Climans v. Latner, 2020 ONCA 554 (CanLII): Intermittent Cohabitation Can Be Sufficient for Spousal Support Entitlement

By Munera Lawyers

Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s order for spousal support payments of more than $50,000.00 per month.[1] The parties had shared a long-term romantic relationship, but were not legally married, did not live together and had no children together. Despite these facts, the court found the couple to be spouses of one another and ordered spousal support payments.

Under Ontario’s Family Law Act (“Act”), the definition of a spouse is extended to common law couples for the purposes of support obligations. Pursuant to section 29 of the Act, a spouse “includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and who have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.”[2]

The parties in this case had entered into a romantic relationship in October 2001. The Applicant was separated with two children at that time, and the respondent was divorced with three children. The couple maintained their separate homes during the relationship and never had joint bank accounts.

Their 14-year relationship came to an end in May 2015, and the Applicant brought an Application seeking spousal support payments. The Applicant argued that she considered the Respondent her spouse based on the dynamic of their relationship, and was entitled to spousal support payments.

The Respondent argued that the Applicant was nothing more than his girlfriend and travel companion during the relationship. Thus, they were not spouses and he was not obligated to pay. The matter proceeded to an eight day trial, where Justice Shore of the Superior Court of Justice found that the parties were in fact spouses.[3]  

Some of the facts put forth by the Applicant and accepted by the trial judge are as follows:

• The Applicant would regularly sleep at the Respondent’s house including having dinner together every night;
• The parties travelled together and had discussions about living together;
• The Respondent proposed marriage multiple times and the Applicant accepted;
• The Respondent gave the Applicant a 7.5 carat diamond ring, among other jewelry;
• The Respondent referred to the Applicant by his last name and the Applicant had the Respondent listed as her husband in her passport; and
• The Respondent provided a “lavish lifestyle” for the Applicant and her children, including giving her large amounts of money every month, paying off her mortgage, giving her a credit card and paying for the utilities of her home.

Justice Shore noted that the parties had intermittently lived together during their summer and winter vacations, which was sufficient for a finding of cohabitation under the Act. Accordingly, she ordered the Respondent to pay spousal support in the amount of $53,077.00 per month indefinitely. The Respondent appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Shore’s finding that cohabitation can occur where parties have only intermittently lived together. The Court relied on previous cases where there was only intermittent cohabitation in stating that not sharing a home does not on its own determine the issue of cohabitation. However, the Court disagreed with the date of cohabitation and therefore adjusted the duration of spousal support payments to 10 years.

[1] Climans v Latner, 2020 ONCA 554 (CanLII).

[2] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c F.3, r 29.

[3] Climans v Latner, 2019 ONSC 1311 (CanLII), 144 OR (3d) 743.

NOTE: This article has been written for general information purposes only and does NOT constitute legal advice. For further questions and/or legal advice please consult a qualified lawyer.