Connect with us

Legal Matters

Unjust Enrichment and Common Law Spouses

Published

on

BY VALERIE DYE 

It is now known that common law couples are not automatically entitled to share in assets owned by the other common law spouse even when these assets have been acquired during the relationship. One way in which such couples may be able to claim a share in assets to which they have no legal title is by relying on the principle of unjust enrichment. The claimant spouse will have to show that the other spouse has become unjustly enriched by virtue of the efforts of the claimant and it that it would be unjust for the claimant to be deprived of a share in the assets.

When the court determines that there has been an unjust enrichment the aim is to restore the claimant to the position he or she would have been in were it not for the unjust enrichment.  In most cases the court gives a monetary award to the claimant.  One of the issues faced by the courts in dealing with unjust enrichment in family law cases is whether the claimant should be paid in terms of ‘value received’ by the other spouse or whether the claimant should be paid on the basis of ‘value survived’.  Under the ‘value received’ approach the claimant will be compensated in accordance with the amount of his or her contribution toward the acquisition of the asset.  Under the ‘value survived’ approach the claimant receives a share of the surviving value of the asset regardless of the extent of the contribution. Consequently, if the claimant contributed to the acquisition of an asset and the value of the asset decreased during the relationship the claimant would only be awarded a share of the existing value of the asset.   In the leading case of Kerr v Baranow (2011) 1SCR 269, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that where parties establish that their common-law relationship was based on a joint family venture the appropriate manner of quantifying the amount the claimant spouse is entitled to is the ‘value survived ‘approach.  Further, in a joint family venture it would not be necessary to examine in minute detail the exact contribution of each party.

How does the court determine whether there has been a joint family venture?   The court stated in Kerr and Baranow that there is no presumption of joint family venture simply because parties have lived together.  It is necessary to examine how the parties have lived their lives.  In that regard, account will be taken of such things as, whether there have been mutual efforts by the parties in attaining certain goals, whether there has been economic integration, the intentions of the parties and whether they treated the family as a priority.

In Montgomery v Schlender 2012 ABQB the court found that although the parties lived together and had a sexual relationship there was no joint family venture despite the fact that the claimant spouse did household chores, contributed to groceries and contributed to the improvement of the home. Some of the reasons that guided the court’s findings were the fact that there was no joint bank account, the parties were responsible for their own debts and they did not name each other as beneficiaries under insurance coverages. The court found that whatever contributions were made were done as cohabiting housemates on the basis of an agreement that each would contribute his or her share of the expenses and share in household chores. As such, there was a mutual conferral of benefits as opposed to a joint family venture.

In conclusion, it is to be noted that common law spouses do have a remedy in unjust enrichment which can compensate for the fact that they do not enjoy the benefit of equalization of assets that married couples do. Nonetheless, it is important to note that even the remedy of unjust enrichment is not automatic as the court will not assume that parties who have lived together were engaged in a joint family venture.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Legal Matters

What is the Legality of Online Gambling in Canada?

Published

on

Many legal experts describe online gambling in Canada as a grey area. That means there are no clear laws about it, which explains why some people think it’s legal and others believe it’s banned.

Does that mean the police could one day come after your laptop for playing a few rounds of poker online? It’s unlikely. In fact, the Canadian Revenue Agency might never come after you too whether you win $100 on roulette or $1 million on slots. Continue reading to find more information below.

Gambling is a Provincial Matter
Gambling is a provincial issue according to country laws. There’s no grayness around it. From Alberta to BC, Manitoba to Quebec, each jurisdiction decides whether to permit gambling businesses.

So far, nearly every province allows one or more forms of online gambling. British Columbia first legalized online lotto games and sports betting in 2004. In 2009, it permitted online poker and casino games like slots and blackjack in 2010.

Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have similar gambling laws. In the Maritime province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edwards Island, online gambling falls under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic Lottery Corp. It permits lotto games but restricts slots and card games.

To be clear, many provincial gambling sites accept bets from local residents only. Manitoba lottery apps serve players in Manitoba and Alberta poker websites open account for people in Alberta alone.

Offshore Casinos are the Grey Area
Although Canadian laws dictate provinces are responsible for regulating gambling, they don’t talk about offshore casinos. They don’t state whether it’s legal for Canadians to accept bets at foreign betting sites. And they don’t mention whether offshore operators can welcome Canucks.

According to Michael Lipton, a gaming law expert, Canadian players commit no crimes when they bet at offshore casinos. As such, you can find legal sites for online gambling in Canada. And you can bet on slots, blackjack or poker and you’ll be safe.

That said, online casinos based overseas can’t set up their offices on Canadian soil. Starnet Communications International, an operator based in Antigua, once opened an office in Vancouver with an attempt to operate in Canada.

 Unfortunately, the B.C. Supreme Court determined Starnet couldn’t operate in Canada and it ceased its operations in 2001. For clarity, some online casinos host their servers in the country, mainly at the Kahnawake Gaming Commission offices in Quebec. But they’re licensed elsewhere.

Online Gaming Profits are Untaxed
Because the Federal Government has not laws about online gambling, the Revenue Agency doesn’t tax iGaming profits. People have been playing online casinos for over a decade. And the Revenue Agency has never gone after anyone’s money.

The most publicized online casino win was a $7.5 million jackpot winner in 2015. It was the largest payout a Canadian has won through gambling. Naturally, the news spread tremendously throughout the county. But the winner, who chose to remain anonymous, was never taxed.

A handful of more Canucks have won $100,000 to $11 million since 2015. And barring for professional gamblers, no one has had to pay taxes on their profits. In case you’re wondering, Americans must pay taxes on their online casino profits, sometimes as much as 30%.

A Wide Range of Games Allowed
Although providences restrict some games, offshore casinos do not. They let Canadians gamble on just about anything: slots, bingo, video poker, blackjack, scratch cards, poker and baccarat. What’s more, they provide a large collection of variants.

That way, you don’t just find a handful of slots online. There are hundreds of them from classic games to jackpots, Megaways to VR slots. Likewise, you can play Texas Hold’em, Hi-Lo, Omaha, 7-Card or Caribbean poker.

Another benefit of Canadian online casinos is that they provide games from many software providers. This ensures you can evaluate the features in games offered by several developers to choose the best-quality slots or card games.

Still on games, you can play slots, poker and blackjack on your mobile devices. No longer are you limited to your workstation. Instead, you can pull out your iPhone while on the subway, beach or sofa and play a variety of games.

Sports Betting Sites a Click Away
Like online casinos, sports betting websites are always a click away. The best sportsbooks are based in the UK and Malta, licensed, safe and regulated. They provide betting markets for Canadian sports leagues, American, European and world sports.

What’s more, they provide the latest betting features to Canadians: in-play, mobile, and partial withdrawal services. On the other hand, offshore casinos allow Canucks to bet and withdraw their profits without paying taxes.

So, why don’t sportsbooks sponsor Canadian sports leagues? It is all about the laws. Sure, you can bet at a sportsbook based in London. But it has no license to operate in Ontario or Saskatchewan and therefore can’t support local leagues.

 Bonuses Lure Canadians
In Some countries, online casinos are allowed to operate without handing out bonuses, at least not large amounts. Luckily, Canadians aren’t restricted by such measures. They are welcomed with generous amounts of betting money, up to $1000 at the best casinos.

This money can be used to play a full range of games and win real money. But in many cases, there are some restrictions that guide players on how to use promotional cash. For example, there’s a betting limit, games you can’t play and the maximum you can win.

Problem Gambling Protection
One of the disadvantages of not having clear gambling laws is that it leaves some players vulnerable. In the UK, players can contact the Gambling Commission if they feel like an operator exploited them due to their addiction.

In Canada, players only hope casinos will act responsibly. Fortunately, the best casinos in Canada must protect all players by law. They must have tools to detect addicted players and stop them. Or they can let players self-examine and limit their budgets if they have to. All the same, many online casinos have a responsibility to help players play responsibly.

Continue Reading

Legal Matters

Your blood relation to an individual can have an impact on you

Published

on

BY NANA ADJEI-POKU

Munira Omar, a Canadian Citizen with no criminal record obtained employment at WestJet Airlines in Toronto as a guest services ambassador. She was then promoted to customer service agent eight months thereafter. As many of us know, to perform certain duties while employed by an airline, one needs to have security clearance to access restricted areas of the airport. Ms Omar applied for this card on September 29th , 2015 (a month after she was hired) and was granted a temporary pass.

Two years after being granted the pass, Ms Omar was notified by Transport Canada about its concerns about some information obtained regarding her ability to obtain a full security clearance. Apparently, there was an RCMP check that revealed that Ms. Omar was associated with two individuals with extensive criminal record histories. Some of the charges noted were: trafficking, possession of a Schedule 1 substance, possession of a prohibited weapon, assault, and obstructing peace officers. Transport Canada mentioned a search warrant that was executed at Ms. Omar’s house back in 2013 where there were documents in the name of one individual who was known to reside with her, and another who was incarcerated at the time the search was executed. Both individuals were later found to be her brothers.

Ms. Omar was invited to respond, and advised in her response that one of the individuals was her brother who had not lived with her since 2008. She also raised the issue that she was not happy that she was being penalized for her brother’s actions. She argued that her right to procedural fairness was breached by Transport Canada.

In April 2018, her employment was terminated so she filed submissions to the Advisory Board. This was then sent to the Minister’s Delegate for review. On April 30th, 2019, the Minister’s Delegate also refused her request for review and upheld the decision to refuse the security clearance application. The reasons outlined were that her association with two immediate family members who were involved in serious criminal activities raised concerns regarding her “trustworthiness and reliability” and the potential that she could be “Influenced by her immediate family.” 

It was decided, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms Omar was prone or could be induced to: commit and act, or assist or abet any person to commit an act that would have lawfully interfered with civil aviation. It was also noted that Ms Omar failed to address the concerns presented to her adequately, and this could lead to her being influenced by her brothers to commit unlawful acts. Transport Canada also said that she did very little to alleviate their concerns that she would not be prone to any influence from her brothers.

This is an eye-opener for many out there that your blood relation to an individual can have the same impact on you even if you are a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record.

Continue Reading

Legal Matters

Four things that you need to know if you have a case in the Courts of Ontario

Published

on

BY NANA ANJEI-POKU

In continued efforts to provide information to the public regarding the Courts of Ontario, the following are the most recent updates.

Limitation Periods
Limitation Periods under the Re-opening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 will end, and suspended time periods will resume running as of September 14th, 2020.  For example, if you had a deadline to file a claim in Small Claims Court on April 16th, 2020, which is thirty days after the original limitation suspension date back on March 16th, 2020, you will have to now file it by October 14th, 2020, which is thirty days from the date the limitation period was lifted. This will apply to all deadlines attributable to all courts and tribunals in Ontario.

Provincial Offences Court
Limitation periods under the Provincial Offences Act will be lifted on September 11th, 2020. Beginning September 28th, 2020, Provincial Offences Act will be expanded to include non-trial matters remotely. These matters will include guilty pleas, withdrawals, judgment delivery, first appearances and adjournments.  No in-person Provincial Offences Act proceedings will be conducted until at least Monday, October 19th, 2020.  As previously mentioned, all matters scheduled between March 16th, and October 16th, are still being adjourned and rescheduled. Information concerning POA appeals will be updated at a later date.

Small Claims Court Proceedings
Small Claims Court matters continue in the same manner as the previous update with motions, and urgent garnishment hearings being heard via telephone or videoconference.  Settlement conferences continue to be held remotely with the consent of both parties.

Criminal Court Proceedings
Starting September 8th, 2020, virtual criminal case management courts will be starting in: Barrie, Brantford, Brockville, Chatham, Cornwall, Lindsay, London, Milton, Niagara (St. Catharines/Welland/Fort Erie), North Bay, Parry Sound, Perth, Peterborough, Sarnia, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Toronto North (1000 Finch) and Toronto West (2201 Finch). If you have any criminal matters, please contact the courthouse directly for information specific to your matter.

Continue Reading

Trending