Handsomely Provisioned
People do have a tendency to feel they are entitled in a way that so many others could never begin to dream of. It is very true that when two adults, a man and a woman decide to live together as a couple in a household as man and wife without the social and legal sanction of a marriage ceremony the woman is all too often done ill by upon separation. In many jurisdictions the cessation of a common-law partnership will honour the woman's role in the partnership as equal to that of a legally-married woman.
Ironically, in Canada, in the Province of Quebec, where more couples opt to live without the benefit of marriage vows than elsewhere in the country - whether because of a mutual aversion to 'entrapment' within a covenant neither wish to have a part of, or whether because one of the partners is unwilling to harness himself or herself to a marriage vow - division of property is not automatic. Regardless, a larger percentage of couples opt for a common-law arrangement in Quebec than elsewhere within Canada.
It surely is time for the province to re-visit their law on the sharing of property to reflect that of married couples, when a common-law marriage fails. It has long been held that the province's law governing common-law marriages requires updating. To at least match the provisions under the law to uphold the rights of women in separation after failure of a common-law marriage that obtains in other provinces with a lesser percentage of such marriages.
However, a recent case brought before a judge of the Quebec Superior Court where a woman who separated from her common-law spouse after seven years of marriage, where the common-law wife is requesting alimony from a billionaire, hardly represents as a template for a 'test case' that would serve to overturn an antiquated law and bring in a new one. This instance of lavish wealth serving to illustrate the dire poverty of some single mothers is hardly appropriate as an example.
This common-law couple separated after seven years of domestic bliss and blast. There are children involved, resulting from the partnership. The former common-law husband currently discharges his obligation as father of his former common-law wife's children by providing her with $35,000 monthly in child support. He pays for their school fees, and he provides for two nannies and a cook for his former family, living in a $2.5-million home in a posh Montreal neighbourhood.
The former common-law wife insists she is entitled to far more, to enable her to continue to "live according to her means". Given that she has no "means", other than the decidedly generous provisions her former husband feels she is entitled to, and he is obligated to provide, her request for an adjudication giving her a separation settlement of $50-million sounds like a bit much. But of course that's her privilege to demand, and it's also his, at the very moment, to deny.
Oh yes, aside from the lump sum cash $50-million, she also seeks an additional $58,000 on a monthly basis. Living in a sumptuous home, with nannies and a generous stipend is clearly inadequate to this woman's aspirations, for this does not give her the opportunity she requires to buy a helicopter, while the $50,000-million sought clearly would. A most unsatisfactory situation to be sure.
Her lawyer contends that the judge's determination in this matter should be to overlook the wealth of the couple involved, and think instead of the close-to one million Quebec couples who choose to live in common-law relationships. "In this case, this woman has no right to ask for anything, no matter how economically dependent she is", her lawyer points out. "So what this case is about is the right to ask."
The judge was not enamoured of the argument, pointing out that should the law give recognition of all partnerships as being that of a "marriage" under the law, it would clearly infringe on the rights of all those people who prefer their relationship to be common-law, outside of the marriage contract. Which should not, on the other hand, serve to deny women in common-law situations rights and privileges given to married women.
All women, under specific circumstances such as long-term relationships which collapse, and which have resulted in children being born within the legally-tenuous relationship, should be guaranteed some source of legal redress, rather than permit the former common-law husband and father to walk away from the results of the relationship with no further associative obligations to his family.
But using this particular couple as the stepping stone to justice for all women is patently absurd.
Ironically, in Canada, in the Province of Quebec, where more couples opt to live without the benefit of marriage vows than elsewhere in the country - whether because of a mutual aversion to 'entrapment' within a covenant neither wish to have a part of, or whether because one of the partners is unwilling to harness himself or herself to a marriage vow - division of property is not automatic. Regardless, a larger percentage of couples opt for a common-law arrangement in Quebec than elsewhere within Canada.
It surely is time for the province to re-visit their law on the sharing of property to reflect that of married couples, when a common-law marriage fails. It has long been held that the province's law governing common-law marriages requires updating. To at least match the provisions under the law to uphold the rights of women in separation after failure of a common-law marriage that obtains in other provinces with a lesser percentage of such marriages.
However, a recent case brought before a judge of the Quebec Superior Court where a woman who separated from her common-law spouse after seven years of marriage, where the common-law wife is requesting alimony from a billionaire, hardly represents as a template for a 'test case' that would serve to overturn an antiquated law and bring in a new one. This instance of lavish wealth serving to illustrate the dire poverty of some single mothers is hardly appropriate as an example.
This common-law couple separated after seven years of domestic bliss and blast. There are children involved, resulting from the partnership. The former common-law husband currently discharges his obligation as father of his former common-law wife's children by providing her with $35,000 monthly in child support. He pays for their school fees, and he provides for two nannies and a cook for his former family, living in a $2.5-million home in a posh Montreal neighbourhood.
The former common-law wife insists she is entitled to far more, to enable her to continue to "live according to her means". Given that she has no "means", other than the decidedly generous provisions her former husband feels she is entitled to, and he is obligated to provide, her request for an adjudication giving her a separation settlement of $50-million sounds like a bit much. But of course that's her privilege to demand, and it's also his, at the very moment, to deny.
Oh yes, aside from the lump sum cash $50-million, she also seeks an additional $58,000 on a monthly basis. Living in a sumptuous home, with nannies and a generous stipend is clearly inadequate to this woman's aspirations, for this does not give her the opportunity she requires to buy a helicopter, while the $50,000-million sought clearly would. A most unsatisfactory situation to be sure.
Her lawyer contends that the judge's determination in this matter should be to overlook the wealth of the couple involved, and think instead of the close-to one million Quebec couples who choose to live in common-law relationships. "In this case, this woman has no right to ask for anything, no matter how economically dependent she is", her lawyer points out. "So what this case is about is the right to ask."
The judge was not enamoured of the argument, pointing out that should the law give recognition of all partnerships as being that of a "marriage" under the law, it would clearly infringe on the rights of all those people who prefer their relationship to be common-law, outside of the marriage contract. Which should not, on the other hand, serve to deny women in common-law situations rights and privileges given to married women.
All women, under specific circumstances such as long-term relationships which collapse, and which have resulted in children being born within the legally-tenuous relationship, should be guaranteed some source of legal redress, rather than permit the former common-law husband and father to walk away from the results of the relationship with no further associative obligations to his family.
But using this particular couple as the stepping stone to justice for all women is patently absurd.
Labels: Human Relations, Realities, Whoops
posted by Pieface @ 5:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home