This just in : SCC maintains Quebec's civil law on unmarried couple

[Drakken]

Even the decision of the Cour d'Appel du Québec is overturned: The statu quo is maintained by majority decision, and is considered constitutional.

Lola.

No coverage in English yet on the CBC website.

EDIT : Reading the decision on paper, the decision was rendered with a close majority of 5-4.

[Drakken]

Supreme Court upholds Quebec Civil Code in common-law decision

Province appealed Eric vs. Lola decision involving woman wanting $56K monthly in support

Supreme Court of Canada today upheld the Quebec Civil Code in a decision that will impact nearly 1.4 million people living in so-called common-law relationships in the province.

The court ruled the civil code is constitutional in its treatment of non-married couples who separate, in that they are not entitled to the same spousal support or share of family assets as their married counterparts.

The so-called Lola vs. Eric case has been making its way through the court system for years. It involved a Quebec couple who never married, but lived together for seven years and shares three children.

A court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names.

After separating, Lola sought spousal support, but Quebec's Civil Code provides no such provision for couples who are not legally married.

Lola had been seeking a $50-million lump-sum payment as well as $56,000 a month from her former spouse — a well-known Quebec business tycoon known in the case as Eric. Lola was 17 when she met the then 32-year-old entrepreneur.

The woman took her case to the Quebec Superior Court in 2009, when a judge rejected her claims, saying that under existing law, partners in a common-law relationship have no rights, duties and responsibilities to each other — no matter how many years they've lived together.

In November 2010, a Quebec Court of Appeal decision invalidated that section of the civil code, saying the law discriminates against unmarried couples, and the province was given one year to change the law.

The Quebec government described that ruling as a mistake, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nearly 1.4 million Quebecers are in common-law relationships, according to the 2011 census, and about 60 per cent of children are born to unmarried couples.

[Grey Fox]

http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12825/index.do

It's a long read. Even the dissidents don't agree among themselves, also true of the majority.

[Admiral Yi]

Executive summary: gold digger got fucked.

Hope her lawyer was working on contingency. 

[Grallon]

Lola had been seeking a $50-million lump-sum payment as well as $56,000 a month from her former spouse — a well-known Quebec business tycoon known in the case as Eric. Lola was 17 when she met the then 32-year-old entrepreneur.

It is in fact Guy Laliberté, Cirque du Soleil billionaire founder. 




G.

[Drakken]

Indeed, the prealable question of whether these dispositions run afoul the Charter is split 5-4 in favour of saying they do go against the Charter. Plus it's split right along the judges' genders - 4 men against, 4 women in favour plus Cromwell.

McLaughlin, however, has argued that while these dispositions do run counter to the Charter's right to equality, Quebec (and provinces in general) does and should have reasonable leeway to politically decide how to solve complex social issues (and given Quebec's civil law background, common-law jurisprudence is irrelevant), and we must presume that individuals make these choices as consenting adults. Thus, this discrimination is currently deemed acceptable, even if a bit extreme.

In other words, it throws the ball back to the politicians, who have absolutely no intention as of now to open this can of worms.

[Drakken]

Executive summary: gold digger got fucked.

Hope her lawyer was working on contingency. 

Eric already consented child alimony for the three children, she can keep the house, and the children's education is payed. She's far from a complaining situation, but it won't suffice by itself to maintain her lifestyle. It's one reason why the cause was so unsympathetic in Quebec, even among women.

However, she won't get the 50 million lump-sum plus $56,000 per month plus a share of the patrimony that she was demanding as "ex-conjointe de fait".

[crazy canuck]

In other words, it throws the ball back to the politicians

One of the many reasons I admire her decisions.

[Drakken]

One of the many reasons I admire her decisions.

Truth be told, it was the only decision possible, at least the least dangerous decision available. McLaughlin found some legal justification to back it up, because there was no way 1,7 million Quebeckers would have accepted willy-nilly to be legally married without their consent with some common-law mumbo-jumbo. More than 30% of couples in Quebec are unmarried (not even civil union), 60% of children are born out of wedlock, and no one contests child alimony. Any other decision would have been a social powerkeg.

If you listen and watch the media here in Quebec, the vast, vast, vast consensus is that the SCC made a good decision that respects the choice of Quebecers, and that no one but the individuals should decide whether they marry or not, and what protections they want or not. It's up to the individuals, not the State, to make an enlightened choice, and it's to us to discuss to decide how we can reform it to make it less extreme in the future.

[crazy canuck]

One of the many reasons I admire her decisions.

Truth be told, it was the only decision possible

Apparantly 4 justices of the Supreme Court disagree with your analysis. 

[Drakken]

One of the many reasons I admire her decisions.

Truth be told, it was the only decision possible

Apparantly 4 justices of the Supreme Court disagree with your analysis. 

It's the duty of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to go beyond personal bias and interests, even of the Justice themselves, and look at the bigger picture. 

[crazy canuck]

One of the many reasons I admire her decisions.

Truth be told, it was the only decision possible

Apparantly 4 justices of the Supreme Court disagree with your analysis. 

It's the duty of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to go beyond personal bias and interests, even of the Justice themselves, and look at the bigger picture. 

You are starting to go off the deep end.  It is the duty of every Judge at every level of court in this country to do that.

[Drakken]

You are starting to go off the deep end.  It is the duty of every Judge at every level of court in this country to do that.

You deny that the canyon-wide gender split we find between the 9 Justice, in whether the dispositions of Quebec Civil Law on alimony toward the partner (not the child) was discriminating according to the Charter, belies the fact that the gender of judges did have an impact on how these were read and interpreted: All four women plus one man vote Aye, four men vote Nay? 

I said the previous line tongue-in-cheekly, yet it's somewhat odd to find such a wide divide here. Might be a coincidence, though.

[crazy canuck]

You are starting to go off the deep end.  It is the duty of every Judge at every level of court in this country to do that.

You deny that the canyon-wide gender split we find in whether the dispositions of Quebec Civil Law on alimony toward the partner (not the child) was discriminating according to the Charter belies the fact that the gender of judges did have an impact on how these were read: All four women plus one man vote Aye, four men vote Nay? 

I said the previous line tongue-in-cheekly, yet it's somewhat odd to find such a wide divide here.

Tongue in cheek?  then why continue to defend your statement?  You are now well and truly in the deep end of nutterville.

[Drakken]

You are starting to go off the deep end.  It is the duty of every Judge at every level of court in this country to do that.

You deny that the canyon-wide gender split we find in whether the dispositions of Quebec Civil Law on alimony toward the partner (not the child) was discriminating according to the Charter belies the fact that the gender of judges did have an impact on how these were read: All four women plus one man vote Aye, four men vote Nay? 

I said the previous line tongue-in-cheekly, yet it's somewhat odd to find such a wide divide here.

Tongue in cheek?  then why continue to defend your statement?  You are now well and truly in the deep end of nutterville.

No, I'm asking whether you deny that the gender of the Justices had an impact on that decision. I'm not claiming conspiracy, however I assert that your notion that Justices always look at the bigger picture without letting any personal influence or bias go through is not that tight as you seem to assert. Judges are people, not automatons devoid of personal or systemic bias.