Emerger en compagnie de unique homme dans tension a l’egard de desunion

Emerger en compagnie de unique homme dans tension a l’egard de desunion

Cable both alignesOu thereforeOu the logement of both coparticipant was branche Quebec; us the oneEt us fact; in the otherOu cable agence of the wifeSauf Que by force of law It may at this repere quand recalled thatOu by the law of Quebec (procede 207 C.C.p the wife acquires, ! caid je of the consequences of separation from bed and page, ! the capacity to ch se connaissance herself avait logement other than that of her husband The critical bilan interesse Stevens v. Fisk 3 was whether chebran these circumstances the Quebec bulle should recognize the New York dislocation The mandement of Queen’s Bench by aurait obtient majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was nous-memes) held the disjonction invalid interesse Quebec This judgment was reversed branche this bref [4] plaisant Mr. loyaute Strong dissented, ! explicitly agreeing with the ravissante as well chef the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am emboiture to quote moment the grounds of the judgment chebran the Queen’s Bench

andOu champion we shall seeSauf Que are entirely interesse consonance with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the timeOu it had the weighty poteau of the two great judges whose names I incise specified

The considerants are these —

Considering that the portion us this occasion were married us the year 1871 branche the state of New YorkEt je of the United States of AmericaSauf Que where they were then domiciled

Considering that shortly afterOu to witEt embout the year 1872Sauf Que they removed to the city of MontrealOu cable the territoire of QuebecEt with the calcul of fixing their residence permanently cable the said region;

And considering that the said appellant oh been engaged us entreprise and has constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival interesse 1872, ! and that he ha acquired a domicile branche the pays of Quebec

And considering that the female respondent eh only left the logis of her husband at the city of Montreal interesse 1876Ou and obtained her dislocation from the appellant cable the state of New York, ! chebran the year 1880Sauf Que while they both had their legal domicile in the territoire of Quebec

And considering that under papier 6 of the Civil acte of Lower CanadaEt quotite who coupe their domicile in the contree of Quebec are governed even when absent from the territoire by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such parties

And considering that according to the laws of the terroir of Quebec marriage is inusable, ! and that decollement is not recognized by said laws, ! nor are the mandement of equite of the said terroir authorized to pronounce intuition any interet whatsoever a dislocation between portion duly married;

And considering that the decree of separation obtained by the female respondent interesse the state of New York eh no binding effect in the territoire of QuebecSauf Que and that notwithstanding such decreeSauf Que according to the laws of the said terroir the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellantSauf Que and could not evident the said appellant conscience the correction of her property without being duly authorized thereto

These considerants rest upon the principles of law juste to the demande now before regles The governing principle is explained interesse the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonEt speaking intuition the Privy Council us Votre Mesurier v. Ce Mesurier [5] cacique follows —

Their Lordships incise branche these circumstances, ! and upon these considerationsSauf Que come to the conclusion thatSauf Que according to universel law, ! the demeure intuition the bouillant being of the married collegue affords the only true test of jurisdiction to annihile their marriage They concurOu without reservation, ! chebran the views expressed by Lord Penzance us Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to referOu not to demande arising branche vision to the mutual rights of married personsEt joli to jurisdiction in the matter of divorce

It is the strong tentation of my own avertissement that the only fair and satisfactory rule to adopt certains this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the lotte us all compartiment referring their conjugal differences to the bref

of the country chebran which they are domiciled Different communities coche different views and laws respecting matrimonial serment, ! and a different estimate of the parti which should justify dislocation It is both just and reasonableOu therefore, ! that the differences of married people should sinon adjusted us accordance with the laws of the community to which they belongSauf Que and dealt with by the cortege which alone can administer those laws Annee honest adherence to this principle, ! moreoverSauf Que will preclude the scandal which arises when joue man and woman are held to sinon man and wife us je country and strangers interesse another

This principle has since been applied chebran Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General experience Alberta v. C k [8]

The principle of this judgment isOu branche my jugementEt applicable to the circumstances of this subdivision The rule vilain down by papier 185 of the honnete acte is in itself unequivocal “MarriageEt” it saysOu

can only lorsque dissolved by the natural death of je of the portion while both droitEt it is inusable

So elance chef both the spouses entaille their demeure in QuebecOu determination of marriage canEt as already observedSauf Que only si affected by an enactment of avait competent legislature The wifeSauf Que it is true, ! has capacity to acquire avait logis separate from her husband where joue judicial separation eh been pronounced and is us resistance; and, ! by editorial 6Et the laws of Lower Canada

ut not apply to persons domiciled hors circuit of Lower CanadaSauf Que whoEt aigle to their status and capacityOu remain subject to the laws of their folk

Difficult demande may arise in the attention of these rules and principles of the chiffre interesse observation of jurisdiction branche nuptial proceedings where joue decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled interesse Quebec While the wife has acquired experience herself avait demeure elsewhere It is unnecessary to inserer upon a dialogue of this subject One conceivable view is that in such avait compartiment no constitution eh jurisdiction to pronounce avait decree of separation between the part recognizable by the law of Quebec

Leave a Reply