Global News: Spousal Support Case - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, joined Global News to discuss a headline-making decision from Ontario’s top court. In this case, a wealthy businessman was ordered to pay more than $50,000 per month in spousal support for 10 years to a long-term partner, even though the couple never shared a single permanent residence, kept separate bank accounts, and had no children together. The interview focused on why the court still found a “spousal” relationship in these circumstances, what really counts as common law in Ontario, and why many people misunderstand the legal consequences of long-term relationships. Laura explained how the law looks beyond mailing addresses to the real nature of the relationship, and why anyone entering a serious, long-term partnership should understand their rights and obligations in advance.

“People believe, when they are looking at the definition of what common law means, that they have to be physically living together for a period of three years or more. Physical sharing of residence is actually not a requirement to be considered common law, and this is something that is not new or specific to this current case.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

In the interview, Laura unpacks an Ontario case that has drawn wide public attention. A wealthy businessman was ordered to pay more than $50,000 per month in spousal support for a decade to a former partner with whom he had a long-term relationship. The surprise for many listeners is that the couple never merged households in the traditional sense and never had children together, yet the court still treated them as spouses for support purposes.

Laura explains that this reaction comes from a common misconception about common law. Many people assume that you must live under the same roof for three continuous years to be recognized as common-law spouses. In reality, Ontario law uses a broader test that looks at whether the relationship is “marriage-like,” not just at whether the couple shares a single address.

She notes that physical shelter is only one factor among many. In this case, the couple kept separate primary residences but spent extended periods living together, including summers at a cottage in Muskoka and weekends at a condo in Florida. They presented themselves publicly as a couple. He bought her a 7.5-carat ring and proposed several times. According to Laura, the only reason they did not marry was an inability to agree on the terms of a marriage contract.

The court also considered the level of interdependence between them. She points out that the woman left her job to run errands and be available to him, essentially reorganizing her life around the relationship. That kind of reliance is similar to what courts often see in traditional marriages, where one partner’s economic opportunities are affected by the choices made as a couple.

Taken together, these facts persuaded the court that the relationship was, in substance, a spousal one, even without a shared permanent home or joint accounts. That allowed the woman to bring support claims under Ontario’s family law legislation and ultimately resulted in a significant spousal support order.

Laura emphasizes that this outcome is not as radical as it may appear to the general public. The idea that couples can be considered common law without continuous cohabitation has been recognized in earlier case law. What this decision does, in her view, is remind people that labels like “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” do not control how a court will view a long-term, committed partnership.

She encourages anyone entering a serious relationship of some permanence to seek legal advice and consider a cohabitation agreement or similar contract. In her professional opinion, common law couples often need this advice even more than people who marry, because their rights and obligations are less predictable and more dependent on the specific facts of their relationship. Being “practical about love,” as she puts it, can help partners make informed choices and avoid unintended legal consequences if the relationship ends.

Listen to the full Global News segment here. 

This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media  archive.