Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

am currently undergoing the application process

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]

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...

much appreciated!

 

[Loachman]

Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread http://army.ca/forums/threads/25612/post-153064.html#msg153064

 

[mariomike]

much appreciated!

You are welcome. Good luck.