get a quick civil marriage.  As long as you are married or in a recognized common-law relationship prior to COS Date, your partner is your dependant.
> 
> If this is not possible, what you lose in terms of your partner not being considered a dependant is not huge.  Consider:
> 
> ...



Thank you for the help.

The issue with trying to get the common law status in ASAP as I am screening for an isolated posting (that I very much want) so I need the common law status done ASAP so she can screen as well.

From my understanding if I screen solo right now, and then have the common law status changed closer to my COS it is going to screw up the screening process as she will have to screen herself very late.


----------



## Pusser (6 Apr 2016)

Sheppard619 said:
			
		

> Thank you for the help.
> 
> The issue with trying to get the common law status in ASAP as I am screening for an isolated posting (that I very much want) so I need the common law status done ASAP so she can screen as well.
> 
> From my understanding if I screen solo right now, and then have the common law status changed closer to my COS it is going to screw up the screening process as she will have to screen herself very late.



Engage your chain of command and your career manager.  If you can show that your partner will be your dependant by the proposed COS Date then they should allow her to start screening as well (assuming they apply logic, common sense and reason).  Having said that, a quick trip down to the court house can solve your problem pretty quickly...

In case you're in a situation where you "don't want to commit to marriage yet," consider that once you hit the one year mark of verifiable co-habitation (i.e. sometime next month), you are common-law whether you like it or not (i.e. doesn't matter if the CF recognizes it, the courts will) and any break-up after that can end up in divorce court regardless.


----------



## Sheppard619 (6 Apr 2016)

So you would say there is no chance of having my common law status approved for a date prior to when I have paper proof?

I have heard conflicting cases of people telling me they had their applications approved without proof.

Thanks again.


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Apr 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> (assuming they apply logic, common sense and reason)



What is this sorcery you speak of? Eye of reasoning, wing of common sense... blasphemy on you Pusser!


----------



## CountDC (6 Apr 2016)

it is the same sorcery that makes members sign a stat dec and then provide proof these days.  Seems to defeat the purpose of the stat dec. Glad i didn't have to deal with that when I did it, pretty sure the boss would have killed anyone that tried to say our stat dec wasn't good enough.   Bit of a smack in the face too - I know you swear to this but you know, I don't believe you so I want you to prove it.


----------



## Pusser (6 Apr 2016)

Sheppard619 said:
			
		

> So you would say there is no chance of having my common law status approved for a date prior to when I have paper proof?
> 
> I have heard conflicting cases of people telling me they had their applications approved without proof.
> 
> Thanks again.



since it is your CO who recognizes the common-law relationship, it is really up to him/her.  If he accepts a Stat Dec, then that is his/her prerogative.  However, the norm is that some form of written proof (e.g. utility bills with both names, joint bank account, etc).

On the mail front, it doesn't actually have to be a utility bill.  An envelope from a letter from a friend, addressed to your partner and postmarked in Feb 15 should also suffice.  All you need is some form of proof that she was living there.  The standard for that proof is pretty broad.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (6 Apr 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> since it is your CO who recognizes the common-law relationship, it is really up to him/her.  If he accepts a Stat Dec, then that is his/her prerogative.  However, the norm is that some form of written proof (e.g. utility bills with both names, joint bank account, etc).
> 
> On the mail front, it doesn't actually have to be a utility bill.  An envelope from a letter from a friend, addressed to your partner and postmarked in Feb 15 should also suffice.  All you need is some form of proof that she was living there.  The standard for that proof is pretty broad.



Yeah, anything, old facebook posts printed out, emails talking about the move, text messages, photos. You're just expected to establish a reasonable likelihood that she was living with you. This isn't a murder trial. 

That's if the stat dec is not enough, which it should be since we use stat dec for all sorts of things in the military. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, a stat dec should be all that's needed.


----------



## CountDC (7 Apr 2016)

and if you look at the CMP on CL the stat dec can be enough if the CO is willing to accept it.  para 5 states what is mandatory - application and stat dec.  Para 4.4 is possible optionals to satisfy the CO if he wants it to clear the fussy points (for example in this case the spouse kept a seperate apartment for a period).  Have to admit this does raise the question of should that period be considered CL as they admittedly had seperate places while doing a trial run which seems to not meet 4.4.  CO problem.

CMP INSTRUCTION 15/06

4.4
During the period required under QR&O 1.075, any period where the CF member and partner were apart, or periods where it is less clear that the CF member and partner have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, may be considered to be a period of cohabitation in a conjugal relationship, provided the CF member and the common-law partner meet some or all of the following conditions. In such relationships, the specific circumstances of the relationship, including the factors outlined below, should be considered. Some factors to be considered include:
a. the demonstrated intention of the parties to live together in a conjugal relationship;
b. if they are maintaining separate residences, the reasons for this;
c. personal behaviour and the nature of the relationship, including:
(1) the quantity and nature of the time spent together;
(2) the existence of shared financial and economic arrangements and ownership of property;
(3) the level of involvement each has in the other’s life; and
(4) social behaviour, including the parties acknowledging and representing themselves in the community as common-law partners.

5. Submission of Forms

5.1
To notify the CF of a common-law partnership, a CF member must submit the following completed forms to the commanding officer (CO):
a. Common-Law Partnership Application, and
b. Statutory Declaration –Recognition or Re-establishment of a Common-Law Partnership

5.2
In cases where it is less clear that a CF member and partner have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, the CF member should provide additional information, based on the factors in paragraph 4, Cohabiting in a Conjugal Relationship, for due consideration by the CO.


----------



## kolkim (10 May 2016)

I am wondering what happens when a member becomes common law with a non military spouse. Who would have information regarding this topic? 

Here are my questions if any members here know the answers. 

1. What benefits does the spouse receive after receiving Common Law status? Medical, dental, what else.

2. Does the member lose half of his pension to the spouse as soon as he declares Common Law status with the military? Or does the pension have to do with provincial Common Law status, which in Alberta there is none, and instead is called adult interdependent relationship after 3 years. 

3. If a member and spouse break up after 1 year of living together, but the member never declared common law, does the spouse receive the members pension? What if lawyers became involved?

4. Can a Pre-nup be setup regarding common law status within the military or is it just for relationships within the government.


----------



## Lumber (10 May 2016)

kolkim said:
			
		

> I am wondering what happens when a member becomes common law with a non military spouse. Who would have information regarding this topic?
> 
> Here are my questions if any members here know the answers.
> 
> ...



1. Medical and dental, up to 80% (I  believe), with a puny little deductible (it's something like you have to pay the first $50 in a calendar year, not $50 each claim, but just the first $50 of the first claim of the year).

2 and 3. Every province has different definitions of what is common law. For Benefits purposes, the CAF considered 1 year of cohabitation to be enough to declare common-law. For the Ontario government, however, three years is required.

The big difference between common-law and marriage is that when you get married, your spouse is entitled to half of _*everything.*_ With common-law, however, your spouse is only entitled to half of everything earned/paid-for during the time you were common law.


4. This out of my lane, but a pre-nup is just a contract, and you can make a contract with respect to just about anything, so, sure why not, but I doubt you could enforce anything military related.

3.


----------



## Dockrill923 (10 May 2016)

its good to be proactive here but the way I see it (and this is purely my opinion) if you have to think that these things may be an issue, it might be wirth taking a deeper look at the relationship. Then again, never hurts to cover your ass. separation and divorce are pretty common.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2016)

Lumber,

Pension division is the same whether common-law or married; see the Pension Benefits Division Act at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6.7/FullText.html.


----------



## kolkim (10 May 2016)

Thanks for the replies.

Dockrill I have no intentions of breaking up anytime soon but we've only lived together for a year and I'm not sure if that's enough time to know if I'll be with someone for the rest of my life. I don't think my spouse would really lawyer up or anything, but we might break up next year who knows, rather not find out the worst case scenario the hard way. 

Lumber I have an understanding of how common law works on the civilian side, I am mostly questioning how the military's common law works as it seems to be independent of the provincial or federal government. With my questions about how it works with your pension. 

I can imagine over the course of 25 years some members find themselves in 5, or more relationships that last over a year. Does that mean a member could have lost 4/5 of his pension?


----------



## kolkim (10 May 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lumber,
> 
> Pension division is the same whether common-law or married; see the Pension Benefits Division Act at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6.7/FullText.html.



Thank you for that link dapeterson, I was looking for something like that.

It states in section 8(1) A division of pension benefits shall be effected by
(a) subject to subsection (4), transferring an amount representing fifty per cent of the value of the pension benefits that have accrued to the member of the pension plan during the period subject to division, as determined in accordance with the regulations, to the spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner...

Then in 8(2) it clarifies the period of division as 
For the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (3), the *period subject to division *is
(a) the period specified by the court order or agreement as the period during which the member of the pension plan and the spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner cohabited... 

I am not a lawyer but that looks to me that if a member is in Common Law for 1 year, then separates. The spouse will receive 50% of 1/25 years of pensionable time. It also seems that to the Pension Benefits Division Act, a Married couple is the same as a Common law couple. So Lumber and dapeterson are both right. 

I'm sure there are tons of bitter members on this forum who has experience in this topic. Can any of them chime in?


----------



## CountDC (10 May 2016)

Common Law is just another form of marriage and the military will base everything off the court order when you separate.  If they determine you were together for 2 years 2010 and 2011 then your pension for those 2 years will be split with half issued to your partner.  They will provide you with a new updated pension calculation so you can see what you will receive if you retire with say 25 years as the pay out will reduce it.  There is not an option for you to pay it back either so if you have the cash on hand it may be worthwhile to negotiate you paying it instead of the pension gods so that your pension stays at full.  

Dental and medical depends on what is being done.  Everything has its own rate that will be covered along with limits on how often things can be done.  Dental also has a yearly cap on it but the basics are generally covered at 90% of the prior years dental rates until you max out.  On postings there are options at the MFRC to assist with your spousal relocating.

Basics - CL is Married without the ring, certificate, party and cost.


----------



## Lumber (11 May 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Basics - CL is Married without the ring, certificate, party and cost.



Disagree:



> The rules about property division in the Family Law Act do not apply unless you are legally married. If you are in a common-law relationship, the property you bring into the relationship, plus any increase in its value, usually continues to belong to you alone. If you and your spouse separate, there is no automatic right to divide it or share in its value.
> 
> Anything you buy for yourself with your own money during the relationship and own in your name usually belongs only to you. Things that you and your spouse buy together during the relationship belong to you both jointly. If you separate, the things you own jointly will be divided or their value shared.



- Community Legal Education Ontario



> If you and your partner lived in a common-law relationship, you do not have equal rights to the value of your matrimonial home. The home that you lived in as a couple belongs to the person whose name is on the title.



-Family Law and Education for Women



> Each person gets to keep what belongs to them and each person is responsible for the payment of their own debts. If an asset is in both names, then the value of that asset is to be equally divided and the couple can decide how to complete this division.



-Divorce-Canada.ca



> Common law couples do not have the same rights as married couples to share the property they bought when they were living together. Usually, furniture, household belongings and other property belong to the person who bought them. Common law couples also do not have the right to divide between them the increase in value of the property they brought with them to the relationship.



-Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario


----------



## CountDC (11 May 2016)

so where is the real difference?  Regardless of those quotes what will happen is you will go to court, fight over everything, try to prove what is joint property and what isn't and then a judge will rule.  

I see it going in most cases as:

Judge I bought the Xbox out of my own money.

Judge he used our joint MasterCard to pay for it and I paid the bill from our joint bank account.  

Judge rules - joint property.

The only real thing that your quotes is saying is that there is no automatic right to divide, you will have to go to court which in reality is what most people do anyway.  I would be cautious of using a quote that states "usually" as that also means not always. 

The other factor is you are quoting sources in regards to Ontario while I was discussing the military which does treat both the same and adheres to the court order if you separate/divorce. 

so Basics - same thing rather CL or Married, you will fight in court, judge rules, pay the lawyer, lick your wounds and have the information relayed to the military for any action needed there.   Basics not Fine Print.


----------



## Lumber (12 May 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> so where is the real difference?  Regardless of those quotes what will happen is you will go to court, fight over everything, try to prove what is joint property and what isn't and then a judge will rule.
> 
> I see it going in most cases as:
> 
> ...



And I still disagree.

If you bought a house while common-law, and the house is in your name, and your name ONLY. Then the house, 100% of it, belongs to you, and you alone, when you "separate". 

If you bought a house while married, and the house in in your name, and your name ONLY, but then you get married, and you make 100% of the payments on the house (say you're a single income family), and then you divorce, your spouse gets 50% of the house.

Now, what the courts can do, and this is where it gets sticky, is award compensation during a common-law separation based on the assets become a "resulting" or "constructive" trust. Basically, if the spouse who doesn't actually own the house (or car, or time-share, etc) is making payments toward the enrichment of that property, then they _might_ be able to claim either their initial contributions, interest gained on the enrichment, or both. None of this is guaranteed, however. If the owning-common-law spouse clearly makes all the mortgage and maintenance payments, and the non-owning common-law spouse makes only pays the utilities and taxes, then they'd be hard-pressed to prove that their money had caused any "enrichment" in the value of the property. 

Furthermore, they are also only gaining the right to have some of their contributions returned (or some interest gained because of their contributions). That's the key difference here. In a common-law separation you _might_ have a right to some money. The actual ownership of the property itself does not get divided in any way, shape, or form. 

Spouse A: "Judge, I want the car. I paid for it."
Spouse B: "Judge, we bought this together and the car is in my name."
Spouse A: "Judge, it was my money and my credit and I've been making all the payments, but yes, the vehicle is in Spouse B's name."
Judge: "Well, the car belongs to Spouse B; it is in their name, so she gets to keep it. But lets see if you should be entitled to some for of compensation... oh wait the car has depreciated over the pat few years and therefore your payments didn't generate any interest or capital gains in the property. Your "trust" in the vehicle has gained you zero interest, therefore, I'm awarding you this nice pen of mine..."


----------



## Pusser (13 May 2016)

To put this in a simpler perspective:

CAF recognition of common-law status ONLY affects CAF benefits (PSHCP, CFDDCP, CFSA, etc).  That's it, that's all.  Everything else falls under the laws of whichever province or territory the (un)happy couple is residing at the time.

Notwithstanding what Ontario legislation may say about sole-ownership of property in a common-law relationship, I would be very surprised to see one partner walk away with a house scot-free simply because it was solely in his/her name.  Even if the other partner is only paying utility bills, the fact that he/she is doing so enables the other one to more easily pay the mortgage.  This effectively means that both partners are contributing to the enrichment of the property.


----------



## Lumber (13 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding what Ontario legislation may say about sole-ownership of property in a common-law relationship, I would be very surprised to see one partner walk away with a house scot-free simply because it was solely in his/her name.  Even if the other partner is only paying utility bills, the fact that he/she is doing so enables the other one to more easily pay the mortgage.  This effectively means that both partners are contributing to the enrichment of the property.



Ok, I agree there is an argument here. However, as far as I can tell from what I've read, the only thing you can earn is monetary compensation, you can't actually be given title over something which you didn't actually have legal title over.

If you were married and started a business in your spouse's name, and divorced, you'd literally be entitled to 50% ownership of the business, even if you contributed nothing to the business and sat at home and did nothing (no raising of kids, no cooking, cleaning, whatever).

If you were common-law and started a business in your spouse's name, and separated, you _could_ be entitled to 50% of the value of the company (say, for example, if you stayed at home and raised the kids/ran the house so that your spouse could build the business), but you would not actually become an owner of the company itself.


----------



## CountDC (14 May 2016)

Your points are all valid but that is where this comes in:

so Basics - same thing rather CL or Married, you will fight in court, judge rules, pay the lawyer, lick your wounds and have the information relayed to the military for any action needed there.   Basics not Fine Print.

What you are getting into is the fine print stuff which will be the fight in court and could go any way depending on the evidence each side is able to provide and how the judge rules on it.  The norm or usual does not always apply either.  

Another point for anyone looking into this - just because you go to court and get a ruling it does not mean that is the end of it.  A friend and co-worker was in court every year with his ex as she continuously came up with new things she felt she was entitled to and always added on seeking more child and spousal support even though he already gave more for child support and she earned twice what he made.  You could find it to be a long term event if they are really spiteful.   Thankfully their son finally turned 18 and it stopped (personally I think her new husband made her stop).


----------



## CmbtEngr21 (10 Feb 2017)

Hey all, this is my first post so my bad if this is in the wrong board, or if there have been previous threads about this. 

To make a long story short; i applied for CmbtEngr and Arty and am currently undergoing the application process and what not. My girlfriend is due in April so ill be having a kid to be providing for. 

how exactly do the benefits work for dependants? i understand that she(girlfriend) wont receive any benefits as she is not my spouse yet, however from reading the website i am under the impression that my kid will be covered as he will be considered a dependant?

Will i have to jump through hoops to be able to get my kid covered with the benefits or is it a relatively easy process?

feedback from anybody, especially from those with first hand experience will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers my Canadian brothers :subbies:


----------



## mariomike (10 Feb 2017)

CmbtEngr21 said:
			
		

> am currently undergoing the application process





			
				CmbtEngr21 said:
			
		

> how exactly do the benefits work for dependants?



Benefits for dependents 
http://navy.ca/forums/threads/107164.0/nowap.html

Dependent Child?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/119827.0

Benefits during BMQ  
http://navy.ca/forums/threads/124528.0

etc...


----------



## CmbtEngr21 (10 Feb 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Benefits for dependents
> http://navy.ca/forums/threads/107164.0/nowap.html
> 
> Dependent Child?
> ...




much appreciated!


----------



## Loachman (10 Feb 2017)

Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread http://army.ca/forums/threads/25612/post-153064.html#msg153064


----------



## mariomike (10 Feb 2017)

CmbtEngr21 said:
			
		

> much appreciated!



You are welcome. Good luck.


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is where I'd post this and I've tried searching everything and don't get the exact answer I'm looking for so I'm hoping I can get my answer here. So basically my boyfriend/common law of three years just finished basic and is now going to gagetown for engineer training. Is it possible for me to live with him there or is it similar to basic where he's on the base and can only leave weekends. I'm sorry for any confusion. Any information on his trade training and what I can expect from home is greatly appreciated.


----------



## mariomike (3 Mar 2017)

Taclem said:
			
		

> So basically my boyfriend/common law of three years just finished basic and is now going to gagetown for engineer training. Is it possible for me to live with him there or is it similar to basic where he's on the base and can only leave weekends.



See also,

Sticky,

Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/25612.375.html
15 pages.


			
				Taclem said:
			
		

> Does living together as common law work when they're in trade school? So my boyfriend who I lived with for a year, both names on the lease, just left bmq and started his trade training in gagetown, am I able to move with him or will I have to wait until he's done?



few questions from a military girlfriend! 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/111106.0
Quote from: astrokara on June 27, 2013, 11:03:30
my boyfriend is currently in St-Jean and will complete his training next month. From there he is going to Borden for a year, and I would love to go up there with him. 

The adventures of bekkamgov and her Boyfriend  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/94583.0/nowap.html
"my boyfriend is in basic training is in basic training right now after he is done we are thinking of getting a pmq in borden where he is doing his training for supply tech..we did live together for a year but i moved out before he joined the army back to my parents but we were having financal trouble. we have been together for 5 years now and have a 3 year old. we are planning to get married sometime soon. but i was wondering if anyone knows if we could get a pmq.it has been so had on our son being away from his dad."
4 pages.
Locked.

girlfriends/wives
https://army.ca/forums/threads/117420.0
Quote from: medeiros87 on January 03, 2015, 22:50:35
I have a question regarding when I'm able to move my girlfriend to live with me after bmq.

Girlfriend
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+boyfriend&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=v8K5WPriDeSM8QeR1aSQBw&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+girlfriend&*

Boyfriend
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+boyfriend&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=v8K5WPriDeSM8QeR1aSQBw&gws_rd=ssl#


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

Does living together as common law work when they're in trade school? So my boyfriend who I lived with for a year, both names on the lease, just left bmq and started his trade training in gagetown, am I able to move with him or will I have to wait until he's done?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

@mariomike thank you! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mariomike (3 Mar 2017)

Taclem said:
			
		

> @mariomike thank you!



You are welcome. Good luck.


----------



## sarahsmom (3 Mar 2017)

There can be exceptions, but generally speaking, until the member is out of the training system and posted to their first base, they are required to live in barracks with the rest of their course.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2017)

Taclem said:
			
		

> Does living together as common law work when they're in trade school? So my boyfriend who I lived with for a year, both names on the lease, just left bmq and started his trade training in gagetown, am I able to move with him or will I have to wait until he's done?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Most likely you won't be able to join him while he is on course, unless the course is a very long time and the posting restrictions that normally happen between BMQ and being qualified in his occupation (trades training).  By it being Gagetown, I'm assuming he will be posted once he is done training...what trade is he if you don't mind telling us?

If he hasn't already, he will have to submit the documentation and request to have your common law marriage recognized by the CAF, at which time you officially be considered common-law.


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

Combat engineer! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

He said he'll be there for a year if this changes anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taclem (3 Mar 2017)

paleomedic said:
			
		

> There can be exceptions, but generally speaking, until the member is out of the training system and posted to their first base, they are required to live in barracks with the rest of their course.



Well he's going for combat engineer. He's there now, his course doesn't start until may and they said it could run 6-12 months. Would they make an exception for a situation like this? Where we'll be separated for a year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2017)

It might...there are usually specific training establishment guidelines on some of this stuff.  I'd be guessing if I said I knew what the CFSME ones are (CF School of Military Engineering), but there might be a few folks on here that know and will read this.

Worst he can do is ask his superiors when he gets there about getting common law status and if there is any chance of a posting restriction amendment once he is in Gagetown.

Hang tough, the road can seem to go by slow at times while the training stuff at first goes by slowwwwwwwwwwwwwly for the member and their family.   8)


----------



## Taclem (4 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It might...there are usually specific training establishment guidelines on some of this stuff.  I'd be guessing if I said I knew what the CFSME ones are (CF School of Military Engineering), but there might be a few folks on here that know and will read this.
> 
> Worst he can do is ask his superiors when he gets there about getting common law status and if there is any chance of a posting restriction amendment once he is in Gagetown.
> 
> Hang tough, the road can seem to go by slow at times while the training stuff at first goes by slowwwwwwwwwwwwwly for the member and their family.   8)


Thank you very much for the advice, I appreciate it.


----------



## screwed416 (12 Mar 2017)

Hi all,

Have a question in case anyone has ever come across a situation like this. What happens if a member is cohabiting with their partner (civilian if that makes any difference) and they get an outcan posting before the initial one year cohabitation period? Can the cohabitation period carry on as normal if their partner goes to live with them outcan (obviously their partner would be on their own as far as support from the government and DND is concerned). Thanks for any help.


----------



## AKa (16 Mar 2017)

Screwed416,

There isn't a simple answer to your question so you had best talk to the supporting unit for your posting.  Depending on the location of your OUTCAN posting, it could be more or less complicated.  The visa requirements vary from country to country and if your spouse wants to work, it gets even more difficult.  Crossing international borders is getting more and more complex.

Go to the professionals and plan accordingly.

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Loachman (16 Mar 2017)

Or you can get married, but do it quickly if you want to have the administrative necessities finished in time for this year's posting season.

"Get married" runs contrary to my usual advice, but the legal status is the same once a common-law relationship exists anyway.


----------



## mariomike (16 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Get married" runs contrary to my usual advice, but the legal status is the same once a common-law relationship exists anyway.



Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
   Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
      'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er:  that's Hell for them both,
   An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
      Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .
https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/young_british_soldier.html


----------



## Pusser (23 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Or you can get married, but do it quickly if you want to have the administrative necessities finished in time for this year's posting season.
> 
> "Get married" runs contrary to my usual advice, but the legal status is the same once a common-law relationship exists anyway.



Yes, I would say that in this case especially, get married before you go (i.e. run down to the courthouse and sign the papers) BEFORE your COS date.  It makes everything so much easier.  Some countries don't recognize common-law relationships, so that could affect your spouse's ability to work and even their ability to live in the OUTCAN country (i.e. they may not be recognized as a dependant).  Furthermore, many benefits depend on COS date.  If you are married prior to COS date, you will get different rates for several benefits (e.g. rent allowance, shelter share, utility share, post living allowances, Vacation Travel Allowance etc.) than if you are single.  Getting "married" after COS (i.e. having your common-law status recognized), might not increase them to the married rates as dependant benefits often don't kick in until the NEXT posting.


----------



## JToyts (27 Apr 2017)

As I got the call saying I got the job my recruiter asked me if I had a martial status like common law or married. My gf and I have lived together for the past few years but we have moved cities and live in a basement apartment of her step dads house. He allows us to stay there for free so we do not have a lease or mortgage papers to prove that we are common law. My question is if I show them that we have the same address on our drivers licenses and a few bills such as our car insurance or something, is this enough to be considered common law or will they still process me as "Single" status?


----------



## mariomike (27 Apr 2017)

You may find this discussion helpful,

Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/25612.275
16 pages.

_As always,_  Recruiting is your most trusted source of information.


----------



## Ryan_T (27 Apr 2017)

Get her dad to draft up an agreement. You will need it to show you are still living together as common law. Thats what my recruiter informed me to do. They need all docs

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> Get her dad to draft up an agreement. You will need it to show you are still living together as common law. Thats what my recruiter informed me to do. They need all docs
> 
> Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk



Do _not_ get her dad to draft up an agreement. There is absolutely zero requirement for this, and while the agreement would make things go more smoothly, it will perpetuate a practice that is unnecessary and incorrect.

In order to be legally considered common law in the military, you must cohabitate with your spouse for 1 year (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). The length of time required for by civilian government depends on which province you are in. 

What is extremely important is that *none* of these laws state that to be "cohabiting"  you have to be paying rent together, have a mortgage together, or have a lease together. Further, you don't even have to be paying rent/mortgage yourself. If my permanent address is my parent's basement and I pay no rent, than that is my permanent address. How many people in this world own a house, or have an apartment, and their spouse's name does not appear anywhere on the relevant documents? How many people have spouses who don't actually work? What about spouses that don't work, don't drive, so that there names don't appear on the lease/mortgage, nor do they have a licence or bill that has their permanent address on them. Are these people ineligible for "common law" status? No, they are absolutely eligible.

All you need to do is submit a Statutory Declaration stating that you two live together. Period. 

If the OR says that your names have to appear on some sort of lease/deed in order to be eligible for common law status, tell them to stuff it.


----------



## Ryan_T (27 Apr 2017)

I disagree. Ive been living common for many many yrs. And even my recruiter said they need documentation showing that you are still living together. I recommend talking to your recruiter to see what he/she wants. Here in BC, if its not documented, your not legally common law. I checked with my recruiter, he needed to see the docs showing that we in fact have been together for all these yrs. So a drafted by the dad or any doc showing you are still living together could be acceptable. I had to show proof my 1st time in, and with re-enrollment i had to show them i was still comon law. 

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> I disagree. Ive been living common for many many yrs. And even my recruiter said they need documentation showing that you are still living together. I recommend talking to your recruiter to see what he/she wants. Here in BC, if its not documented, your not legally common law. I checked with my recruiter, he needed to see the docs showing that we in fact have been together for all these yrs. So a drafted by the dad or any doc showing you are still living together could be acceptable. I had to show proof my 1st time in, and with re-enrollment i had to show them i was still comon law.
> 
> Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk



You're missing the point. 

Yes, you have to provide proof that your are cohabiting and have been cohabiting for 1 year or more. 

What is fundamental untrue is the idea that  in order to qualify as cohabitating that you need your names to appear on a lease or deed. 

Making up a lease when there isn't one might actually be fraudulent.


----------



## da1root (27 Apr 2017)

Time for a Clerk to weigh in that has processed MANY common law status requests including one for myself.

In accordance with the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) the ONLY documents required to claim common law status is the request form itself and the statutory declaration.  There is NO requirement to provide a lease/mortgage document to prove that you have been co-habiting as a couple for the process, in every single common law status request that I have processed (including my own) I have yet to ever have a lease/mortgage attached to the package.

I have heard this requirement from many clerks these days and I have informed each and everyone one of them that they are not inline with the MHRRP when that state that this is a requirement.  Whoever is stating that this is a requirement may want to have a read of MHRRP Chapter 62 and QR&O 1.075.


----------



## Ryan_T (27 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You're missing the point.
> 
> Yes, you have to provide proof that your are cohabiting and have been cohabiting for 1 year or more.
> 
> ...


Thats why you get a prov rental agreement and sign it. A normal letter would most likely be considered as fraud depending. Ive been going through that for over 20yrs, lol. I learned all about it when i did my residential tenancy course. However, many prov's have their own terms/acts of how to go abouts tenancy.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan_T (27 Apr 2017)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> Time for a Clerk to weigh in that has processed MANY common law status requests including one for myself.
> 
> In accordance with the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) the ONLY documents required to claim common law status is the request form itself and the statutory declaration.  There is NO requirement to provide a lease/mortgage document to prove that you have been co-habiting as a couple for the process, in every single common law status request that I have processed (including my own) I have yet to ever have a lease/mortgage attached to the package.
> 
> I have heard this requirement from many clerks these days and I have informed each and everyone one of them that they are not inline with the MHRRP when that state that this is a requirement.  Whoever is stating that this is a requirement may want to have a read of MHRRP Chapter 62 and QR&O 1.075.


But it does make sense though to have proof or else anyone can claim common law when they actually arent and get a free move for the spouse.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## da1root (27 Apr 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> Thats why you get a prov rental agreement and sign it.



No, that's why directives as set out in the MHRRP Ch 62 need to be followed.



			
				Ryan_T said:
			
		

> But it does make sense though to have proof or else anyone can claim common law when they actually arent and get a free move for the spouse.



No it doesn't make sense, it's not inline with policy.  Policy is there for a reason; for us to follow - not to make up our own rules.

As per the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) Ch 62 The ONLY paperwork required is the request form and the statutory declaration.  There is NOTHING on either form stating that a lease/mortgage is required.

The only requirement is that the member solemnly declares:
"that we have resided together for at least one year preceding the application for husband and wife/life long partners
that we have jointly assume the support of a child and are residing together as husband and wife/life long partners
that we publicly represent each other as husband and wife/life long partners; and
that we continue to live with each other as husband and wife/life long partners.

AND I make solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act."

Original Poster, ask for the "Common-Law Partnership Application" and "Recognition or Re-establishment of a Common-Law Partnership" forms that are available in the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) Ch 62 References/Forms/Checklists.


----------



## da1root (27 Apr 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> anyone can claim common law when they actually arent and get a free move for the spouse.



That's called Fraud, and the Stat Dec references the Canada Evidence Act for a reason.


----------



## Ryan_T (27 Apr 2017)

Maybe it doesn't make sense in the military because they have their own forms. But my recruiter wanted to see proof on top of the declaration that way they knew my marital status/residency was valid and correct.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## da1root (27 Apr 2017)

Note to this thread

For new recruits it is up to the Commanding Officer as to what documents that they want to prove the Common-Law status.  While I personally do not think a lease proves that you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, to the point the only place I've ever lived that didn't have just my name on it was when I was a university student and everyone living in the house was on the lease.

With that said I have raised this issue to the appropriate staff that there is no consistency in the requirements to prove common-law and it is now being looked at by the appropriate personnel at CFRG HQ.  



			
				JToyts said:
			
		

> As I got the call saying I got the job my recruiter asked me if I had a martial status like common law or married.



If you send me a PM with what CFRC you're enrolling with I can lend a hand in making sure you have the right paperwork for that det CO to agree to your CL status.  Please do not do up a lease purely for the sake of claiming CL status, this is fraud.


----------



## Ryan_T (21 Aug 2017)

Wasn't sure if this would be the right area for this. If not, I do apologize. Anyway, I am waiting to be merit listed and my spouse and son are considering moving to her parents place for the the time frame that I am in training. Will the CF still help out with the move or will they go against it because she had to live elsewhere for temporary means?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (21 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> Wasn't sure if this would be the right area for this. If not, I do apologize. Anyway, I am waiting to be merit listed and my spouse and son are considering moving to her parents place for the the time frame that I am in training. Will the CF still help out with the move or will they go against it because she had to live elsewhere for temporary means?



Short answer, no.

Long answer, the CF is not posting you anywhere until after your DP1/QL3 (Basic doesn't count) so you are not entitled to any financial aid until your initial posting. Her moving with your son to her parents place is not being forced upon her, that's a decision that she (and you) have made. Has nothing to do with the CF.

If I am wrong someone can correct me. I don't remember anyone getting financial assistance until they got posted when I did my QL3's/DP1.


----------



## Ryan_T (21 Aug 2017)

That is what I was asking about. When the posting happens, does they have to stay where we are living now, or can she go, stay with her parents (with all belongings) and they bring them with when the posting happens. We aren't separating. 

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> That is what I was asking about. When the posting happens, does they have to stay where we are living now, or can she go, stay with her parents (with all belongings) and they bring them with when the posting happens. We aren't separating.
> 
> Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk



This link may be of some help:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch11.page


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> That is what I was asking about. When the posting happens, does they have to stay where we are living now, or can she go, stay with her parents (with all belongings) and they bring them with when the posting happens. We aren't separating.
> 
> Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk



Upon your first posting, the military will move, at government expense, your "House Hold Goods and Effects" (HG&E) from your _old_ "Primary Residence" to your _new_ "Primary Residence". 

If while you are on your initial training, your family moves your HG&E and changes Primary Residence at _your own_ expense, that's fine; when it comes time to move, the military will still pay for you to move from one primary residence to the next.

HOWEVER, one thing I could see happening is this. Say, right now, you live in Toronto, and your first posting will be in Kingston, and let's say that will cost the government $20,000 to move you. Now, you move your wife and kids and HG&E to her parents place, who live in Sudbury, and a move from Sudbury to Kingston would cost $30,000. It's possible the military will say "Hey, we didn't force you to move to Sudbury, so we're only going to cover $20,000 of that $30,000, and you have to cover the other $10,000. I don't know this for sure! But it's something I would look into.

If, however, her parents live in the same city as you guys currently live, then I don't see there being any problem at all, as the cost for both moves would be identical.

Cheers


----------



## Ryan_T (22 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Upon your first posting, the military will move, at government expense, your "House Hold Goods and Effects" (HG&E) from your _old_ "Primary Residence" to your _new_ "Primary Residence".
> 
> If while you are on your initial training, your family moves your HG&E and changes Primary Residence at _your own_ expense, that's fine; when it comes time to move, the military will still pay for you to move from one primary residence to the next.
> 
> ...



They would be going to Cowichan which is on Vancouver Island. We are currently in the Greater Vancouver area


Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan_T (22 Aug 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> This link may be of some help:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch11.page


From what I read, it looks like my family's move would be our own expense in this situation.

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> From what I read, it looks like my family's move would be our own expense in this situation.



Yes, it would.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> From what I read, it looks like my family's move would be our own expense in this situation.
> 
> Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk





> 11.1.02 Move of (D)HG&E
> 
> When CF members become entitled to move their (D)HG&E they may move from:
> 
> ...



The bit in yellow. As I said above.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The bit in yellow. As I said above.



Yeah.  From the link I posted.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> Wasn't sure if this would be the right area for this. If not, I do apologize. Anyway, I am waiting to be merit listed and my spouse and son are considering moving to her parents place for the the time frame that I am in training. Will the CF still help out with the move or will they go against it because she had to live elsewhere for temporary means?



Make sure you get all this sorted out before you head on course. From personal experience, it's just easier. Yes, you can request to sit down with a clerk during course, as there are admin periods and such. But ideally, you'd like to take care of loose ends, change of info (address and such) and whatnot in a relaxed environment where you have ample time to explain the circumstances. Whereas on course, you will be told (probably very firmly) that moves during course/during your training period until posting are not permitted. (In my posting message it specifically stated this.) Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and things are handled case by case, but it will be *much* easier to get the move and address change done prior.


----------



## Ryan_T (22 Aug 2017)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Make sure you get all this sorted out before you head on course. From personal experience, it's just easier. Yes, you can request to sit down with a clerk during course, as there are admin periods and such. But ideally, you'd like to take care of loose ends, change of info (address and such) and whatnot in a relaxed environment where you have ample time to explain the circumstances. Whereas on course, you will be told (probably very firmly) that moves during course/during your training period until posting are not permitted. (In my posting message it specifically stated this.) Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and things are handled case by case, but it will be *much* easier to get the move and address change done prior.


What if the family decided to do the relocation (temp of course) just prior but I don't officially move there because of going to training?

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk


----------



## BeyondTheNow (22 Aug 2017)

Ryan_T said:
			
		

> What if the family decided to do the relocation (temp of course) just prior but I don't officially move there because of going to training?
> 
> Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk



Just make sure that the address where your HG&E (Household goods & effects) needs to be moved from matches what they have on file. If your family picks up and moves (again, at their own expense) and you stay behind sleeping on a friend's couch or renting a room somewhere or whatever the case may be, fine. But you have to list your address as where they will move your family and belongings from. You can't have two physical addresses.

Side note: As well, your address needs to match what they have on file for travel claims when/if you actually leave for course. You need to be at the physical location they have listed for accurate travel/claim coverage.

Whatever you decide to do, just do it before a posting message comes in. To avoid complication/confusion, it's best you all stick together.


----------



## Ryan_T (22 Aug 2017)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Just make sure that the address where your HG&E (Household goods & effects) needs to be moved from matches what they have on file. If your family picks up and moves (again, at their own expense) and you stay behind sleeping on a friend's couch or renting a room somewhere or whatever the case may be, fine. But you have to list your address as where they will move your family and belongings from. You can't have two physical addresses.
> 
> Side note: As well, your address needs to match what they have on file for travel claims when/if you actually leave for course. You need to be at the physical location they have listed for accurate travel/claim coverage.
> 
> Whatever you decide to do, just do it before a posting message comes in. To avoid complication/confusion, it's best you all stick together.


I am waiting for a recruiter to call me back about this matter. I know that my families physical address will change if/when I go on course.

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Aug 2017)

Another consideration;  if you ARE going to move your family there, is there any chance for you to move there as well and have your file transferred to the nearest CFRC?

After you are done serving, on your final move, if you wanted to move back to this location on the Island, and you were enrolled from Vancouver with a primary residence address in Vancouver, there is the possibility the CF will only move you as far as Vancouver on the final move as well and you'd be paying the remainder.

My opinion from various experiences with moving in the CAF, if you can have your file moved before you are sworn in and your address is the intended place of residence on the Island, do that if at all possible.  I know it sounds easier than it is, I've done something similar myself in the past.   :2c:


----------



## Pusser (22 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Another consideration;  if you ARE going to move your family there, is there any chance for you to move there as well and have your file transferred to the nearest CFRC?
> 
> After you are done serving, on your final move, if you wanted to move back to this location on the Island, and you were enrolled from Vancouver with a primary residence address in Vancouver, there is the possibility the CF will only move you as far as Vancouver on the final move as well and you'd be paying the remainder.
> 
> My opinion from various experiences with moving in the CAF, if you can have your file moved before you are sworn in and your address is the intended place of residence on the Island, do that if at all possible.  I know it sounds easier than it is, I've done something similar myself in the past.   :2c:



This is good advice.  However, don't get too bent out of shape about the precise address of your dependants.  It makes no difference in terms of benefits when it comes time for your actual first posting move (i.e. moving your dependants, furniture and effects after all your training is complete) whether the CAF moves you from 125th St in Vancouver or Oak St in Vancouver.  It really doesn't. Your dependants can move on their own multiple times within the same area.  It all costs the same to the CAF in the long run.  If your wife and child move to Cowichan, it may make a difference (Lumber is quite correct on this) in that you would likely be on the hook for the difference between a move from Vancouver and one from Vancouver Island, but I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, the difference will be minimal considering the likely savings to be had if she lives with her parents (not to mention the reduced stress from having a support network close by while you're away).  Don't sweat the small stuff.  It is, however, important for your files to accurately reflect where your dependants are living, so regardless of what you decide to do, always make sure your chain of command knows where they live.

In summary:  

1)  If you can get your primary residence on enrollment to be Cowichan, BONUS!  You win on all counts.  (t may not even be necessary for your dependants to be physically there before you leave for BMQ.  As long as they have an address, you should be fine.  Not though that the CAF will not pay to move your dependants out of Vancouver at this point.

2)  If you can't, don't worry about it.  The benefits of her moving to Cowichan still outweigh staying in Vancouver (as I understand it).  You may end up a little out of pocket, but there are worse things.

As an aside, the CAF can order you, the member, to do many things, but they cannot order your dependants to anything at all.  Full stop.  However, what the CAF pays for is an entirely different thing.  So your spouse can do anything she likes.  Just be prepared to foot the bill if necessary.


----------



## Quirky (27 Nov 2017)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> No, that's why directives as set out in the MHRRP Ch 62 need to be followed.
> 
> As per the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) Ch 62 The ONLY paperwork required is the request form and the statutory declaration.  There is NOTHING on either form stating that a lease/mortgage is required.



Anyone have a link for these Common-Law procedures on the DIN? I've been looking for the request form and stat declaration and have come up with nothing.


----------



## da1root (27 Nov 2017)

They're in the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP); if you search for "MHRRP" on any DWAN Site the upkprod website will come up.
Failing being able to find that speak with the HRA in your OR/ShO, they should have the link and/or know how to find them.

Cheers


----------



## dimsum (1 Jan 2018)

Question - understanding that the CAF recognizes common law after a year of living together, if we've lived together for 11 months and she then has to move for university, is it possible to get it recognized early?  

Alternatively, if she's moving for only 2 semesters and returning before I'm due to be posted (therefore living together again for combined total of more than 12 months) can I submit the paperwork once we've reached 12 months of cohabitation?


----------



## Quirky (22 Jan 2018)

I’m trying to get a clear answer from someone in the WOR regarding this CL application. No one has a clue. I’ve filled out the application and I guess i need to have an interview with the CO, bring my spouse and sign the declaration in front of him?

I’ve been getting answers like I need to have a bill or some other bullshit with both our names on it. Well the mgt, house and all the bills are all on my name and are going to stay that way. It has nothing to do with living together for a year with my gf. 

So what’s the actual procedure, fill out the forms and hand them to who? OR? COs secretary?


----------



## garb811 (22 Jan 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m trying to get a clear answer from someone in the WOR regarding this CL application. No one has a clue. I’ve filled out the application and I guess i need to have an interview with the CO, bring my spouse and sign the declaration in front of him?
> 
> I’ve been getting answers like I need to have a bill or some other bullshit with both our names on it. Well the mgt, house and all the bills are all on my name and are going to stay that way. It has nothing to do with living together for a year with my gf.
> 
> So what’s the actual procedure, fill out the forms and hand them to who? OR? COs secretary?


It does have something to do with with living together for a year with your girlfriend, it's to establish that it is both of your primary residence for a year.  It doesn't have to be "your" bills, it could be a credit card bill of hers dated a year or more ago that is going to that address, other types of mail that is delivered in her name to that address etc that has a date stamp on it, a loan application of hers from a year ago with the address...there are a ton of different ways to prove residence.  If she doesn't have any of that, it is kind of hard to argue that your place has been her primary residence.  Not saying it can't be done, just makes it a lot harder, particularly if she hasn't bothered to change other types of ID like her drivers license to that address, has maintained a separate apartment etc etc.  All of that points to not meeting the cohabitation requirement.

The actual policy and procedure is laid out on the DWAN and is relatively easy to find.  But yes, you both need to be present to sign the stat dec as the paperwork requires both of you to sign it and to be positively identified at that time.

If it is that important, due to an upcoming tour, she suddenly needs you dental/medical coverage, a posting you want to move her on and you can't prove joint residency, there is always the JP or a trip to Vegas...


----------



## Quirky (22 Jan 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> It does have something to do with with living together for a year with your girlfriend, it's to establish that it is both of your primary residence for a year.  It doesn't have to be "your" bills, it could be a credit card bill of hers dated a year or more ago that is going to that address, other types of mail that is delivered in her name to that address etc that has a date stamp on it, a loan application of hers from a year ago with the address...there are a ton of different ways to prove residence.  If she doesn't have any of that, it is kind of hard to argue that your place has been her primary residence.  Not saying it can't be done, just makes it a lot harder, particularly if she hasn't bothered to change other types of ID like her drivers license to that address, has maintained a separate apartment etc etc.  All of that points to not meeting the cohabitation requirement.
> 
> The actual policy and procedure is laid out on the DWAN and is relatively easy to find.  But yes, you both need to be present to sign the stat dec as the paperwork requires both of you to sign it and to be positively identified at that time.
> 
> If it is that important, due to an upcoming tour, she suddenly needs you dental/medical coverage, a posting you want to move her on and you can't prove joint residency, there is always the JP or a trip to Vegas...



Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move. 

Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.


----------



## garb811 (22 Jan 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move.
> 
> Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.


 :facepalm:

Well, if that's your attitude when someone who has gotten more than a few couples through the process gives you some advice, good luck!  You're going to need it.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (22 Jan 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move.
> 
> Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.



That’s odd, because when I had to provide proof of CL, my SO had me added to two bills with nothing more than a phone call and internet access. (Hydro and car insurance).

What you’re being told is correct, as I’ve gone through it myself and have also administered portions of the process in terms of the necessary paperwork and required documents from the members.


----------



## kratz (22 Jan 2018)

[quote author=Quirky
[/quote]

If you want to learn from experience,  read after asking.


----------



## Quirky (23 Jan 2018)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> Time for a Clerk to weigh in that has processed MANY common law status requests including one for myself.
> 
> In accordance with the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) the ONLY documents required to claim common law status is the request form itself and the statutory declaration.  There is NO requirement to provide a lease/mortgage document to prove that you have been co-habiting as a couple for the process, in every single common law status request that I have processed (including my own) I have yet to ever have a lease/mortgage attached to the package.
> 
> I have heard this requirement from many clerks these days and I have informed each and everyone one of them that they are not inline with the MHRRP when that state that this is a requirement.  Whoever is stating that this is a requirement may want to have a read of MHRRP Chapter 62 and QR&O 1.075.





			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> That’s odd, because when I had to provide proof of CL, my SO had me added to two bills with nothing more than a phone call and internet access. (Hydro and car insurance).
> 
> What you’re being told is correct, as I’ve gone through it myself and have also administered portions of the process in terms of the necessary paperwork and required documents from the members.



These two posts give me two completely different answers regarding proof of cohabitation. I rummaged through Chapter 62 and I didn’t see anything regarding proof.

In my trade I am required, by law, to follow written policy and document. The “because I told you so” and “that’s the way it’s always been done” rhetoric doesn’t fly. Literally. When I read policy and I get answers that don’t follow them, I start to ask questions.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (23 Jan 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> These two posts give me two completely different answers regarding proof of cohabitation. I rummaged through Chapter 62 and I didn’t see anything regarding proof.
> 
> In my trade I am required, by law, to follow written policy and document. The “because I told you so” and “that’s the way it’s always been done” rhetoric doesn’t fly. Literally. When I read policy and I get answers that don’t follow them, I start to ask questions.



B_HRA has far more experience and knowledge in the area and perhaps he, or another member in-the-know might swing by and clarify further. 

At this point, the only thing I can do is surmise (until I can look it up further) that the requirement of being asked to provide back-dated supporting documentation was implemented as a way to have some way of providing proof that common-law status was established on/by a date stated. Yes, to initiate the common-law status the information BHRA provided is correct. But (and I’ve seen in happen), a member walks into the OR and says, “Oh, we started living together on such-and-such a date, so let me sign that stat-dec and we’re good to go.” Ok, well, where’s the proof? How does the military know that the member and the SO are legitimately entitled to the benefits of claiming CL and can thus move forward as such continuing to claim? Unfortunately there are examples of members taking advantage of the system.


----------



## captloadie (23 Jan 2018)

B-HRA is stating the interpretation out of the MHRRP, which is guidance to the HRAs, and not policy in and of itself. It is a more formalized version of the old Aide-Memoire that caused so many issues. It is a great place to find the forms and processes, but one needs to also read the underlying policy. The actual policy, issues in a CANFORGEN, states that the CO is the approving authority, and he must be satisfied that all CLP requirements are met. A CO may be satisfied by a signed stat dec. Or he may want more proof, which is his right. So, if your current CoC requires some sort of proof, then that is what is required.


----------



## Quirky (23 Jan 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> B-HRA is stating the interpretation out of the MHRRP, which is guidance to the HRAs, and not policy in and of itself. It is a more formalized version of the old Aide-Memoire that caused so many issues. It is a great place to find the forms and processes, but one needs to also read the underlying policy. The actual policy, issues in a CANFORGEN, states that the CO is the approving authority, and he must be satisfied that all CLP requirements are met. A CO may be satisfied by a signed stat dec. Or he may want more proof, which is his right. So, if your current CoC requires some sort of proof, then that is what is required.



If the CO requires proof then that's understandable as he/she is the ultimate approval authority. 



			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there are examples of members taking advantage of the system.



That's completely understandable and I've heard of instances where a couple gets married, then after a posting gets divorced just to get a free move. My spouse gets far better benefits than I do so it's not an issue of using the system.


----------

