News from the Courts

Supreme Court hears case of Lola vs. Eric

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the arguments today in the case of Lola vs. Eric. Lola is challenging the validity of the articles in Book II (The Family) of the Civil Code, which excludes common law spouses from the legal protections afforded married spouses. She is asking that common law spouses have the right to claim alimony, the use of the family residence, the family patrimony and the matrimonial regime of partnership of acquests.

Judgment obliges doctors and surgeons to pay alimony and child support like everybody else!

Honourable Justice Marie-Christine Laberge rendered an important judgment on November 1st with respect to the automatic collection of alimony and child support. She concluded that the professional fees that a self-employed physician earns should and indeed must be collected by the MRQ by means of automatic withholding at source in the hands of the RAMQ, just like the revenue of any salaried employee would be.

The Quebec Child Support Guidelines are held to be discriminatory by the Superior Court

Honourable Justice Diane Marcelin of the Superior Court determined on May 26 2011 that the Quebec Child Support Guidelines are discriminatory to divorcing or divorced mothers. Judge Marcelin called upon the Quebec Government to change the Guidelines voluntarily, and she declared that the  infringement of the constitutional rights of divorced mothers is justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of cooperative federalism.

The Supreme Court Rules on Unjust Enrichment for Common Law Spouses

The Supreme Court of Canada rules that when a domestic relationship is a "joint family venture," there is an unjust enrichment if one party is left with a disproportionate share of the jointly earned assets.

Libre opinion - L'effondrement des «contrats béton»

En réponse au texte «Affaire Lola contre Éric — Aucune cause ne peut faire fi de la vérité» signé du président de la Chambre des notaires, Jean Lambert (Le Devoir, 23 décembre 2010), je tiens à souligner que la Chambre des notaires a été parmi ceux qui ont le plus souvent soutenu, en commissions parlementaires, la nécessité de protéger les conjoints de fait et leur famille, sans discrimination, et ce, depuis plusieurs années. Ceci est tout à leur honneur.

Du patriarcat jusqu'au partenariat - Épouser la cause de «Lola»

Il y a une semaine, la Cour d'appel du Québec déclarait inconstitutionnelle l'absence d'obligation alimentaire entre conjoints de fait dans notre Code civil. Notre plus haut tribunal désapprouvait alors le préjugé défavorable du législateur québécois envers l'union de fait et son désir de préserver un statut supérieur au mariage.

Retort to Lysiane Gagnon of La Presse

Lysiane Gagnon, a journalist at La Presse published an article on February 2nd in the Globe and Mail and on February 25th in La Presse, excorciating our efforts to promote the rights of common law couples in the Lola vs. Eric case. Me Goldwater succeeded in having La Presse publish our cogent reply, and a plea for equal rights for all.

Court of Appeal hears our request

The Court of Appeal has heard our request to affirm the right of all Quebec women to seize and collect their alimony and child support orders.

Upcoming Court of Appeal hearing

On February 04 2003, the Court of Appeal will be hearing our challenge to the Minister of Revenue of Quebec's argument that Quebec women do not have the right to collect their own alimony and child support. The government is arguing that women are not entitled to execute their own judgments, even though there are significant delays in many cases before the government is able to act itself to collect support, leaving too many Quebec women and children out in the cold.

Chief Justice of Quebec hears the intervention of the CHRC in the same sex marriage case

Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Robert, Chief Justice of Quebec, hears the intervention of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the same sex marriage case in Montreal. The Federal Government opposes the intervention of the Human Rights Commission, arguing that the law does not empower the Human Rights Commission to have any say in human rights cases before the courts. Fortunately, Mr. Justice Robert did not agree with the Federal Government, and held that the Human Rights Commission should have a voice in the eventual decision about the legitimacy of same sex marriage.