Friends with benefits is not common law

[Libelle]

Living with 'benefits' not welfare fraud
by The Canadian Press - Story: 83150
Nov 12, 2012 / 5:46 pm

A man accused of stealing $50,000 in welfare money may have been living as "buddies with benefits" with another man, but a BC judge has ruled there was no proof the two men were living in a common-law relationship.

The finding was key to provincial court Judge Darrell O'Byrne's decision to throw out a fraud charge against Gordon Street of Vanderhoof.

Street was charged over accusations he received too much social assistance money, with the Crown arguing he failed to disclose he was in a common-law relationship with another man.

Street collected $50,000 over a period of five years beginning in 2001.

In September 2001, Street said he was single and never married on his assistance review, although he claimed to be living with someone at least twice while making claims for financial help.

Street's lawyer argued the claim was accurate, because a gay man could not legally have been married to another man at the time.

The government was tipped off to the fraud allegations because Street went to the provincial Ministry of Social Development in 2007 asking for help to make a claim of spousal maintenance against his partner Don Lewis.

Street told government workers he had been in a common-law relationship with Lewis for 23 years that ended in June 2006.

The court heard spousal support was never obtained, because Lewis was on a pension and his income was too low to pay support.

Lewis later sent a letter to an ministry investigator looking into the welfare fraud allegation saying that the two men were just "buddies."

In a written decision issued last week, O'Byrne said the evidence didn't support the prosecution's claims.

"The Crown submits that Mr. Street represented that he was single, living alone to the ministry in his eligibility review. However, this is not what the evidence discloses," O'Byrne said in his ruling.

O'Byrne said the fact that Street decided to proceed with an application for spousal support doesn't establish that he was in a common-law relationship.

"At best, Mr. Street and Mr. Lewis may have been more than roommates, and may have been 'buddies with benefits.' but I do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that they were in a same sex, common-law relationship."

The judge said he found Street did disclose that he was living in the same residence as Lewis.

"The ministry representatives did not make any inquiries about this living arrangement that I have any evidence about," the judge ruled.

"I find him not guilty."

So what determines a common law relationship? Guess sharing over two decades, a bed and a life together in the sames house does not. This case will open the flood gates for welfare fraud. Good call judge, good call.

[Sn0man]

So what determines a common law relationship? Guess sharing over two decades, a bed and a life together in the sames house does not. This case will open the flood gates for welfare fraud. Good call judge, good call.

Not sure about the flood gates comment.

But it does provide some wiggle room around these "shotgun marriages" the government has been trying to force on people in common law relationships. Fine by me.

[grammafreddy]

I don't see where it says they shared a bed.

Two wrongs never make a right but compared to how much our government steals from us, this $50,000 is peanuts. I guess in this case, the government couldn't prove they actually were in a same-sex marriage. Gotta have proof. And when he claimed to be living with someone, then the government didn't bother checking at the time what kind of living arrangement he had then.

[Artofthedeal]

it sounds to me like this guy is just a typical welfare stooge, doing whatever it takes to scam the system and get a cheque from the government rather than get a real job - there are far too many of these types of people in our society right now.

[Libelle]

I don't see where it says they shared a bed.

Two wrongs never make a right but compared to how much our government steals from us, this $50,000 is peanuts. I guess in this case, the government couldn't prove they actually were in a same-sex marriage. Gotta have proof. And when he claimed to be living with someone, then the government didn't bother checking at the time what kind of living arrangement he had then.

He wrote down on his application that he was single, meaning not in a common law relationship. They were not married but were in a common law relationship. The govt can not check on every single applicant to see if they are shacking up with someone. The govt did not steal this money from the tax payer Mr. Street did.

[grammafreddy]

The govt did not steal this money from the tax payer Mr. Street did.

Oh. I thought I read the court found him not guilty. Thanks for the clarification.

Now we have two thieves taking our money. There's probably more.

[Libelle]

There probally is. But what happens when the next friend with benefits couple gets caught? Does this case not set a precedent? If it does then the tax payer is screwed.

[Bsuds]

the tax payer is screwed.

The Government is doing a very good job of that all ready!

[FreeRights]

There probally is. But what happens when the next friend with benefits couple gets caught? Does this case not set a precedent? If it does then the tax payer is screwed.

I thought this was clear in the article.

It's not alleging that it wasn't common-law, but this was also 2001. You could not be in a common-law relationship with a same-sex partner.

[dudlee]

Living with 'benefits' not welfare fraud
by The Canadian Press - Story: 83150
Nov 12, 2012 / 5:46 pm

A man accused of stealing $50,000 in welfare money may have been living as "buddies with benefits" with another man, but a BC judge has ruled there was no proof the two men were living in a common-law relationship.

The finding was key to provincial court Judge Darrell O'Byrne's decision to throw out a fraud charge against Gordon Street of Vanderhoof.

Street was charged over accusations he received too much social assistance money, with the Crown arguing he failed to disclose he was in a common-law relationship with another man.

Street collected $50,000 over a period of five years beginning in 2001.

In September 2001, Street said he was single and never married on his assistance review, although he claimed to be living with someone at least twice while making claims for financial help.

Street's lawyer argued the claim was accurate, because a gay man could not legally have been married to another man at the time.

The government was tipped off to the fraud allegations because Street went to the provincial Ministry of Social Development in 2007 asking for help to make a claim of spousal maintenance against his partner Don Lewis.

Street told government workers he had been in a common-law relationship with Lewis for 23 years that ended in June 2006.

The court heard spousal support was never obtained, because Lewis was on a pension and his income was too low to pay support.

Lewis later sent a letter to an ministry investigator looking into the welfare fraud allegation saying that the two men were just "buddies."

In a written decision issued last week, O'Byrne said the evidence didn't support the prosecution's claims.

"The Crown submits that Mr. Street represented that he was single, living alone to the ministry in his eligibility review. However, this is not what the evidence discloses," O'Byrne said in his ruling.

O'Byrne said the fact that Street decided to proceed with an application for spousal support doesn't establish that he was in a common-law relationship.

"At best, Mr. Street and Mr. Lewis may have been more than roommates, and may have been 'buddies with benefits.' but I do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that they were in a same sex, common-law relationship."

The judge said he found Street did disclose that he was living in the same residence as Lewis.

"The ministry representatives did not make any inquiries about this living arrangement that I have any evidence about," the judge ruled.

"I find him not guilty."

So what determines a common law relationship? Guess sharing over two decades, a bed and a life together in the sames house does not. This case will open the flood gates for welfare fraud. Good call judge, good call.

----------------------------------------
The real question is where do we draw the line ? If it is about having sex , well I kow many elderly couples that haven't had sex in decades , actually I know some younger ones as well . See this is a slippery slope , same sex , and not same sex , doesn't matter , if you are combining your incomes for your own benefits but declaring to be single on your taxes , that is a loophole , how it is dealt with is up to the courts , because I will tell you right now , all the busy body , snoopy poops will report. Someone just because they don't like them or their life style . Are we gonna get into the beastiality people too?

Where do we stop ? Their will be to much tax payer funding flushed away on this KAKA , yet we let a Premier rack up a half illogic dollar plus expense account and say zippidee do da about it

We nit pick at this crap because we are looking for more tax revenues , why not just boot all the politicians out and as a CO-OP, build what we need and pay for what we do ?

I remember in the ot so distant past that BC had zero debt , why not explore why it happened and stop it from continuing , our last two governments have been JOKES . Them and theirs take , and we do not even get any scraps .

JAIL THE REAL CROOKS

[ukcanuck]

Mildly amusing story but I don't see anything to get my knickers in a bunch over.
Some poor wretch has to get by on welly and his partner is on a small pension...they get reclassified from degenerates to buddies with benefits to gay marriage common law... Seems like a to do about nothing.

I mean what's the overall budget for welfare recipients in BC anyway? Every one of them could be fraud and really what's the damage? Personally, I bet hardly any are fraud in the criminal sense. The majority of those that are technical fraud are just squirrels trying to get a nut, big deal.

corporate welfare fraud far far far outweighs any poor gay couple trying to live on the poverty line...