Woman seeking alimony after common-law marriage

INGRID PERITZ

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

January 20, 2009 at 4:34 AM EST

MONTREAL — She is a willowy brunette with supermodel looks. He is a multimillionaire who travels the globe. Their union produced three kids - and their breakup is now poised to test Canadian law.

A Montreal woman turned to a Quebec judge yesterday in a bid to obtain alimony from her wealthy ex. She says she was the man's companion, travel partner, and mother to their children: The only thing she wasn't was his wife.

Now the woman is challenging federal law and seeking $50-million of her ex's fortune, saying she was unfairly penalized because she never tied the knot.

"I never thought I would have to go before a judge to ask for my money or my rights," the woman, who is in her 30s, told reporters outside the courtroom. "I want to be recognized as his wife. I always considered myself to be his wife. Everybody treated me as his wife."

The couple's identities are protected under Quebec law.

The outcome is being closely followed in Quebec because the province is champion of common-law marriage in Canada. After the collapse of the Catholic Church's influence in Quebec, many couples opted to live together without saying their vows: 34 per cent of all couples in Quebec live together, compared with 18 per cent on average across Canada.

The impact for children is even greater, since 60 per cent of children in Quebec are born to unwed parents.

While the repercussions of the court ruling could be wide-ranging, the test case happens to be set against an uncommon backdrop of wealth and luxury.

The woman described in Superior Court how she met her future partner on a beach in her native South America. She was a 17-year-old high-school student; he was a businessman from Quebec, nearly twice her age.

The young woman, who moved to Montreal in 1995, embarked on a lavish lifestyle. There were trips to Tahiti and London, sailboat rides, and constant rounds of parties.

Each time she discussed marriage, however, her mate was evasive, she said.

"I wanted to marry him from the start, but all I got from him was excuses," she said.

She says she didn't realize that, as a woman living with a man in Quebec without a marriage certificate, she didn't have the same rights as a woman who was formally married.

Lawyers for the woman are challenging Canada's definition of marriage, set out as the "lawful union" between two people. They argue that two people who live together for years, even if they don't formally tie the knot, should be recognized under the law.

"A ceremony is no longer what creates the marital bond," said one of the woman's lawyers, Marie-Hélène Dubé.

In fact, Quebec is the only province that doesn't afford common-law spouses the same protections as married ones. The lawyers are also challenging part of the Quebec Civil Code.

The woman, who split from her ex in 2001 but has shared custody of the children, receives $35,000 a month in child-support payments. But she wants a separate sum of $56,000 a month in spousal support for herself.

Under cross-examination, she admitted to the court that her former partner was paying for a new $2.4-million home for her and their children in upper Outremont, along with $500,000 for her to furnish and fix it up. He was also paying for a cook, two nannies, and the children's private schooling.

An association representing single parents and reconstituted families in Quebec has obtained intervenor status in the case. A lawyer for the group said the matter is important because it addresses the rights of children.

The woman's former partner is to testify on Thursday.

Source

 

Commentary by the Otawa Mens Centre in the Globe and Mail

 

Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gener Apartheid, Canada wrote: This case is not about this particular woman who lives a life of luxury and bases her claim solely upon the her six year relationship that started when she was 17 and he 34 in South America. This case is about the FAILURE of society to promote marriage, and in particular the contempt with which society treats relationships that produce children, doomed by government incentives to destruction of their families. It provides an opportunity for one spouse to abuse. Generally, its men with the incomes who in Quebec escape any responsibility for spousal support despite the sacrifices and disadvantages. Times are changing, now many women are the income earners and society fails to understand those changes and assumptions. It is that conceited, arrogant pathological blindness and willingness to abuse the disadvantaged that is being addressed. Quebec is out of step with the modern world, as is Ontario with a failure to recognize common law property rights. Most importantly, Canada FAILS its fiduciary duty to nurture Canadian children by failing to legislate a legal presumption of equal parenting after separation. Our Canadian governments have given unbridled power to feminist dogma, an agenda that promotes hatred towards men that has destroyed the rule of law, obstructed justice by a flag.rant abuse of Ju.dicial Power , against men. It's time for change and hopefully, the courts will not only solve the rights of common law couples but think of our nation's most valuable resource who deserve nurturing , equal parenting from both parents, and a society where men and women are truly treated as equal rather than our present lawless society that removes all legal rights from men at the whim of a disturbed and troubled vindictive mother. See the roscoe research paper on judicial bias at the ottawamenscentre site.

 

 

Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gener Apartheid, Canada wrote: Her claim is roughly the equivalent of an Ontario MALE spouse earning around two million a year after a 7 year relationship.
There is just one problem. Across Canada , especially ONTARIO, Ontario Family Court Judges almost never order a woman to pay a man spousal support, such is the corrupt influence that extreme feminists have on our judiciary and specifically, the feminist influence in judicial appointments. Its not uncommon for a lawyer's phone to ring with feminist seeking information about a potential judicial appointment. Some of our feminist politicians have used their influence with devastating effect in getting feminist lawyers appointed to the judiciary regardless of their lack of experience and unsuitability not to mention established record of bias towards men. One of the most biased judges in Canada is on the Ontario Court of Appeal, with the dubious record of having made more biased decisions against men than any other judge in history of the Ontario Court of appeal. You can find out who by checking out the Roscoe Research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com/roscoe

 

Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gender Apartheid, Canada wrote: Shortly Lucien Khodeir will bring his Constitutional Challenge that the Federal Child Support Guidlines are unconstitutional. Perhaps in his difficult to read factum, you might make out his point that he argues that child support should not contain spousal support. He is right on that point, child support is generally not related to a child's need, it's provides a financial incentive for woman to remove children from equal love and affection from their father, an incentive that gets greater the more successful the father is. Obviously, high income earning fathers are successful people, highly talented, highly qualified and also probably above average parents. Canada specifically provides a greater incentive towards marriage destruction by giving women sole custody, and total control of children. Ontario Family Courts by "Power orders" or "Sheffield Orders" take away all access from fathers, hit them with child support orders based on fictitious incomes that never existed and cannot exist. These orders are to "punish fathers" for coming to court, for daring to suggest that a child would benefit from a relationship with their father. Remember the names, these are probably the two greatest flagrant ab-users of judicial authority in Canada, they are the extreme lower level of the underbelly of the judiciary, not to mention humanity. They demonstrate all the symptoms of a psychopath and the tragedy is that they will continue their lifetimes of judicial abuse till they retire. Canada is a lawless society thanks to that corrupt underbelly of the judiciary that bring Canada's courts, Canada's legal system into vile ill-repute. www.OttawaMensCentre.com Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gener Apartheid, Canada) wrote: Shortly Lucien Khodeir will bring his Constitutional Challenge that the Federal Child Support Guidlines are unconstitutional. Perhaps in his difficult to read factum, you might make out his point that he argues that child support should not contain spousal support. He is right on that point, child support is generally not related to a child's need, it's provides a financial incentive for woman to remove children from equal love and affection from their father, an incentive that gets greater the more successful the father is. Obviously, high income earning fathers are successful people, highly talented, highly qualified and also probably above average parents. Canada specifically provides a greater incentive towards marriage destruction by giving women sole custody, and total control of children. Ontario Family Courts by 'Power orders' or 'Sheffield Orders' take away all access from fathers, hit them with child support orders based on fictitious incomes that never existed and cannot exist. These orders are to 'punish fathers' for coming to court, for daring to suggest that a child would benefit from a relationship with their father. Remember the names, these are probably the two greatest flagrant ab-users of judicial authority in Canada, they are the extreme lower level of the underbelly of the judiciary, not to mention humanity. They demonstrate all the symptoms of a psychopath and the tragedy is that they will continue their lifetimes of judicial abuse till they retire. Canada is a lawless society thanks to that corrupt underbelly of the judiciary that bring Canada's courts, Canada's legal system into vile ill-repute. www.OttawaMensCentre.com

 

Obama spoke about Equality, Lets hope he makes that point if and when he speaks to a Canadian Parliament. Obama will be landing at Ottawa Ontario, the capital of Judicial Corruption with several of the greatest abusers of Judicial Power in Canada's history. Almost every day, they routinely issue draconian orders that treat men with even less respect than blacks received in the Deep South decades ago. Men In Ontario, have their legal rights totally removed at the whim of a vindictive angry judge who acts at the behest an equally disturbed and troubled vindictive mother who simply ask for a "Power order" or a "Sheffield Order" that means, asking a judge to do indirectly what is prohibited directly, that is, destroy a father by ordering child support without any evidence of income when the judge knows he is unemployed and a full time dad. These two judges target the most vulnerable, the self represented male litigant simply seeking access to his child.

Society hates child abusers, they are the most vile individuals on earth, the problem is, the very worst are referred to as "the worst judge" or "the underbelly of the judiciary", you can find them at 161 Elgin Street Ottawa. Yes, they are a minority but , they have power and influence over administrative judges who make administrative decisions, ordering trials when they know the victim cannot attend and cannot appeal, the resulting decisions are constructed to prevent appeal by ordering "astronomical security for costs" to prevent any litigation regarding the best interests of a child and that is the act of a professional child abuser. www.OttawaMensCentre.com