The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its decision in Miglin vs. Miglin about the claim of an ex-wife to overturn a prior agreement with her ex-husband that set a term to her alimony. Despite prior favourable rulings in Bracklow and Moge that favoured recognizing long-term spousal support, the Supreme Court took a different approach in Miglin, in light of the freely concluded agreement between the spouses. Even though the 1986 Divorce Act gives the Court more power than the previous law, the Court considered it important to find a proper balance between consensus and finality on the one hand, and sensitivity to the unique concerns that arise in the post-divorce context if the agreement does not meet the needs of the wife.

The Supreme Court applied a two stage test: first, ws there oppression or pressure or other vulnerability in negotiating the agreement? Second, is the agreement in substantial compliance with the Divorce Act's objectives? The way the test is set out sets the hurdle rather high to be able to overturn an agreement, except in perhaps the most extreme circumstances.

Since this Supreme Court judgment, no judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal has overturned a single divorce agreement.

This is a great outcome for husbands, because it is the financial agreements that are becoming practically unreviewable, whereas custody is almost always reviewable; it is a lousy outcome for wives, who often sign agreements in rather dubious circumstances. Caution is certainly now the byword before signing ANY agreement!

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. The Provincial Government opposed our request, arguing that the Minister of Revenue of Quebec should be the only ones who act against defaulting debtors. We responded that not only does the Government want to disenfranchise women and treat them as incapable of claiming their own rights, but also that at the glacial speed at which the Government acts to collect alimony and child support, women and children are suffering needlessly. We consider the Minister of Revenue’s attitude toward women to be unacceptably paternalistic and infantilizing. We hope the Court of Appeal will agree!

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.

Honourable Mrs. Justice Louise Lemelin granted our application to declare unconstitutional and discriminatory the laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying. This means that for the first time in the history of this province, same sex couples will be entitled to marry, with all the rights and benefits that marriage has historically provided to opposite sex couples.

The Federal Government has appealed the decision, and a hearing is not expected until next year.

We are proud to be a part of the civil rights struggle to end discrimination against same sex couples, and we will continue to promote gay and lesbian legal rights through the Court of Appeal and up to the Supreme Court.

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. We believe all Quebec women should have the freedom of choice either to have the government collect their alimony and child support, or to do it themselves if they wish.