In Canada you can be required to pay support to a woman you dated, even if you're not married, don't kids and don't live together

mrcs84usn · 2020-09-11T17:01:38+00:00

Honestly, I don't think any RPer would ever fall for this crap. When reading the article, this dude did a lot of "she-is-basically-my-wife" behavior.

7.5 carat diamond ring
quit her job and 'regularly' (whatever that means) slept over
Referred to her with his last name
Gave her thousands every month, paid off her mortgage, gave her a credit card.

This dude was a FULLY invested pussy beggar. I don't particularly agree with the courts, but I do see where they were coming from.

pebblefromwell · 2020-09-11T16:50:15+00:00

Liquidation of assets move to a country that has no extradition to Canada. All could be done in a year.

TigerXtrm · 2020-09-11T17:00:46+00:00

At that point I would just leave the country and go into hiding somewhere. Fuck that bitch.

That said, the guy showered her in money and gifts and was then surprised she was a golddigger.

Surprise!

inertargongas · 2020-09-11T16:37:56+00:00

[deleted]

Domebeers · 2020-09-11T18:04:18+00:00

" However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused. "

Don't be dumb (not you OP, I mean guys in general). I tell this to my clients all the time. Especially if they have some money. If the bitch doesn't sign it, find another bitch.

The courts in Canada hate men, and wealthy men especially. This isn't new. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it is reality. Being red pilled means seeing and accepting reality. The ruling is insane, but guys need to know the judges are insane and don't care.

Prenups, co-habitation agreements, are a must.

ToraChan23 · 2020-09-11T16:37:13+00:00

[deleted]

MattyAnon · 2020-09-12T00:45:54+00:00

“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation"

Holy fucking shit. What crazy doublespeak is this where cohabitation is defined to exist without sharing a residence.

ScarletWhiteEmerald · 2020-09-11T17:05:35+00:00

That is just messed up to read. I wonder if it's possible for him to claim tax refunds on his previous years of personal income since the woman wasn't working and the courts consider them to be spouses over the past 14 years.

KingCrow27 · 2020-09-11T19:31:52+00:00

Systems like this is how you destroy society's morals and family units. Way to go Canada.

blacwidonsfw · 2020-09-11T16:52:12+00:00

I am so scared of this. I have been dating my gf 5 yrs+ and I just bought a house (on my own not with her). Any advice to keep it that way

arakouzo · 2020-09-11T17:50:54+00:00

It's a pretty messed up interpretation. The common law rules in Canada are supposed to be: 1) Cohabitation; 2) Sex; 3) At least 3 continuous years.

The court just sort of threw out #1 and half of #3 and said "Cohabitation doesn't mean cohabitation. And continuous doesn't mean continuous. Really, the law just means sometimes living together for short stretches of time and acting like a married couple when you do it... oh yeah, and the woman's explicit refusal to marry the man despite numerous requests by him to do so has no effect on our ruling. They were definitely common law married. In fact, the fact that he wanted to marry her makes us more likely to rule that they were married."

The real reasoning behind the ruling was that she quit her job and let him support her. Once a woman is financially dependent on a man, that is "acting married", no matter who's fucking who, who lives where, or how often they fuck or stay over. Because nobody's hiding it any more. Marriage is a financial arrangement. If you act financially married, that is 99% of marriage. Nobody gives a shit who fucks who or who lives where.

TheGweatandTewwible · 2020-09-11T16:33:33+00:00

Nah, that's 100% on him. Canada is a lost hope but come on. What a miserable 14 years that must've been

NabroleonBonaparte · 2020-09-11T17:28:48+00:00

This is what happens when men are raised by women and grow up feminized.

They act like a female wearing their shorts around their ankles, squealing with tears in their eyes. Then they grow up voting for socialism and bigger government.

Guy was a foolish beta, but if he simped as hard as he did for her, he probably was “an ally” for these ridiculous ideologies floating around in society.

2020-09-12T01:44:09+00:00

This is what happens to you when you are wealthy enough to "keep" a woman like that. The courts reason that since you have a lot of money, whoever you date is entitled to a piece of it. This maybe be "good for the economy," since one person usually only spends a certain amount of their wealth. But if the court can get their claws into your stash, they can then siphon some off and double or triple the amounts being spent on a regular basis. Women are great spenders and consumers. I wonder if this legislation is product of retail sellers lobbying, amongst other business interests lobbies. They all get together and put their heads together to figure out how best to keep the money flowing into the economy. Depressed, bitter, washed up women are prime targets. It would also explain a lot of the narcissism in the cultural programming. That also helps grease the machine.

rektum_expander · 2020-09-11T17:11:47+00:00

What the fuck Canada?! Get your shit together man.

CabernetPerignon · 2020-09-11T19:31:55+00:00

If she was his common law partner, then he got fucked law wise. Point of not marrying someone is to skip the entire process he’s gone through. Hope he goes to supreme court - sure seems like he has the money to do so.

2020-09-11T23:05:52+00:00

Okay Canada is officially a shit hole.

2020-09-11T17:29:16+00:00

I honestly don't believe that this is not just one of those "the judge is just a complete idiot" type of things. If this is the way Canada's legislation works, then press F.

Realworld · 2020-09-11T17:54:40+00:00

I was incredibly dense in my teens & 20s and thought I needed to be highly educated, top athlete, and moneyed to get a woman. Overshot the goal and found myself attracting upper-class business professional women. All in their late 20s to mid-30s. Uniformly attractive, well-educated, competent, confident, and adventurous (and fair-minded). My type of women. Also all higher income than mine.

Get vasectomy early on, deflect pressure to marry, and fish in the upper-class dating pool. No risk of getting screwed by Family Court.

Lasers_Pew_Pew_Pew · 2020-09-11T19:44:26+00:00

THIS IS INSANE.

So if I ever win the lottery I have to remain single forever or whoever I live with I have to give them half my shit, even if we weren't married, and even if we never lived together at all?

What is this BULLSHIT.

superman1995 · 2020-09-12T04:02:34+00:00

Moral of the story, raise your SMV, and move to Canada. Once there, find a suga mama. Give the fuck of her life to some "independent, career-focused woman" and get her to pay for your shit. Do it for a while and then have her pay for the rest of your life.

kingslayer-x_x · 2020-09-11T18:11:34+00:00

[removed]

joshiemcswaggy · 2020-09-11T16:41:11+00:00

This cant be true, what has the world become

turbospeedsc · 2020-09-11T20:32:22+00:00

Currently escorts are and will become the cheapest form of sex, for $50k a month, he could be fucking 50 top quality girls a month, be done in a couple of hours and keep going on with his life, if you want something more stable 10 SB , for 5k a month you can get a pretty nice SB keep rotate them daily, and be gone of problems discussions etc., and the only thing they will get is your money on your terms.

Jim_E_Hat · 2020-09-11T20:35:41+00:00

Asset protection. You don't own your assets, a trust (or other entity does).

redgow87 · 2020-09-11T20:45:54+00:00

I still never get why guys think it's smart to use outright spending to woo women who aren't at least their wives. Once you condition a woman to this, you think she's just gonna walk away because you said so? You also open up yourself to getting used, played, and abused .not worth it. If you wanna do this, do it for a hooker who understands its a business and that she has to give to receive and not just fuck you over because she feels entitled to your money

RPAlphaMale · 2020-09-12T00:01:42+00:00

Shit like this makes me want to go full MGTOW. I get that the guy was a weak idiot but the fact that our society allowed this baffles me. 600k a year for existing, probably getting railed by chads she doesn’t even know, all on BetaBux’s dime.

antifeminist3 · 2020-09-12T01:38:15+00:00

I'm Canadian. The judge's reason for calling this relationship a 'common-law relationship' was heavily influenced by two things:

he gave her money
They frequently slept at each others house such that it happened on most days.

Had he done neither, the judge would have decided against palimony. So the judge basically decided that because the man gave her money, this entitled her to more money.

BitchesBrew_MF · 2020-09-11T20:16:20+00:00

You grabbed this from Better Bachelor didn’t you? Lulz

1). More proof as to what happens if you play by Beta Bux rules....don’t be the Beta Bux...

2). To those who don’t know, read about Dave Foley’s divorce. He goes into it in depth with Joe Rogan on one of his early podcasts. It’s literally the scariest story about going through the divorce process in Canada....you Canadian RPers take heed

2020-09-12T02:07:12+00:00

That’s what he gets for simping so hard I mean he was asking for it can’t feel bad for him

trollreign · 2020-09-11T21:06:38+00:00

[removed]

dkod066 · 2020-09-11T16:32:47+00:00

Jesus this is actually disturbing but unsurprising

Virtusvitium · 2020-09-11T20:20:29+00:00

Canada is fucking retarded and cucked

Liquor_China · 2020-09-11T19:25:04+00:00

One thing the courts in Canada consider is if you present yourself as a couple. Being together for that long and his social status I’m guessing she was on his arm at many social events thus presenting themselves as a couple.

skeptixon · 2020-09-12T18:40:44+00:00

This may be downvoted, but from a contract point view, this ruling makes sense

It falls under 'damage to public interest' 'promissory estoppel' and reliance: if you are with a woman for 14 years, paying for her expenses and offering marriage constantly it is safe to assume you are very serious about life-long marriage and that she in reliance of your actions did not seek other mates- whether this is true or not is up to debate. These types of ruling happen very often in the business world and wouldnt be a surprise to me that it occured in family court

This isnt me saying this is normal or good, but it makes sense and any red pilled man should never fall in these pitfalls to begin with. Fuethermore, read the laws of your country regarding interaction with everyone not just women.

dynospectrum7 · 2020-09-11T16:30:42+00:00

In this day and age, ignorance is not an excuse.

2020-09-11T17:37:35+00:00

Eventually things will get so bad that no man will want to date any women ever again. That coupled with women getting infinite attention on social media, dating will be a shadow of itself in the not so distant future.

2020-09-11T20:28:29+00:00

you think that's something... in my country, if you live together with someone from the opposite sex for at least a year, you might as well be legally married in the eyes of the government

lordenki0 · 2020-09-16T21:50:09+00:00

The ruling wasn't a one off as some have suggested or believe, this happened because in Canada if you live with a partner for more than two years your union is then considered what is referred to as Common Law.

As a common law partner, you are given all or at least most of the accommodations and benefits of two people who are married.

In this case, as his common law wife, she would have been entitled, after 14 years together, to continue being supported at the same standard of living she enjoyed while in the relationship.

In Canada, her refusal to accept his marriage proposals would carry no wright whatsoever.

Not having kids makes no difference either as she was awarded spousal support. Had there been children, he'd be paying spousal and child support.

Another thing that wouldn't have made a difference is if she had cheated on him along the way. Adultery in Canada isn't factored in to awards or settlements.

For the record, I haven't read the linked story about this couple. I am making comments based on what the OP wrote in his post.

blasted_biscuits · 2020-09-18T03:30:25+00:00

This is a perversion of justice and one of these appeal courts need to strike it down. But, imagine how insufferable he musta been for her to turn down his multiple offers of marriage though..

EnlaCitydelafuria · 2020-10-17T17:13:46+00:00

His worst mistake was to give money to her.

He paid her to rob him.

TeddyMGTOW · 2020-09-11T16:29:08+00:00

Yeah, the guy screwed but he sure was not on the Red Pill forum. Who spins a plate for 10 years? single mothers? nah!

Pezotecom · 2020-09-11T16:59:01+00:00

This is like how they have high salaries on politicians or life-long payments on the basis of not downgrading their life style. And it makes some sense, given that you have compromised, you may have a hard time finding a job, etc.

But what in the fucking hell did you commit when you started a relationship? I see this man continued making hard money so... what a fucking world

zino193 · 2020-09-12T12:30:09+00:00

So?

Learn that actions have conseuquences - real life consequences. First mistake - he lives in Canada.

If you live in a socialist state - you agree with the socialist social contract: those that have need to share with the have-nots.

Get that thought your thick skull.

Politics is not about fairness, it's about votes, and leechers are more numerous than productive middle class and up people in the western world. Especially for states that survive based on immigration policies and basically importing poor, socially dependent poor from other countries. (not saying conservatives are any more financially responsible with their jingoist fetishes)

I will repeat myself - regardless of your investment plan - if you live in a country where left leaning parties get more than 30% - none of your retirement plans will pan out. Stop being lazy and hedge your financial future.

universalmonologist · 2020-09-11T17:14:36+00:00

Ever since Bill C-16 Canada has been lost. Has it btw affected any of your lives?

2020-09-11T18:36:22+00:00

The Canadian tax system disincentivises marriage by heavily taxing married couples. My aunt and uncle were together for over 30 years before actually tying the knot all for financial reasons.

DextroShade · 2020-09-11T23:55:25+00:00

I would just leave the country.

Mysterious_Thing · 2020-09-12T01:15:31+00:00

50,000$ a month? Somehow I don't believe this is true. If the amount was lower I might have believed it. So basically this woman supposedly will get what normal people earn in a year every month from one guy? Come on. Get real.

Ranger_Boi · 2020-09-12T05:35:14+00:00

There are similar laws in the US. Look up common law marriages for your state. Most states require you to have presented the relationship as a marriage and by what the post says it would meet the requirements. So yay. They were married as far as the courts see it.

retal1ator · 2020-09-12T07:06:33+00:00

If you look at this from a meta perspective, judges are crazy. No discussion.

If you look at this in the contexts of gynocentric laws, it might make sense as this guy was acting as his husband the whole time and is definitely an idiot.

We live in 🤡🌍

2020-09-12T13:01:26+00:00

Same in India... She is even entitled to his inherited properties

mugatucrazypills · 2020-09-12T13:07:22+00:00

It's just the next step. Too many men have caught on to the the inherent fraud that marriage has become.

So it's not longer going to be optional. You won't have the right to remain single. You'll be mandated to "man up" for your cuck obligations and pussy dues by the state.

Already extra taxes and fees and responsibilities for being born male-cis-opressor.

All thought you were so clever and going to be allowed to go MGTOW or be a Playboy ? The feminist-marxist state considers all it's human property.

The threshold for lasting obligation to the cow-humans will continue to drop untill you're just assigned no matter what you do.

no_regret20 · 2020-09-12T20:59:02+00:00

NO, the lesson here is never go to fucking Canada.

RedEyeBlackEye1 · 2020-09-12T22:26:20+00:00

50k/mth vs plane ticket another jurisdiction?

Hmmm.

HotConclusion0 · 2020-09-14T09:13:16+00:00

If you're a self employed businessman or wealthy enough to pay yourself as this man clearly is then it's a priority to know how to hide your assets so that in the case of a divorce the only thing a spouse or the government will have access to is the family home, and that too will be difficult if you purchase it under an LLC as a loan. When you're in a position to protect yourself from vultures, never compromise or get complacent cause the consequences will hit you like a mack truck.

throwlaca · 2020-09-14T21:17:51+00:00

>They dated for 14 years

That's not dating. However they didn't lived together so there is nothing to claim.

2020-09-15T13:48:16+00:00

It’s not a Canadian thing. That looks like a one-off with a bad ruling. Try to find other similar cases.

poppypopsicles · 2020-10-02T07:05:54+00:00

Why wouldn't you just have the bitch killed at this point? Surely someone out there would kill a random woman for vastly less than the $6,000,000 this guy has been ordered to pay out to his financial rapist...

How would it not be worth $1,000,000 to have a professional make it look like she OD'd on some heroin? Super satisfying, and you SAVE $5,000,000.

No way does it cost more than $1,000,000 to hire a legit hitman?

RAGNAR_GZ · 2020-09-11T16:55:31+00:00

Never feel bad for men like this. You know he was warned, knew the consequences, yet consciously made decisions that lead to this.

And you fucking know he liked supporting her like that.

randarrow · 2020-09-11T17:02:01+00:00

It's called common law marriage guys, it's been a thing for a long time.

Aerophage1771 · 2020-09-11T18:38:06+00:00

[removed]

hockeyaddict87 · 2020-09-11T18:46:07+00:00

This seems like a very specific case and I think its wrong to make a conclusion like you did with your title

ToraChan23 · 2020-09-11T18:24:25+00:00

The poor guy proposed several times

The poor chump gave her "thousands of dollars every month, a credit card, paid off her mortgage and showered her with expensive gifts"

Fuck this guy. He deserves everything he's getting.

Polengoldur · 2020-09-11T20:00:28+00:00

They dated for 14 years

common law marriage. not a particularly common thing, but it does happen. even in the states.

ISeeThings404 · 2020-09-11T21:44:40+00:00

Bro this isn't something that I feel is likely to happen to most normal people. The very fact that this is in the news means it's an anomaly. Sure the precedent setting might be icky but it seems like a case of extremes here

Quo210 · 2020-09-12T05:13:49+00:00

Be glad it's another low SMV cuck out of order whom will additionally serve as an example

Title	In Canada you can be required to pay support to a woman you dated, even if you're not married, don't kids and don't live together
Author	ProjectImmortality
Upvotes	848
Comments	193
Date	11 September 2020 04:25 PM UTC (7 months ago)
Subreddit	TheRedPill
Link	https://theredarchive.com/post/214668
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/iqtsvr/in_canada_you_can_be_required_to_pay_support_to_a/

In Canada you can be required to pay support to a woman you dated, even if you're not married, don't kids and don't live together

A Story of Ultimate Survival and Why I am Now a MGTOW - Long Story

Man's ex-girlfriend body shames him for being fat. Man goes to asian country. Ex-girlfriend is furious.

Fisking "Letter To The Scared Guy Dating A Single Mom"

Ten years a MGTOW

For Single Guys - An Intro to the Red Pill, A few pieces of advice, and a Farewell