New Alberta relationship law

[Jetsfan]

Alberta drafted broad legislation that includes any two people, sexually involved or not, who share one another's lives, are emotionally committed to each other and function as an economic and domestic unit.

You're automatically considered an interdependent partner if you've lived in such a relationship for three years or have lived in a relationship of "some permanence" where there's a child by birth or adoption.

The danger is some Albertans may not even know that they've legally become interdependent partners, Leckey warns in his paper.

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/co...84831-sun.html

[mikey_the_redneck]

Does that mean a woman can take all of a mans' possessions without even marrying him?.........as long as they have lived together for 3 years?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Does that mean a woman can take all of a mans' possessions without even marrying him?.........as long as they have lived together for 3 years?

Welcome to 6 years ago...

And it's not all...

Just half.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Welcome to 6 years ago...

And it's not all...

Just half.

Well, you know... equal rights and all.

[Table 5]

Just curious, can a man take the woman's half as well?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Just curious, can a man take the woman's half as well?

Yes, although the circumstances that produce it are rarer.

And it can also be waaaaaay more than half depending on the circumstances.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Just curious, can a man take the woman's half as well?

Hey now... let's not get too crazy here.

[photon]

Interesting... basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats like a duck, it should be treated like a duck?

That part makes sense.

The difficulty is in actually measuring the things "sexually involved or not, who share one another's lives, are emotionally committed to each other and function as an economic and domestic unit". That could be pretty fuzzy.

[malcolmk14]

What? A law that isn't laid out in black and white, but leaves shades of grey?

Not in Canada, never.....

[troutman]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes, although the circumstances that produce it are rarer.

And it can also be waaaaaay more than half depending on the circumstances.

Way more than half? When? That would be rare IMO, or have to do with setting-off support by splitting property unequally.

[Knalus]

I wonder if two best friends living together as roommates would count. Almost sounds like it would.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Way more than half? When? That would be rare IMO, or have to do with setting-off support by splitting property unequally.

Perhaps he means more than half of the total, as in person A brings in 200k and person B brings in 40k but person B can still get 120k.

I don't know, the largest share I know of (not Alberta law though) is 1/2 + 50k.

[Azure]

So does it all hinge on having sex?

How the heck do you prove that someone was emotionally involved? Person A says no, Person B says yes.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by photon

Interesting... basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats like a duck, it should be treated like a duck?

That part makes sense.

The difficulty is in actually measuring the things "sexually involved or not, who share one another's lives, are emotionally committed to each other and function as an economic and domestic unit". That could be pretty fuzzy.

Adult Interdependent Partner = AIP (pronounced like ape)

While not perfect, the Act itself provides some factors to consider in determining what a relationship of interdependence entails (at least with respect to the "functioning as an economic and domestic unit"):

1(2) In determining whether 2 persons function as an economic and domestic unit for the purposes of subsection (1)(f)(iii), all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, including such of the following matters as may be relevant:
(a) whether or not the persons have a conjugal relationship;
(b) the degree of exclusivity of the relationship;
(c) the conduct and habits of the persons in respect of household activities and living arrangements;
(d) the degree to which the persons hold themselves out to others as an economic and domestic unit;
(e) the degree to which the persons formalize their legal obligations, intentions and responsibilities toward one another;
(f) the extent to which direct and indirect contributions have been made by either person to the other or to their mutual well‑being;
(g) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the persons;
(h) the care and support of children;
(i) the ownership, use and acquisition of property.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

So does it all hinge on having sex?

How the heck do you prove that someone was emotionally involved? Person A says no, Person B says yes.

Greeting cards - save them or destroy them (depending on your perspective).

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Azure

So does it all hinge on having sex?

How the heck do you prove that someone was emotionally involved? Person A says no, Person B says yes.

Awesome.

Her: "I loved him, he was my life"
Him: "meh, once a week whether I needed it or not"

[REDVAN]

Uh oh.

[Jetsfan]

Here's more info from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_i...hip_in_Alberta

[Hack&Lube]

So just be friends with benefits

[BlackArcher101]

AFAIK, what is split is the increase of worth during the time of the relationship. If he already had a house in his name, then she moved in when he had $100K paid off then lived together for 3 years. Let's say after the 3 years he was the one putting money into the house and paid off another $40K, if they split she is entitled to half of the $40K, not the initial $100K of what the house is currently worth.

I think that's right?