TORONTO, CA –A wealthy businessman from Toronto Canada has been ordered by the courts to pay his ex-girlfriend more than $50,000 a month in support for the next decade. The court determined this after they verified that the two were never married and never lived together.
(((Judge Sharon Shore)))
$50K a month indefinitely. If the Cabalists have their way, men won't go near women. https://t.co/sXb21i65rm
— Henry Makow (@HenryMakow) September 11, 2020
Michael Latner, a reported multi-millionaire, had been in a dating relationship with List Climans for almost 15 years. When the pair had gotten together, Latner was a divorced father of three and Climans was a single mother of two.
In Ocober of 2001, the pair began dating but kept separated homes. The pair stayed together for 14 years and would often stay with each other at their houses. They also vacationed together and Latner would provide Climans with expensive gifts.
For anyone still wondering why men are swearing off women, reason may be found in this ruling by Ontario's highest court, in which a man will be forced to lavishly support a woman he never married, never lived with, and never had children with. https://t.co/JPtS4c2GY9
— Janice Fiamengo (@JaniceFiamengo) September 10, 2020
Latner also allegedly:
Provided “thousands of dollars each month, a credit card, [and] paid off [Climans’] mortgage.”
Climans allegedly quit her job and stayed with Latner at his house regularly. Neither of the pair had a joint checking account and never bought any property together while a couple. They also did not have any children in common.
Latner allegedly proposed marriage to Climans on several different occasions, all of which she refused because he insisted on a prenuptial agreement. The dating relationship ended in May of 2015 and that is when Latner’s legal troubles started.
"he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts. She refused."
"When their 14-year relationship finally broke down [Climans] asked the courts to recognize her as Latner’s spouse and order him to pay her support"
"Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans" https://t.co/Sle6Nq6Pfl
— Moi (@Maccollins01) September 11, 2020
When the dating relationship ended, Climans attempted to be recognized through the courts as Latner’s spouse. She further demanded that Latner provide alimony to her after the dissolving of their relationship.
Latner claimed that the two never really lived together and that they were not married, thus, he should not be liable to pay for her after their relationship was dissolved.
Latner, asserted that the two were nothing more than travel friends and in a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship, nothing more. Latner argued that the two had never been married, and thus did not owe her any type of spousal support.
His belief, especially since he had proposed marriage and she refused, was that he owed her nothing financially.
Climans’ disagreed and took Latner to court trying to get spousal financial support from him. After the eight-day trial, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore determined that Latner, despite never having married Climans, owed her over $50,000 until the end of time.
In other words, even though they never married, never had any children in common, and never lived together, he still is required by the courts to pay her every month.
The judge ruled that even though Latner and Climans lived in separate homes, that they stayed some of the summers together in Florida, which was enough for her to determine cohabitation.
Apparently, a boyfriend girlfriend relationship needs to ensure that there are clear boundaries as to when the dating party can stay over in order to avoid paying the other what amounts to alimony.
Under current law in Ontario, “an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited – lived together in a conjugal relationship – continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.”
Latner appealed the ruling given by Shore which determined that her ruling was correct, but that he only had to pay Climans monthly stipend for ten years as opposed to the end of his days. According to the Post:
“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation. There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”
The appellate court determined that Shore’s decision-making analysis was correct in determining that the couple had cohabitated together, despite living in separate homes. They determined that she erred only when determining the length of the relationship.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.