Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2006, 01:54 AM
OB1 OB1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 135
OB1 is on a distinguished road
Default found this article

Women cheat, too

CATHY KOSTACHEN


(Jun 28, 2006)

The June 22 article, Bitterness Can Be Factor In Divorce Settlements: Court Upholds 'No-Fault' But Man Has To Keep Paying Traumatized Ex-Wife, should have mentioned that cheating spouses may include cheating wives.

There are plenty of ex-wives who have done the cheating but, once again, they never seem to be held accountable for their actions. The only ones held accountable are the ex-husbands, who are always blamed by the courts and society when a marriage fails -- their fault or not.

When are the courts, society and the Family Responsibility Office going to change their way of thinking and revise the laws to reflect fairness?

Cathy Kostachen

Waterloo
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2006, 01:56 AM
OB1 OB1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 135
OB1 is on a distinguished road
Default

Court examines no-fault divorce
Today’s Family News
June 28, 2006

The consequences of spousal infidelity may be “highly relevant” in certain divorce cases when it comes to setting alimony payments, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last week.

In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the justices upheld the overarching principle of “no-fault divorce” enshrined in the Divorce Act. Passed by Parliament in 1985, it states that courts “shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.”

Justice Ian Binnie, who wrote the decision, affirmed, according to the Vancouver Sun, that infidelity “is off the table as a relevant consideration” when setting the amount of spousal support. Yet he also stated: “There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself. The consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse’s misconduct.”

On the contrary, Binnie said such consequences may be “highly relevant.”

The ruling upholds a 2004 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision which in turn had upheld a lower court ruling involving Gary and Sherry Leskun of Abbotsford. She had claimed that his sudden decision in 1998 to end their 20-year marriage so he could marry another woman left her so emotionally devastated that she was unable to work.

The court accepted her argument and ordered Gary Leskun to make spousal support payments of $2,250 per month. Three years later, he went back to court in a bid to have the payments ended or at least reduced, arguing in part that it was time his ex-wife, who had 34 years’ banking experience, found a job.

University of Toronto family law professor Brenda Cossman is worried that the ruling undermines the intent of “no-fault divorce.” “[It] actually opens up misconduct in a very big way to be examined [by the courts],” she told the Globe and Mail.

“As of today, you cannot go to court and say: ‘My spouse committed adultery, therefore you should give me support.’ But you can go to court and say: ‘My spouse committed adultery and I’m so totally devastated that I can’t work and you should give me support.’”

Pro-family groups have noted for years that Canada’s no-fault divorce laws have had a devastating impact on families by substantially increasing the divorce rate because of the lack of responsibility it encourages.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2006, 01:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I just think we are heading further and further away form the issues and building more bogus laws on top of the ever growing list of bogus laws, which of course is built on the most bogus law in Canada, the Divorce Act.

The Divorce Act (noun) (1) a framework for litigation (2) a cause of litigation (3) an excuse to litigate (4) destroyer of children and parents (5) exhauster of life savings. Can be used as a verb or adjective "You broke my heart, I'm going to Divorce Act you" or "I created my retirement by using the Divorce Act Savings Plan"
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2006, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 153
Duped is on a distinguished road
Talking If only...

If only you could see how big my smile got after reading that.

Thanks

Duped
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2007, 12:47 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

I believe in that case, (I could be wrong) the party was also a custodial parent. It is ironic to say they were emotionally devasted from the breakup to get on with their life and seek employment but yet were of sound mind and able to parent effectively.

lv
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting Article on Joint Custody Grace Political Issues 23 03-20-2012 11:35 AM
Interesting article on common law relationships logicalvelocity Common Law Issues 0 06-20-2006 08:43 PM
So glad to have found this! mom22galz Introductions 3 06-09-2006 05:46 PM
i need advice hidden assest found after final divorce sherif28 Financial Issues 6 03-02-2006 12:20 AM
Uplifting Update on my situation CatvsLion Parenting Issues 36 01-15-2006 11:25 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM.