[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

there's no such thing as common law here.

Right. If there were then this would be very straight forward for that judge.

[viper37]

there's no such thing as common law here.

Right. If there were then this would be very straight forward for that judge.

Well, at first, it seemed like a good idea to have our own civil code.  Rules were clear, lawyers were cheaper than in the US&Canada.  Nowadays though, every fucking trial drags on&on&on&on, and even if lawyers costs less than other canadian provinces (though I have serious doubt about this, I'd have to recheck), they make up by the number of hours they put on a case.  And of course, they still insist on charging 1$/minute for every phone call.  When long distance calls were at 0,35$/min, it was tolerable, nowadays at 0,02$/minute and less, it does not.

[Grey Fox]

If you are not married then they don't apply.

Right. So you get "married" but avoid the obligations by bailing on the civil marriage. Which is what I said originally.

Unless, of course, your state recognizes common law marriage in which case you get your religious but not civil marriage and after however long living together, the common law marriage kicks in.

Isn't that another version of a state sanctioned marriage that GF opposes?  After all a "common law" marriage is something that is a legal relationship imposed by Statute.

It is.

[Valmy]

It is.

Sounds like you live in the right place then.

[Grey Fox]

Yes & then, I am going to get married.

[crazy canuck]

If you are not married then they don't apply.

Right. So you get "married" but avoid the obligations by bailing on the civil marriage. Which is what I said originally.

Unless, of course, your state recognizes common law marriage in which case you get your religious but not civil marriage and after however long living together, the common law marriage kicks in.

there's no such thing as common law here.

Its a misnomer.  Common law marriage is actually defined by statute so not really "common law" at all. 

[Neil]

I encourage those Languishites who are in Alberta to donate money to the Progressive Conservative party.  They need the money at this point.

I was just going to bump this thread when I saw this - meowtf?  Wildrose gets my money.

Polling indicates we're back.

[Barrister]

I encourage those Languishites who are in Alberta to donate money to the Progressive Conservative party.  They need the money at this point.

I was just going to bump this thread when I saw this - meowtf?  Wildrose gets my money.

Polling indicates we're back.

[Neil]

I encourage those Languishites who are in Alberta to donate money to the Progressive Conservative party.  They need the money at this point.

I was just going to bump this thread when I saw this - meowtf?  Wildrose gets my money.

Polling indicates we're back.

Mainstreet released a poll that showed the split was 33-31-27 Wildrose-PC-NDP.  Still a long time away from the election, but promising.

[viper37]

C-452

French article about the positions of some lawyers
Summary of the arguments below, you can use Google translate if you don't trust my translation (and you should not trust me )

The bill would make it so that a person usually living with a prostitute or another abused person would be presumed to live off the work of that person.

Quebec bar says it's constitutionnaly ok.
Presumption of innocence, as detailed in article 11d of the Charter would be respected.  Downey ruling of the CSC in 1992 has provided a basis for such measure, relating to adult prostitution.  That measure would permit the police&prosecutors to avoid relying on a presumed victim's testimony who might be scared to death of her abusers (pimps, in this case, mostly).


Canadian bar says it is not constitutionnaly ok
Downey ruling was not about presumption of innocence, we should instead look at the Bedford ruling of 2013.  It establish that someone living with another person presumably abused may not be aware of that person's situation and therefore innocent.



Lawyers divided, as always
Whats the opinion of our resident lawyers?

[Valmy]

The bill would make it so that a person usually living with a prostitute or another abused person would be presumed to live off the work of that person.

So the assumption was that prostitutes' children were living off somebody else's money?

[Malthus]

C-452

French article about the positions of some lawyers
Summary of the arguments below, you can use Google translate if you don't trust my translation (and you should not trust me )

The bill would make it so that a person usually living with a prostitute or another abused person would be presumed to live off the work of that person.

Quebec bar says it's constitutionnaly ok.
Presumption of innocence, as detailed in article 11d of the Charter would be respected.  Downey ruling of the CSC in 1992 has provided a basis for such measure, relating to adult prostitution.  That measure would permit the police&prosecutors to avoid relying on a presumed victim's testimony who might be scared to death of her abusers (pimps, in this case, mostly).


Canadian bar says it is not constitutionnaly ok
Downey ruling was not about presumption of innocence, we should instead look at the Bedford ruling of 2013.  It establish that someone living with another person presumably abused may not be aware of that person's situation and therefore innocent.



Lawyers divided, as always
Whats the opinion of our resident lawyers?

Interesting. Here's the operative text:

279.01 (1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years in any other case.

Marginal note:Consent

(2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and 279.011(1), evidence that a person who is not exploited lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who is exploited is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation.

The bill adds the bolded part.

[viper37]

The bill would make it so that a person usually living with a prostitute or another abused person would be presumed to live off the work of that person.

So the assumption was that prostitutes' children were living off somebody else's money?

more likely in the case of a brothel or gang members watching over prostitutes and sending them to their clients.

[Valmy]

more likely in the case of a brothel or gang members watching over prostitutes and sending them to their clients.

In the age of the internet there might also be self-employed sex-workers who simply might also have families. So be careful here Canada.

[Barrister]

Because it's not a blanket presumption, but allows for "except for evidence to the contrary", it should be fine constitutionally IMO.  Once the Accused takes the stand to rebut the presumption it still falls on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised such control.