Nouveauté du 22 septembre 2006
Nouveauté du 31 août 2006 "Le désarroi des garçons"
Nouveauté du 16 juillet 2006
Nouveauté du 21 juin 2006 SCC reintroduces fault in divorce law
Jun. 21 2006
CTV.ca News Staff
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday that a man who was found to be "carrying on behind his wife's back" must continue spousal support payments.
The decision means that the emotional consequences of a spouse's misconduct can be considered when judging spousal support, despite no-fault provisions in the federal Divorce Act.
Gary Leskun, who left his wife of 20 years to marry another woman in 1998, was appealing a lower court's judgment that he must continue to pay monthly spousal support to his ex-wife Sherry Leskun on the grounds she is so embittered from his extra-marital affair she can't work.
"Her life is this litigation,'' the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2004 in upholding the $2,250 monthly spousal support.
The court wrote that Sherry Leskun, who is now 59, is "bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct and in consequence has been unable to make a new life.''
Yet the Divorce Act, which has contained a no-fault provision since 1968, states that courts "shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.''
Gary Leskun argued in his appeal to the Supreme Court in February that allowing such a ruling to stand would not only be "opening the floodgates, but will create a legal tsunami'' of review applications from resentful partners.
Gary and Sherry Leskun had been married 20 years when he accepted a job offer in Chicago in April 1998.
Sherry had worked at a bank and helped to support her husband, 10 years her junior, while he improved his career credentials to become a certified general accountant.
A few months after he moved to Chicago, he met another woman and told his wife he wanted a divorce.
Around the same time, Sherry Leskun quit her job at a bank when her application for long-term disability benefits due to a back problem was turned down.
She was later offered another job at the bank that required retraining but chose to take an $88,000 severance package instead.
When the divorce was granted in 1999, Sherry received half the family assets as well as $2,250 monthly support payments.
Gary Leskun attempted to have the payments halted in 2003 on the grounds his ex-wife hadn't tried hard enough to become self-sufficient and that he was unemployed, although at that point he had assets worth $1 million.
"My client brought in an application to reduce the maintenance because he became unemployed from his job at Motorola," Gary Leskun's lawyer Lorne MacLean said Wednesday morning, appearing on CTV's Canada AM.
"So he went from $200,000-plus down to zero. We thought that would justify a reduction but to date we have not been successful in persuading the courts."
Gary Leskun is now working at a job which MacLean says is paying him a fraction of what he once earned.
MacLean argues spousal support should be limited for "people who cannot support themselves, not for people who will not support themselves."
In writing the unanimous decision in 2004, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Mary Southin alluded to the no-fault section.
"Parliament, in its wisdom or lack thereof, has said the court must give no weight to what the husband here did -- that is, carrying on behind his wife's back and, when it suited him, walking out on his wife of 20 years who had borne him a child and contributed substantially to his financial well-being," she said.
Nevertheless, Southin appeared to acknowledge the no-fault section by continuing: "Not without hesitation, I have concluded that (the no-fault section) does not prevent us from considering... a failure resulting at least in part from the emotional devastation of misconduct by the other spouse."
Nouveauté du 20 juin 2006 Supreme Court to rule on no-fault divorce law
Jun. 20 2006
CTV.ca News Staff
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule Wednesday whether a man who was found to be "carrying on behind his wife's back" must continue spousal support payments in a case that could have far-reaching implications on future divorce battles.
Gary Leskun, who left his wife of 20 years to marry another woman in 1998, is appealing a lower court's judgment that he must continue to pay monthly spousal support to his ex-wife Sherry Leskun on the grounds she is so embittered she can't work.
"Her life is this litigation,'' the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2004 in upholding the $2,250 monthly spousal support.
The court wrote that Sherry Leskun, who is now 59, is "bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct and in consequence has been unable to make a new life.''
Yet the Divorce Act, which has contained a no-fault provision since 1968, states that courts "shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.''
Gary Leskun argued in his appeal to the Supreme Court in February that allowing such a ruling to stand would not only be "opening the floodgates, but will create a legal tsunami'' of review applications from resentful partners.
Gary and Sherry Leskun had been married 20 years when he accepted a job offer in Chicago in April 1998.
A few months later, he met another woman and told his wife he wanted a divorce.
Around the same time, Sherry Leskun quit her job at a bank when her application for long-term disability benefits due to a back problem was turned down.
Sherry worked at a bank and helped to support her husband, 10 years her junior, while he improved his career credentials to become a certified general accountant.
When the divorce was granted in 1999, Sherry received half the family assets as well as $2,250 monthly support payments.
Gary Leskun attempted to have the payments halted in 2003 on the grounds his ex-wife hadn't tried hard enough to become self-sufficient and that he was unemployed, although at that point he had assets worth $1 million.
In writing the unanimous decision in 2004, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Mary Southin alluded to the no-fault section.
"Parliament, in its wisdom or lack thereof, has said the court must give no weight to what the husband here did -- that is, carrying on behind his wife's back and, when it suited him, walking out on his wife of 20 years who had borne him a child and contributed substantially to his financial well-being," she said.
Nevertheless, Southin appeared to acknowledge the no-fault section by continuing: "Not without hesitation, I have concluded that (the no-fault section) does not prevent us from considering... a failure resulting at least in part from the emotional devastation of misconduct by the other spouse.''
From CTV - http://tinyurl.
com/s7t3e
Nouveauté du 20 juin 2006 NOUVEAU SITE:
http://forumsociete.actifforum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=160/url/
http://forumsociete.actifforum.com/forum48-Gardes-Partages-et-Droits-des-Peres.htm
Nouveauté du 18 juin 2006
Nouveauté du 3 juin 2006 Papas québécois comparativement aux papas canadiens et américains;
Le sociologue américain John P. Robinson, de l’Université du Maryland, a comparé à l’automne 2004 les pères américains, canadiens et québécois afin de déterminer lesquels accordaient le plus de temps à leurs rejetons. Les pères québécois, particulièrement les papas d’enfants en bas âge, sont les champions en la matière: ils consacrent en moyenne 20 heures par semaine à leurs enfants, autant que les mères. La moyenne pour l’ensemble des pères est de 5,3 heures par semaine.
http://www.erudit.org/revue/efg/2004/v/n1/008893ar.html
Nouveauté du 26 mai 2006 SONDAGE
Selon vous, les pères sont-ils avantagés ou désavantagés lorsque vient le temps de décider de la garde des enfants après un divorce?
Cumulé
Hommes
Femmes
Avantagés
4%
2%
6%
Désavantagés
79%
84%
74%
Ni avantagés ni désavantagés
9%
7%
11%
NSP/Refus/Aucun
8%
7%
9%
Réalisé par CROP du 20 au 30 avril 2006; 1 002 personnes de 18 ans et plus ont répondu; marge d’erreur maximale: 3% en plus ou en moins, dans 19 cas sur 20.
Nouveauté du 25 mai 2006 NOUVEAUX SITES:
Nouveauté du 23 mai 2006 NOUVEAU SITE:
Nouveauté du 22 mai 2006 Un nouveau livre
Nouveauté du 15 mai 2006 
Nouveauté du 12 mai 2006 NOUVEAU SITE:
Nouveauté du 11 mai 2006 
Nouveauté du 2 mai 2006 
Nouveauté du 29 avril 2006
