This is a very important case:
http://bit.ly/w7BEQW
They're known as "de facto spouses." Partners in a paperless marriage. Or, in this case, plain old Eric and Lola.
But there's almost nothing ordinary about the tale of a 51-year-old Quebec billionaire businessman and a former Brazilian model, whose messy legal battle could change life for millions of Canadian couples.
Their case, which reaches the Supreme Court of Canada next Thursday, is expected to decide whether common-law spouses have the same rights as married couples to support and sharing of property after a break-up.
While the case is likely to have its greatest impact in Quebec, legal experts predict that if Lola succeeds in her landmark challenge, eight other provinces and territories that deny property rights to unmarried spouses, including Ontario, will be forced to rethink their legislation.
6 comments:
My girlfriend just moved in with me. At what point should I be worried that she could take half my stuff if she leaves?
This is one of the problems with common law. The gov't seems to be enforcing the rules of marriage on people who chose (for whatever reason) not to get married in the first place.
My prediction is that eventually maybe 20 to 50 years from now that gov'ts here and around the world will stop registering marriages altogether. They will become legally irrelevant.
Our constitution seems weak and porous. It seems to be a poorly constructed document.
Wouldn't that have been a wonderful resolution to the whole ssm thing? Marriages would be conducted any way any person wanted, through a church or not, and then the government would simply register relationships for tax and legal purposes. If you don't register then don't expect alimony or property to be split.
But that wasn't a good enough solution, we have to have the government explicitly approve our sexual relationships through marriage commissioners and such. Whatever happened to keeping the state out of the bedroom?
To continue this theme;
What's next?
Can foreign SSCL (Same sex common law) couples come to Canada and argue that our courts should approve their status as a same sex common law couple because they have been living together for xx years and their country won't recognize it?
Will they then ask our courts (even though they are not Canadians citizens nor living in Canada) to figure out who gets what if the relationship falls apart?
I am only half kidding here..
Anonymous (10:04) makes a very potent point. To me, the difference between common law and legal marriage, in terms of their remedies as against each other, is a matter of choice. There are different legal frameworks for entitlements on the breakdown of the relationship, but that's because of how the parties chose to structure their affairs.
It's no different from permitting people to sign marriage contracts or co-habitation agreements.
Co-habitation agreements are relatively unusual, now, because the stakes are relatively low. I can't help but think, however, that the consequence of a finding that common law spouses are presumptively entitled to equalization would have the consequence that people of any means would insist on co-habitation agreements (great business for lawyers).
In other words, it would be common-law relationships in which neither one has money that would be most affected, on a moving forward basis, giving them a basis to squabble over their combined limited means.
Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I'm impressed! Very useful information particularly the last part :) I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.
Here is my site :: best registry cleaner for windows 7
Post a Comment