What is the legal definition of living together?

Sharing the same mailing address?

To be fair, common-law has always been two years in BC. It's merely some of the fine details that are being changed.

That sounds like something the church would say.

My opinion is that people should be living together for whatever reason they bloody well want and the government can stay the hell out of it.

If it's to make the court cases easier, the government could just as well have said "No marriage/union/formal partnership recognition, no sharing of financial assets" and left it at that.

If the partners wanted to up the level of the relationship to sharing financial assets, then they would be forced to have a "good hard look" at their relationship, because they would have to get said relationship formally recognized to move up to that level. I took that step with my wife, but I don't think it's right for others to have to automatically be subjected to it if they don't want to.

what an awful law.
i hope everyone will be made aware of it so that work can be done to get it repealed.

Maybe they try to stop "fake sponsorship". Too many fob are using common law to get permanent residency.

If you don't live together with your partner for long enough to be considered common-law (or live with them at all), then it doesn't matter, as it would not apply. However, if you CHOOSE to become common-law (either by living together for X period of time or having a child together), and therefore reap the benefits of being in a marital status equivalent to that of "married" for tax purposes, then I can see why something like this would be put into place. if you want the benefits, then you have to take on the negatives/risk (just as you would in marriage).

the alternative would be to completely remove "common-law" marital statuses, which would piss off a helluva lot more people.

Time to become duece bigalow male gigolo :ilied:

This thread has kinda turned into common-law vs no common-law..

I'm definitely for removing common-law. Marriage should be a conscious choice that two people enter into. If you live with someone for 25 years and they don't want to marry you, you did it wrong. You should have left them a long time ago.

Better decide if she/he is a keeper on month 23......

Sigh... This shouldn't be about the common law vs no common law.

1. This is about people rights. One person's right to choose either or.

2. Government creating a law the favoring one sided relationships.

3. And the other person"s" rights is being infringed apron.

government way of thinking. "well it will be cheaper in the long run"

You can't really say they're "Doing it wrong". Each case is different.

My Aunt (mom's sister) and her partner have been together for over 15 years (I consider him an uncle at this point). They are not married, but they are happy. They have no kids of their own, but he has one from a previous marriage (who is 22 now). I think maybe the previous marriage has soured him to wanting to get "married" again, but my aunt obviously doesn't care or she wouldn't have been with him so long.

I don't know how they work their finances, but I don't think they'd be at all upset if "common law" was removed.

So if i was housemates with someone for two years and over, and they decide to move out, they can potentially accuse me of being in a gay relationship with him tht went south and sue for half my assets and half of his debt?
Posted via RS Mobile

this law also sounds like it was written by frustrated women who want their boyfriends to shit or get off the pot in regards to marriage.

like, if the bish is good enough to live with for 2 year, marry her or move the fuck on...if shit is going to be joint anyways, you might as well do it.

on a srs not, however, im not digging this law....i feel like it forces relationships to move too fast.

I meant, you're doing it wrong if your intention is to want/take half of their stuff, but stayed with them for 25 years.

If your aunt an uncle are fine taking what is legally theirs if there happens to be a split, then that's doing it right.

If you somehow agree to pay the bills and groceries for 25 years, and not have any legal contract in place and not have your name legally owning any asset, then you did it wrong..

sorry if i was unclear..

Exactly!!! I have friends who have roomates or they live in a place where there are several roomates.

2years is way too short. Make it at least 5years. Also I don't agree with the part with then debt. Why the hell would I be hook onto someone's debt when I didn't even borrow it or even use it. I think deb should be seperate unless it is being sign by both party. If I sign for it then yea I am on the hook but if I didn't sign anything I refuse to pay a penny for it.

Financial is a touch subject. I had a long term relationship which lasted over 3years and we never discuss about financial and debt at all.

So now when getting into a relationship not only we have to check for HIVS with our partner we also have to run a credit report on them?

edit SO WHAT about if after 23months I change my address to another place(parent place for example) and then change back to the orginal address after 1month? So then we will be unaffected by the law then? Since my address was change going into the 23 month.

Lol what if your bills like cable electric etc.. you can't change the address on those. That's evidence that you reside at that location. So bam half of your shit belongs to someone else.

It should be longer than two years and any personal debt, especially anything incurred before you met should not be part of the deal. It's not entirely impossible to be with someone a couple years and have no idea they have a huge amount of debt in their name...it's not exactly something someone likes to mention.
Posted via RS Mobile

There are a lot of aspects to consider here.

The first is the relationship status. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. I know people who are married and have a horrible life and people who are common law and have the best relationship ever. A title is a title and that means as little or as much as the people want it to mean.

The issue here is clearly that of money and finance.

Under current law, one married person can run up debt to the moon and provided it is in their name only, the other people is not liable.

Under the new rules, as it states, both parties are now responsible for the other persons debts.

Consider the following REAL example that my friend is in currently:

You are 27 years old and you are working making $80k a year and you are making money trying to save up for a home. You are currently living with your girlfriend for a year and a half who is in med school with about $100,000 in debt but will start working in 2 years making good money. The plan is to buy a home together once both people are working as their combined income will be healthy.

Based on this new rule, after 24 months, she can leave and he would have to assume half of her student loan.

OR

I hook up with some woman and I don't disclose some debt that I have. Maybe I have $80,000 of debt that she didn't know about because I didn't tell her. After 3 years of living together we split up and I shove a $40,000 bill in her face to take care of half my debt.


I know the law is often dynamic and there are appeals etc so that those cannot manipulate the system but I see this as a serious problem.

As I said, even the old statute under marriage allowed both parties to remain responsible for their own debt.

That's like saying creditors can come after your parents or kids if you rack up too much debt. Talk about slavery.

where was the public consultation for passing this law? this is fucking bullshit

Why gay? I've had female roommates, there was one I eventually slept with a few times as well. No relationship beyond that whatsoever, but I bet they could have used this law very effectively.


Maybe that's the real point behind it.

It's not just living together. It's living together in a "marriage-like" relationship.

So what makes up that class of relationship? Lots of things... kids? shared finances? shared chores? sexytimes? etc. etc.

Just because you're living with someone doesn't make it a marriage-like relationship. Hell, even fucking your roommate a couple of times doesn't make it a marriage-like relationship either.

The thing with a roommate relationship is that you typically need to formalize that relationship in the form of a residential tenancy agreement with your landlord. For more certainty, you and your roommate can state in the agreement that you are roommates and not in a conjugal/common-law relationship.