# Is my ex-girlfriend a tenant?



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm not sure where to find answers to my questions, so I thought I'd throw them out to the board.

My girlfriend moved in with me, into a house I own, last November. The relationship deteriorated and I ended it in June. I agreed to letter her stay until December while she gets her self established in her new job and looks for a place to stay (she moved here from Montreal). 

We do not have a cost-sharing agreement, so she shares in no expenses for the house and I do not charge her rent. I have no problem with this, as long as she moves out in December.

Well...lately she has been telling me she does not want to move out and is insisting on paying me rent. I do not want this, and just want her to find her own place. This has lead to arguments, and I foresee it getting pretty messy.

My question is, what are my responsibilities? Am I her landlord? Should I be sending her some sort of letter indicating she needs to move out by a certain date? Also, if she refuses, what is my recourse? Do I call the cops?

Don't mean to flood the forum with my personal drama, so my apologies.

Thanks


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

If you are in Ontario, I do not believe that Landlord/tenant laws are applicable in your situation if you are sharing facilities (i.e. kitchen, bathroom and laundry). Unless she is occupying a separate suite within the house. 

It sounds like your issue is domestic.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi Dana, yes I am in Ontario and she is not occupying a separate suite.

Ack. I'm not sure where this leaves me, and I'd like to have her leave as amicably as possible...Boy, I never thought it would turn out like this - that is for sure!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

By definition she is not a tenant and you are not a landlord. The Residential Tenancies Act defines "tenant" as someone who pays rent. 

Also, the RTA does not apply (as Dana said) when you share facilities. Here's a relevant link (see the second question and answer): 

http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/Key_Information/STEL02_111462.html

You are going to have to get her to leave on your own. What if you told her you would be changing the locks on XX day? This sounds extreme, but what are your alternatives? She can't "force" you to let her stay.


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

You may need legal advice. From a family lawyer. It might be a good idea to make sure that your home is not a 'matrimonial home' since you did occupy it together as a couple. This could make things more complex. 

I have a relative who separated from his wife in 2005. He rented (not purchased, like you) his own apartment with only his name on the lease. In 2007 he and his wife attempted a reconciliation for a few months. She moved in with him. When it didn't work out, he tried to get her out of his apartment and it took a long time for her to leave. The judge said that it was the matrimonial home so he would not force her out - even though she wasn't on the lease. Eventually they were so miserable that she left anyway.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Dana is right... if it comes to it you can change the locks and bye bye, although that is horrible, you are fully within your rights to do so. 

It sounds like you've been really nice already BTW. Break ups always seem to suck badly. I've been down this road a few times myself


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

There is no matrimonial home if there is no marriage ("common-law" marriage does not count - it does not give rise to a matrimonial home). 

The OP does not meet the definition of common-law marriage in any case, by any standard (either one or two years of continuous cohabitation, depending on the statute you are looking at, for Ontario): November to June is only 8 months, and then the relationship broke down.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

That was my understanding as well, Moneygal.

I want to thank everyone for their replies. I just realized that I may be able to get some sort of advice/counselling on this issue with my EAP. It never occurred to me to consult my EAP. 

My first instinct was to consult some strangers on the internet! Albeit, some very nice, helpful and knowledgeable strangers. Thanks so much.


----------



## Scottlandlord (May 27, 2010)

investnoob said:


> I'm not sure where to find answers to my questions, so I thought I'd throw them out to the board.
> 
> My girlfriend moved in with me, into a house I own, last November. The relationship deteriorated and I ended it in June. I agreed to letter her stay until December while she gets her self established in her new job and looks for a place to stay (she moved here from Montreal).
> 
> ...


To add a bit more information.

If you are on the deed as the owner of the house, she is simply a guest and you are not covered by the RTA.

You have all the legal power.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The OP does not meet the definition of common-law marriage in any case, by any standard (either one or two years of continuous cohabitation, depending on the statute you are looking at, for Ontario):


Can one even prove/disprove cohabitation? Couldn't someone lie and claim that they lived together for 2 years even that wasn't the case? Conversely couldn't the other person lie and claimed that they did not live together 2 years even if they did?


----------



## Racer (Feb 3, 2010)

It would be a good idea to get legal advice. When people enter into an adversarial mode, they say and do the most surprising things. 

1. Do you have a baby together or does she have a baby on her own for whom you have played a parenting role?, and 

2. Is there a small business operating out of the home, or has she helped you with significant renovations? 

3. Did the GF contribute any money towards your down payment for purchasing the property, before she moved in with you, even though she may not be on the title?

Answering yes is a red flag that you should proceed with caution. 

I do think it would not hurt you one bit, in any circumstance, to accept that rent money. Have her pay you in the form of a cheque, and be sure to make a notation on the actual cheque of what the cheque is meant to cover "partial rent payment for month of June". Your bank (if it's one of the big six) will store a retrievable digital copy of that cheque later, should things get messy. 

As for eviction, I don't know how that would work. 

But (looking forward here) if you do evict or end up in possession of her belongings, be sure to take care to treat her belongings safely, and to make attempts to notify her of how to pick up those belongings -- keeping records, of course. Emails, texts, letters, registered letters.

Good luck -- sounds like you are a good guy who wants to get out of a sticky situation.


----------



## UP_N_GO (Sep 10, 2010)

I am in Alberta, so I dod not know what the law is like in Ontario, but if you have been co-habiting for longer than six months here, your status is that of common law... And as such she would be entitled to a 'divorce settlement' - I would waste no time seeing a lawyer if I were you...


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> Can one even prove/disprove cohabitation? Couldn't someone lie and claim that they lived together for 2 years even that wasn't the case? Conversely couldn't the other person lie and claimed that they did not live together 2 years even if they did?


Even if she did lie, presumably this is easily disproven (i.e., by finding someone who will attest that she did not live with the OP prior to when she did). 

And in any case, common-law marriages do not give rise to any significant obligations when there is no child, the relationship is short, and both parties were economically self-sufficient going into the relationship. There is no requirement for any division of property with a common-law relationship, and there is no matrimonial home to which both parties have rights of access and occupancy.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

UP_N_GO said:


> I am in Alberta, so I dod not know what the law is like in Ontario, but if you have been co-habiting for longer than six months here, your status is that of common law... And as such she would be entitled to a 'divorce settlement' - I would waste no time seeing a lawyer if I were you...


I'm not a lawyer, but I am an Albertan; and the definition of common-law marriage has been replaced in Alberta by the concept of "adult interdependent partner." The Adult Interdependent Relationship Act was passed in 1993 and provides that (for the purposes of provincial laws and regulations) couples in a mutually dependent relationship, conjugal or not, are deemed to be adult interdependent partners after *three years of living together*.


----------



## Racer (Feb 3, 2010)

Moneygal has it right.

"Common law marriage" is relevant for Albertans, but for tax purposes only. 

For family law purposes, it takes 3 years in a relationship for support obligations to arise. That time period can be shortened by a contract or a baby. 

There are other ways that a claim against someone else's property can arise, but I doubt that any of those situations exist here, as the original poster likely would have mentioned them.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

Thanks Racer for your input. 

Racer, the answer to your questions are all no. So I'm pretty confident that there are no support obligations on my part. The only unknown I had was if I was considered a landlord. From what I can tell, I'm not a landlord. But I will be seeking advice from my EAP.

What I'm really trying to do is figure my responsibilities in a "worst case scenario" (i.e., if she won't move out). My hope is that it won't really get that far. However, some days it looks like a possibility.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the sitcom potential is dazzling.

noob can you keep a diary. You can sell this story. Direct quotes, standups, pieces to camera if you've got video. Record everything. Just don't let her ever move out.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> the sitcom potential is dazzling.
> 
> noob can you keep a diary. You can sell this story. Direct quotes, standups, pieces to camera if you've got video. Record everything. Just don't let her ever move out.


HAHAH! I don't think there is really a whole sitcom worth of material. I think it could be boiled down into a 10 second Seinfeld clip.

Jerry: What do you mean she won't move out?

George: She won't move out!

Jerry: Well, have you tried-

George: I've tried, I've tried!

Jerry: Just like that?

George: Just like that.

Jerry: (Bemused look, Shrug) Huh.

(sound track: bwa bwa bwaaon psh psh bon psh - canned laughter).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

not jerry n george. It's noob et la blonde de montréal.

how about a webcam near entrance to the living room, arrange for tv to carry it live when she arrives say after work or shopping. You can appear yourself ... dialogue ... maybe some other (old) (pre-girlfriend) friends ... introduce her to friends as the live-in maid ...

who knows, maybe she'll like the maid thing ... ooh ...


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

ಠ_ಠ


----------



## Scottlandlord (May 27, 2010)

I sense a very popular Canadianmoneyforum youtube video could be on the way


----------



## Racer (Feb 3, 2010)

investnoob said:


> Thanks Racer for your input.
> 
> Racer, the answer to your questions are all no. So I'm pretty confident that there are no support obligations on my part. The only unknown I had was if I was considered a landlord. From what I can tell, I'm not a landlord. But I will be seeking advice from my EAP.
> 
> What I'm really trying to do is figure my responsibilities in a "worst case scenario" (i.e., if she won't move out). My hope is that it won't really get that far. However, some days it looks like a possibility.


Definitely not a landlord. Keep in mind that the law protects your rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property you legally own -- as long as you aren't unfairly taking advantage of someone else. And it sounds like you are being very fair indeed, both from a legal perspective, and more importantly, from a moral perspective. 



investnoob said:


> HAHAH! I don't think there is really a whole sitcom worth of material. I think it could be boiled down into a 10 second Seinfeld clip.
> 
> Jerry: What do you mean she won't move out?
> 
> ...






humble_pie said:


> the sitcom potential is dazzling.
> 
> noob can you keep a diary. You can sell this story. Direct quotes, standups, pieces to camera if you've got video. Record everything. Just don't let her ever move out.






MoneyGal said:


> ಠ_ಠ





Scottlandlord said:


> I sense a very popular Canadianmoneyforum youtube video could be on the way


You folks are f*ing hilarious!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Green Card was that oldie comedy with gerard depardieu, who plays an illegal french alien looking to marry an american girl in NYC so that he can stay in the US of A. They marry & live together but it's a fake. She keeps her original boyfriend & the fake couple get along like sandpaper on fine bone china.

they house-sit a gorgeous apartment - i remember some kind of greenhouse or garden - while fighting most of the time, but in the end justice & immigration catch him & deport him. That's when the couple realizes. they've. fallen. truly. madly. deeply. in. love.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

investnoob said:


> ...My girlfriend moved in with me, into a house I own, last November. The relationship deteriorated and I ended it in June. I agreed to letter her stay until December while she gets her self established in her new job and looks for a place to stay (she moved here from Montreal)...


I'm quite sure that in B.C. a common-law marriage is defined as living in a conjugal relationship for one year. Right now, a common-law relationship in B.C. does not give the ex-partner the right to share in the other partner's assets, but the B.C. government has announced its intention to change that; if that legislation passes, in future the couple's assets would be divided the same as if it had been a marriage breakup. I don't know what the rules are in Ontario or any other provinces, but if it were me, with the one-year term coming up in November, I'd see a lawyer as soon as possible and make sure she was out of the house before the year is up.

Karen


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

conjugal = living as man and wife

Living in the same space is not the same as living in a conjugal relationship. They will not have been living in a conjugal relationship for one year come November.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

p.s. In BC, it's two years.


----------



## Racer (Feb 3, 2010)

Ditto what Money gal says.



Karen said:


> I'm quite sure that in B.C. a common-law marriage is defined as living in a conjugal relationship for one year. Right now, a common-law relationship in B.C. does not give the ex-partner the right to share in the other partner's assets, but the B.C. government has announced its intention to change that; if that legislation passes, in future t*he couple's assets would be divided the same as if it had been a marriage breakup*. I don't know what the rules are in Ontario or any other provinces, but if it were me, with the one-year term coming up in November, I'd see a lawyer as soon as possible and make sure she was out of the house before the year is up.
> 
> Karen


Even if they did have a conjugal relationship of 3 years, the bulk of his real estate would be protected because it belonged to him prior to cohabitation. If it was worth $200K before she moved in, and at the time she moved out it was worth $230K, then only the $30K gain was earned in the relationship. And without any complicating factors, even that gain would not necessarily be split 50/50.

In my limited experience, this is commonly misunderstood. I will get a call on occasion from a nervous person who has just moved in with their sweetheart and is wondering what they have gotten themselves into. But their fears are often amplified by stories of others who have experienced painful separations. Those stories almost always involve a baby, a relationship of at least moderate length (4-7 years), death of one party, disability of one party, or a small business that operated in reality like a partnership.

The biggest risk, IMO, is always the baby. Because sometimes those happen by accident, or with the help of someone else.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

ah, conjugal. I knew it would all come down to nookie in the end. And nookie is so hard to prove. Even with a baby.

racer whose help we talkin about here. Petri dishes, holy ghosts ?


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

You're right, MoneyGal, and I apologize for my mistake - it is two years in B.C.



> Living in the same space is not the same as living in a conjugal relationship. They will not have been living in a conjugal relationship for one year come November.


My point was that, since the relationship began as a conjugal relationship, it might be difficult to prove that it no longer was, if the girlfriend chose to lie about it. However, I realize that's not relevant since Money Gal has pointed out that, even in B.C., it wouldn't be recognized as a common-law relationship in November.



> Even if they did have a conjugal relationship of 3 years, the bulk of his real estate would be protected because it belonged to him prior to cohabitation.


I know this is the case in Ontario, but it isn't in B.C. Here assets used by the family are considered to be family assets, and thus subject to division upon divorce, no matter when they were acquired. Judges, however, do have discretion to make exceptions when this would be unfair, such as in a very short relationship.

Sorry, I realize that I've got off topic, but I wanted to clarify these points. I'll bow out of the conversation now.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Karen said:


> I know this is the case in Ontario, but it isn't in B.C. Here assets used by the family are considered to be family assets, and thus subject to division upon divorce, no matter when they were acquired. Judges, however, do have discretion to make exceptions when this would be unfair, such as in a very short relationship.


If you are speaking about common-law relationships, as I was, this is incorrect. 

B.C. (and Yukon) do have a different family law scheme which applies to the division of property upon divorce than Ontario does, but in any case "divorce" is only possible when you have been (legally) married beforehand. Common-law couples cannot divorce. 

If you are in a common-law marriage in B.C., and you believe that have a a claim to assets owned only by the other person (i.e., a house purchased by the other person in which you lived during the relationship), a claim against those assets can only be raised under the principles of the common law, specifically, the law of trusts: not under the Family Relations Act. 

The BC government has brought forward a White Paper to amend the BC Family Relations Act which, if passed, would bring common-law relationships (of a duration of 2 years or more; or less if there is a child) into the same scheme for the division of property as married couples. However, this new scheme would explicitly exclude property acquired before the marriage began. See section 77(1) of the proposed legislation on page 89 of the White Paper for the proposed new rules, and "Chapter 9: Family Property" for a detailed description of the current regime.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

FWIW, and this is really off-topic now, I was once involved in an initiative to amend the _Indian Act_ with respect to matrimonial real property on-reserve. 

As it happens, many years after my involvement with this issue, the bill to "close the legislative gap" with respect to matrimonial real property on-reserve has now almost been closed, with the amending bill now ratified by the Senate (but the bill has not received Royal Proclamation yet). 

The issue arose in that reserve lands are subject to federal law, and laws w/r/t the recognition and division of matrimonial property are all provincial/territorial...so there was effectively no legislation governing the matrimonial property on-reserve when a marriage ends. 

In working on this issue, though, I became very aware of the matrimonial property regimes in every province and territory. Matrimonial property is also a personal interest of mine, having been through a divorce with a messy property split. 

Anyways. It isn't that I have a personal axe to grind on this topic; it's that I spent months of my life studying this issue and by chance garnered very strong awareness of matrimonial property issues in Canada as a whole.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm aware that this applies to legal marriages only, under current family law - that's why I acknowledged being off topic. I wasn't sure whether or not Racer was aware of the difference between Ontario and British Columbia family law.


----------

