MONTREAL — Unmarried Quebec spouses seeking alimony and assets from ex-partners won a partial victory Wednesday in the province’s highest court thanks to the ex-girlfriend of a billionaire.I am sure that $50 million will buy a measure of protection for the ex-girlfriend.
The Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a section of the province’s civil code that says only married partners can receive alimony.
A Brazilian woman nicknamed “Lola” is seeking $50 million plus $56,000 a month for a seven-year relationship that ended in 2002. Lola and her ex-partner “Eric” cannot be named to protect their three children.
Lola won’t get paid immediately. The court suspended its ruling for one year while Quebec revises the law, after which time the woman can re-argue her case before a lower court to seek the beefed-up payments.
In a 51-page ruling, the appeals court found that section 585 of Quebec’s civil code discriminates against more than 1.2 million Quebecers who lived together but were never married.
“In ignoring de facto spouses, as current legislators do, more than one third of Quebec couples find themselves excluded from a measure of protection for the family unit,” Justice Julie Dutil wrote on behalf of colleagues Marc Beauregard and Lorne Giroux.
Dutil added that alimony helps spouses, mainly women, meet their financial needs following breakups. She added that these women have the same needs as married ex-partners.
Quebec, the only province that doesn’t allow unmarried partners to claim alimony, says it will study the ruling before deciding its next move.
Quebec is more socialist than I thought, according to this:
Around 1984, Quebec made it illegal for a wife to take the name of her husband. ... In 1989 Quebec enacted legislation putting every married couple into a 50/50 situation for all major assets. ... In 1994 a new law stated that the free government hospital/clinic may not inform the parents about the free government abortion performed on their 14-year-old daughter, ... The same Family Law eliminated the word “parent,” replacing it with “the holder of parental authority” ...If it is illegal in Canada for marriage law and family courts to discriminate between married and unmarried couples, then marriage has lost its meaning. It is no longer possible for a couple to enter into a traditional marriage based on mutual promises. The relationship is defined by some wacky judges who are trying to re-engineer social policy with their leftist ideals.
Last week, Iowa voters kicked out three state supreme court judges for trying to rewrite marriage laws.
1 comment:
you can call it leftist, but that's too convenient a label. It's Statist. You have social engineering from what some call "left" and what some call "right". But at the end of the day both sides of the argument miss the point, that's all wedge issue baloney to divide, conquer and ultimately control the populace. It's the State that wants control ultimately and they'll do it with whatever ideologies are at hand and work in a given culture. Cui bene? You do the math, it's the same as it ever was in this country. And many others. It's just class warfare. Even Warren Buffett himself copped to it for the so-called "right wing". The so-called "left wing" snivel and obfuscate, but are doing the same thing, so no doubt there will be some sort of equilibrium, so long as the spoils of that war are divvied up to the satisfaction of the winners. And it ain't gonna be you or me or the average citizen. Welcome to Big Brother's new Banana Republic.
Post a Comment