[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Clearly, fare hikes are not having the intended impact. 

[Maximus]

I have to admit, the Liberals had a positive effect on Canadians.  More and more Canadians use public transportation every day now, thanks to their plan.  Even Toronto's most famous residents use the public transit now:

did someone re-animate it?

[Admiral Yi]

I've always been curious what Canadians look like in the winter.  Never seen them in their natural state before.

[Josephus]

I've always been curious what Canadians look like in the winter.  Never seen them in their natural state before.

Keep in mind in Toronto today it's +12C

[Malthus]

I've always been curious what Canadians look like in the winter.  Never seen them in their natural state before.

As you can see, fur coats are popular with some subway riders. 

[viper37]

I've always been curious what Canadians look like in the winter.  Never seen them in their natural state before.

You would have had a better portrait last year

[viper37]

Interesting case for the lawyers.  Well, it would be interesting if we had any lawyers from Quebec, I guess
http://sivertimes.com/questioning-the-civil-consequences-of-religious-marriages/7193

Article en français


Basically, if you're married in Quebec, any wealth accumulation during marriage is split 50-50 after seperation.  Depending on the revenue gap and the presence or not of children, there can be support payments beyond that.  Huge support payments, sometimes.  But basic law is 50-50 split.  Silly law made for another time, like so many.

The case is detailed in the articles, the man, a very religious person, claims he was discriminated against by being forced to submit to a civil marriage on top of his religious marriage.  He only wanted to be united before God in a strictly religious marriage, but the law does not allow this.  Or so we always thought...

It has always been assumed that a religious marriage is the same as a civil marriage, the obligations and laws applying equally to both, a religious marriage certificat being automatically transmitted to civil authorities.

What the judge said was that it ain't so.  There's no obligation for the religious authorities to transmit a marriage certificate to civil authorities, a marriage could be strictly religious and not involve the State, you are united before God, not the government, and you can ask your priest/imam/rabbi/whatever to not transmit your marriage certificate to civil authorities.

The judge ruled against the plaintiff saying his rights weren't violated as he could have asked for a strictly religious marriage but made no effort beforehand to inquire about it.

Obviously, this is a scheme by a richer religious person to avoid splitting his wealth with his spouse.  But it opens a legal pandora box.  Would people be tempted to substract themselves to state's obligations by invoking their religious rights from now on?  Would this create two kinds of marriage, the civil one and the religious one where previously both were assumed to be identical?

I myself don't think the legislator's intent was to seperate civil from religious marriage when they voted this law.  It was their intent however to make a clear difference between marriage and simply living together unmarried, and there was a famous cause to rule on that.

[Malthus]

Haven't read the case, nor the Civil Code on the matter - but perhaps what is being said isn't all that radical.

If Quebec has no concept of a "common law marriage" (that is, one established by community acceptance or living together for a certain number of years etc.), what it really has is not two different kinds of marriage, but only one - a civil one.

The religious ceremony, in short, means nothing (legally). All that counts is the filling out of the civil license.

You can have whatever party, ceremony, or symbolic actions you want - but if the license isn't filled out, you are not "married" legally (whatever your status in the eyes of gods, demons, or your neighbors.  ).

In common law jurisdictions it is complicated, because in some of them at least marriages can happen by common law - so going around having ceremonies may (or may not) have actual legal impact.

[Barrister]

Yeah, when you do a wedding ceremony, almost all of the ceremony is legally superfluous.  It may have effect in the eyes of God, but not according to the state.

Except for one part.  At pretty much every marriage I've been to (including my own), after the big "I now pronounce you man and wife", usually the married couple come over and sign a piece of paper, together with the best man and maid of honour.  That's the wedding license, and that's the part that legally makes you married (once it's filed).

[Malthus]

Also, splitting property acquired during marriage makes sense. Not sure why it would be considered an anachronism.

[viper37]

The religious ceremony, in short, means nothing (legally). All that counts is the filling out of the civil license.

that is allright, it's been sorta that way for a while.  What is different is that it was always assumed that religious organization had the obligation to fill the civil license, hence, for all intent and purpose, making it the same a marriage in front of a judge or boat captain.

Now, the judge says you can renounce that in advance.  You could be married only for your Church, not for your State.
It raises many hypothetical questions.  would it become a default that religious organization don't fill a civil license?  It would be practical for many and derive spouses, especially those in vulnerable communities, or many rights they thought they might enjoy, and essentially substract the marital union from the law, which was never the purpose.

[viper37]

Also, splitting property acquired during marriage makes sense. Not sure why it would be considered an anachronism.

Because not everyone participate in it.

I have a business, my wife does not participate in it, she has her own carrier.  Why would she gain 50% of it when she dumps me for another man?  Lots of SMB owners were forced to sell their shares to a third party to get the money they needed, lots of small farms were sold too.  In the case of a dairy farm, what is the wife's contribution to an increase in the quota value over 10 years?

The law was made for a time where women would stay at home and raise kids, foregoing any kind of career, and after a successful man would find himself a prettyer, younger wife, she would end up with nothing.  Nowadays, both people word indepedantly, most of the time.  If they work for the same business, they should be shareholders and that does not concern marriage.

[Malthus]

The religious ceremony, in short, means nothing (legally). All that counts is the filling out of the civil license.

that is allright, it's been sorta that way for a while.  What is different is that it was always assumed that religious organization had the obligation to fill the civil license, hence, for all intent and purpose, making it the same a marriage in front of a judge or boat captain.

Now, the judge says you can renounce that in advance.  You could be married only for your Church, not for your State.
It raises many hypothetical questions.  would it become a default that religious organization don't fill a civil license?  It would be practical for many and derive spouses, especially those in vulnerable communities, or many rights they thought they might enjoy, and essentially substract the marital union from the law, which was never the purpose.

Well, I can have a party and announce I'm "marrying" everyone in the room - it doesn't mean squat, legally. 

I guess what you are really asking is whether a church marriage would be an "opt it" or an "opt out" situation in respect of filing the marriage license. That's an easy one: there is no reason to suspect it would be "opt in". Common sense would dictate that, if you wanted a wedding in church and everything that wasn't a "legal wedding", you'd very much have to ensure that everyone involved knew this was the intention, well in advance (and be prepared for Churches telling you to get bent).

[garbon]

A gay friend of mine got married in a unitarian church before it was legal. No legal marriage resulted.

[Malthus]

Also, splitting property acquired during marriage makes sense. Not sure why it would be considered an anachronism.

Because not everyone participate in it.

I have a business, my wife does not participate in it, she has her own carrier.  Why would she gain 50% of it when she dumps me for another man?  Lots of SMB owners were forced to sell their shares to a third party to get the money they needed, lots of small farms were sold too.  In the case of a dairy farm, what is the wife's contribution to an increase in the quota value over 10 years?

The law was made for a time where women would stay at home and raise kids, foregoing any kind of career, and after a successful man would find himself a prettyer, younger wife, she would end up with nothing.  Nowadays, both people word indepedantly, most of the time.  If they work for the same business, they should be shareholders and that does not concern marriage.

People, even "modern people", compromise their careers for each other all the time (as well as having only one of what is usually their largest assets - namely, a house). It is pure folly to assume they don't.

For example: I want to be a lawyer and my wife wants to be an academic. She gets a job in her field, but it happens to be at the University of Texas. I'm licensed to practice law in Ontario. One of us has to give, if we want to live together.

Say she gives. I build up a valuable law practice, while she teaches at a community college - still an academic job but not as good as she could have got in Texas. A house is bought. We aren't a "traditional couple" in the sense that we both have our own careers and no kids - but she's compromised her career. It was inevitable that one of us would, because we can't both live in Texas and Ontario.

I think the concept you are missing is "opportunity cost". A wife or husband may not "participate" in building up a career or business it is true, but it would be very unusual for there to have been no "opportunity costs" from making the choices that allowed the build-up of a business to occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

The wife on a dairy farm is a good example. Presumably, she is required to live on a dairy farm. Even if she does nothing to work around the place (a pretty odd situation, that would be), she's giving up any hope of working somewhere *other* than on a dairy farm.