Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Greywolf
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
This discussion always annoys the heck out of me...
If you really truly live together, you will be getting mail at the same address. Period. You don't even need a lease or a joint utility bill. Just something like a bank statement, credit card bill, university marks, anything. You produce something dated a year ago in your name, he/she produces something in his/her name dated a year ago. Bingo, common law status acheived. If you're not getting mail there, you don't really live there. Whatever reason you have to get your all of your mail sent somewhere else indicates a lack of true "common law" status.
When I was on SLT there was a bunch of guys trying to prove common law status, but only after they found out that they won't have to pay R&Q. You're asked your marital status on enrollment, if you answer "single" then you find out there is financial benefit to being common law, then change your mind...come on! There were guys who were "common law" in university, joined the CF, girlfriend moved back in with her parents and they still wanted/expected the free R&Q.
Common law status is the equivalent of married. It is not a convenient relationship for some financial benefit. Here's a question when deciding your status - who gets your Supplementary Death Benefit, SISIP, and pension when/if you die? If the answer is (at least in part) "my spouse" then go ahead. If you can't stomach the idea of him/her being your beneficiary, then you're not really common law, you're room-mates.
[/rant]
If you really truly live together, you will be getting mail at the same address. Period. You don't even need a lease or a joint utility bill. Just something like a bank statement, credit card bill, university marks, anything. You produce something dated a year ago in your name, he/she produces something in his/her name dated a year ago. Bingo, common law status acheived. If you're not getting mail there, you don't really live there. Whatever reason you have to get your all of your mail sent somewhere else indicates a lack of true "common law" status.
(from CFAO 19-41) (emphasis mine)
When I was on SLT there was a bunch of guys trying to prove common law status, but only after they found out that they won't have to pay R&Q. You're asked your marital status on enrollment, if you answer "single" then you find out there is financial benefit to being common law, then change your mind...come on! There were guys who were "common law" in university, joined the CF, girlfriend moved back in with her parents and they still wanted/expected the free R&Q.
Common law status is the equivalent of married. It is not a convenient relationship for some financial benefit. Here's a question when deciding your status - who gets your Supplementary Death Benefit, SISIP, and pension when/if you die? If the answer is (at least in part) "my spouse" then go ahead. If you can't stomach the idea of him/her being your beneficiary, then you're not really common law, you're room-mates.
That's not common law.JDMCRX said:
[/rant]
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Another +1 from me. Maybe the act of banging their foreheads into a brick wall might work too.
- Reaction score
- -1
- Points
- 210
Most bases, Wing's/ASU's etc have set SOP's to this effect which include their specifi8c form which need to be used. As such many OR's have packages ready for this purpose.
Go see them and apply anyways. Trying to substantiate or explain any particular scenario over the internet will likely only get you sporadic accuracy. Just FYI only, I have seen people be granted by the powers that be (read NDHQ) Common-Law status even if they had not lived together at all. This is only to say that each situation must be looked at individually.
Go see them and apply anyways. Trying to substantiate or explain any particular scenario over the internet will likely only get you sporadic accuracy. Just FYI only, I have seen people be granted by the powers that be (read NDHQ) Common-Law status even if they had not lived together at all. This is only to say that each situation must be looked at individually.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Well, technically, they sure can't live in "singles quarters" which are the accomodation that are actually located "ON base", but they can live in PMQs (99% of which are located "OFF base" - IE a 5 minute drive from work instead of a two minute walk).
- Reaction score
- 1,705
- Points
- 1,140
ArmyVern said:
There is a new policy here in Cold Lake that only common law partners/wifes are allowed in the PMQs.
oksun: to the eyes on the military, marriage/common law is virtually the same thing.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
SupersonicMax said:
Quite the policy! Since you can't declare common law until you actually live together for a year, that means that it forces a couple to buy or rent off base until they qualify. Is it set by the base or CFHA? I'm surprised really, that they can get away with that.
- Reaction score
- 1,705
- Points
- 1,140
airmich said:
It was in an email sent by the WComd before Christmas. The problem was that PMQ Tenants rented parts of their PMQs to Oil Workers, creating problems on base (ie: Drugs, noise late at night, etc.). I'm sure if one requests permission up his chain of command to have his/her Girlfriend/Boyfriend in the Qs, it would be accepted, but it's not a given anymore.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 710
I thought that there were regulations against "renting out" PMQs or parts of, by tenants. I am sure that somewhere in the fine print of the "agreement' signed when the occupant took possession of the PMQ that there would be such a clause.
- Reaction score
- 1,288
- Points
- 940
I'm not sure that there are regulations against renting out rooms in a PMQ (feel free to correct me), however, I'm pretty sure that you have to get permission (from CFHA?) and sign a waiver stating that you are responsible for the tenants' actions.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Conditions of Occupancy
I took a quick scan through it and didn't see anything on renters, just on 'guests'. But even if there was a regulation, I'm sure there are ways around it like declaring the person is gf/bf, relative etc. Although given the prices in Cold Lake, who could blame people for trying to get a few of their bucks back!
I took a quick scan through it and didn't see anything on renters, just on 'guests'. But even if there was a regulation, I'm sure there are ways around it like declaring the person is gf/bf, relative etc. Although given the prices in Cold Lake, who could blame people for trying to get a few of their bucks back!
- Reaction score
- 1,705
- Points
- 1,140
AFAIK, the only thing you can't do it rent it an live somewhere else. To do that, you have to go through CFHA. When you take possession, you are required to provide a list of who is going to live with you in the Q. There was no problem whatsoever in Kingston to put my then girlfriend on it (even though technically, I'm "renting it out" to her).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
airmich said:
Im sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me when you consider how many Families are on wait lists for PMQ's, and also if you take into consideration how many people "fall in love" on course and get posted, take the GF/BF to the new posting and they dont want to be there. The relationship dissolves and there is then a single person occupying a Q that a Family could be occupying. I dont fault the member for this, it happens. but IMHO, having rules for occupancy makes perfect sense. Why should a single guy and a few buddys or a 'new love' be given a Q while a guy with a wife and three kids ends up separated from his family because there isnt a Q available? Im certain down the road when the single guy has a family and needs a Q and is told there isnt one, he will be singing a different tune!
in response to the origional Question, common-law do qualify for a Q. You dont have to be Married.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
If you look at the policies for PMQ occupancy, you will see that it is on a first come first served basis. Single members are eligible for occupying a PMQ. Family size does come into play if there is a waiting list, and it is then based on Q size. Unfortunately it happens, a family waiting while a single guy or girl has a place all to themselves. It might not sound fair to you, but that's the way it works.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,844
- Points
- 1,160
Correct me if I'm wrong here but, according to the policy, it would be OK to adopt your bf/gf and live in PMQs together vs. just shacking up as significant others?
Whoa, is that banjo music I hear?
iper:
Nope, just the bagpipes again...
Whoa, is that banjo music I hear?
iper:Nope, just the bagpipes again...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
airmich said:
Most bases have waiting lists. If there is a Q already occupied by a single person thats one thing, but a Single person wanting a Q this summer in perse Pet or Edmonton, they will find themselves quite low on the list. CFHA doesnt base it on who applied first, it is by family size. Ive also known of people being bumped down the list for having dogs.
S
smale436
Guest
On the other hand, it could be said that the fact that single members (which are referred to in the CFHA policy guide as of April 2007 as "family of one") are allowed to occupy RHU's nowadays (they are no longer called Private Married Quarters anymore due to the fact they are no longer for married members) says that CFHA is not discriminating at all. Here in Cold Lake they have been giving HU's to single members for close to a decade plus surplus ones to RCMP, NPF, DND, and commissionaires. As a single person in an HU, I am not taking up space that could be given to someone with more than one child, as they give the single members either a 2BR bungalow or a 2BR 1.5 story.
The problem with the people here renting out rooms also stemmed from the fact that military members were renting individual bedrooms of the unit out for rent amounts of much higher than the monthly shelter charge of the HU. (As in: renting 3 rooms out to people at anywhere from 500-1000 per room) The WCom's email to the entire wing had an attachment from the CFHA policy book that clearly stated the monthly shelter charge is to be divided equally by the number of military members living there (In the case of 2 military members living together who are not a service couple. Hence, my roommate and I divide everything 50-50 split.
The problem with the people here renting out rooms also stemmed from the fact that military members were renting individual bedrooms of the unit out for rent amounts of much higher than the monthly shelter charge of the HU. (As in: renting 3 rooms out to people at anywhere from 500-1000 per room) The WCom's email to the entire wing had an attachment from the CFHA policy book that clearly stated the monthly shelter charge is to be divided equally by the number of military members living there (In the case of 2 military members living together who are not a service couple. Hence, my roommate and I divide everything 50-50 split.
Similar threads
