DOCSLIB.ORG

Polyamorous Relationships and Family Law in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Polyamorous Relationships and Family Law in Canada University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Research Centres, Institutes, Projects and Units Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family 2017-04-01 Polyamorous Relationships and Family Law in Canada Boyd, J.-P. E. Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. Boyd, J.-P. E. (2017). Polyamorous Relationships and Family Law in Canada. (Rep.).Calgary, AB: Canadian Research Institutue for Law and the Family http://hdl.handle.net/1880/107213 report Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILY LAW IN CANADA Prepared by: John-Paul E. Boyd, M.A., LL. B. April 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND PUBLICATION NOTES ................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The historical context ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Bigamy and polygamy today ................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Distinguishing polyamory ..................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Bigamous relationships ........................................................................................................... 9 1.3.2 Polygamous relationships ..................................................................................................... 10 1.3.3 Polyamorous relationships ................................................................................................... 12 1.4 The contemporary context ................................................................................................. 15 1.4.1 Research study: Perceptions of polyamory in Canada ......................................................... 17 1.4.2 The future of family law ....................................................................................................... 28 2.0 FAMILY LAW AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS ........................................................ 29 2.1 Determining the applicable law .......................................................................................... 30 2.2 Alberta ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 33 2.2.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 35 2.2.3 Child support ........................................................................................................................ 37 2.2.4 Spousal support .................................................................................................................... 38 2.2.5 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 38 2.3 British Columbia ................................................................................................................. 39 2.3.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 39 2.3.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 40 2.3.3 Child support ........................................................................................................................ 41 2.3.4 Spousal support .................................................................................................................... 42 2.3.5 Division of property and debt ............................................................................................... 45 2.4 Manitoba ........................................................................................................................... 46 2.4.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 46 2.4.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 48 2.4.3 Child support ........................................................................................................................ 49 2.4.4 Spousal support .................................................................................................................... 49 2.4.5 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 50 2.5 New Brunswick .................................................................................................................. 51 2.5.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 51 2.5.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 52 2.5.3 Child support ........................................................................................................................ 53 2.5.4 Spousal Support .................................................................................................................... 54 ii 2.5.5 Division of property and debt ............................................................................................... 54 2.6 Newfoundland and Labrador ............................................................................................. 54 2.6.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 55 2.6.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 56 2.6.3 Child support and spousal support ....................................................................................... 57 2.6.4 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 57 2.7 Nova Scotia ........................................................................................................................ 57 2.7.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 58 2.7.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 60 2.7.3 Child support ........................................................................................................................ 61 2.7.4 Spousal Support .................................................................................................................... 61 2.7.5 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 61 2.8 Ontario .............................................................................................................................. 62 2.8.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 62 2.8.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 63 2.8.3 Child support and spousal support ....................................................................................... 63 2.8.4 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 64 2.9 Prince Edward Island .......................................................................................................... 64 2.9.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 64 2.9.2 Children ................................................................................................................................ 65 2.9.3 Child support and spousal support ....................................................................................... 66 2.9.4 Division of property .............................................................................................................. 67 2.10 Saskatchewan .................................................................................................................... 67 2.10.1 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 67 2.10.2 Children ............................................................................................................................ 68 2.10.3 Child support .................................................................................................................... 69 2.10.4 Spousal support ................................................................................................................ 69 2.10.5 Division of property .......................................................................................................... 69 2.11 Summary ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2004 Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence Elizabeth F. Emens Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Family Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth F. Emens, Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence, 29 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 277 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/410 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONOGAMY'S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE' ELIZABETH F. EMENSt I. Introdu ction .................................................................................................. 2 78 II. Com pulsory M onogam y ............................................................................... 287 A . M onogam y's M andate ....................................................................... 287 1. The Western Romance Tradition ................................................. 288 2. Stories from Biological Anthropology .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law
    INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law Act Table of Contents I. Background 3 II. Importance of Family Law to Women Who Are Victims of Violence in Relationships 5 III. Significant Changes in the Family Law Act for Women Who are Victims of Violence in Relationships 5 IV. Overview of Key Provisions Related to Family Violence 6 FLA Part 1 – Definitions 6 FLA Part 2 – Resolution of Family Law Disputes 7 FLA Part 4 – Care and Time with Children 7 FLA Part 7 – Child and Spousal Support 11 FLA Part 9 – Protection from Family Violence 11 FLA Part 10 – Court Processes 16 FLA Part 12 – Regulations 18 FLA Part 13 – Transitional Provisions 19 FLA Part 14 — Repeals, Related Amendment and 19 Consequential Amendments V. Implementation Issues 20 VI. Conclusion 21 VII. References 23 New Family Law Act Implications for Anti-Violence Workers, June 2012 2 INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law Act Implications for Anti-Violence Workers1 The new provincial Family Law Act (FLA) received Royal Assent on November 24, 2011, fundamentally altering the way family law matters will be handled in BC. The new Act contains important and far reaching provisions intended to provide better protection for women and children experiencing violence in the family context. While the FLA has now passed through the legislature, most of its sections will not come into force until a regulation to this effect is enacted by Cabinet. The BC Ministry of Justice has announced that this will take place on March 18, 2013. This Information Bulletin will provide an overview of the changes to family law contained in the FLA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Divorce Act Changes Explained
    The Divorce Act Changes Explained Table of Contents Background 18 Definitions 19 Custody and custody order 19 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 19 Accès 20 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 20 Provincial Child Support Service 21 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 21 Corollary relief proceeding, divorce proceeding 22 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 22 Spouse 23 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 23 Spouse 24 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 24 Applicable guidelines 25 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 25 Competent authority 26 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 26 Contact order 27 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 27 Decision-making responsibility 28 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 28 Family dispute resolution process 29 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 29 Family justice services 30 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 30 Family member 31 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 31 1 June 3, 2020 Family violence 32 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 32 Legal adviser 35 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 35 Order assignee 36 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 36 Parenting order 37 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 37 Parenting time 38 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 38 Relocation 39 (Section 2(1), Divorce Act) 39 Jurisdiction 40 Two proceedings commenced on different days 40 (Sections 3(2), 4(2), 5(2) Divorce Act) 40 Two proceedings commenced on same day 43 (Sections 3(3), 4(3), 5(3) Divorce Act) 43 Transfer of proceeding if parenting order applied for 47 (Section 6(1) and (2) Divorce Act) 47 Jurisdiction – application for contact order 49 (Section 6.1(1), Divorce Act) 49 Jurisdiction — no pending variation proceeding 50 (Section 6.1(2), Divorce Act)
    [Show full text]
  • Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Act
    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt FAMILY LAW (GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS, DOMICILE AND MAINTENANCE) ACT CHAPTER 46:08 Act 15 of 1981 Amended by 20 of 1985 *14 of 1988 104 of 1994 28 of 1995 66 of 2000 *See Note on page 2 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–70 .. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, 2 Chap. 46:08 Domicile and Maintenance) Index of Subsidiary Legislation Page Maintenance Rules (LN 89/1983) … … … … … 40 Note on Act No. 14 of 1988 For an order under section 13(2), 13(5), 13(6)(a), 13(6)(b), 14(1)(b), and 15(b), see paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 14 of 1988). Note on section 13 Orders for Custody and Maintenance For an order for custody and maintenance on the application of a parent under section 13 of the Act see Order 86 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (1975) which is inserted as an Appendix to this Act. UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Chap. 46:08 3 CHAPTER 46:08 FAMILY LAW (GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS, DOMICILE AND MAINTENANCE) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse Florence J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 24 | Issue 2 Article 6 1-1973 Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse Florence J. Luther Charles W. Luther Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Florence J. Luther and Charles W. Luther, Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse, 24 Hastings L.J. 311 (1973). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol24/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Support And Property Rights Of The Putative Spouse By FLORENCE J. LUTHER* and CHARLES W. LUTHER** Orequire a "non-husband" to divide his assets with and to pay support to a "non-wife" may, at first glance, appear doctrinaire. How- ever, to those familiar with the putative spouse doctrine as it had de- veloped in California the concept should not be too disquieting. In 1969 the California legislature enacted Civil Code sections 4452 and 4455 which respectively authorize a division of property1 and perma- nent supportF to be paid to a putative spouse upon a judgment of an- nulment.' Prior to the enactment of these sections, a putative spouse in California was given an equitable right to a division of jointly ac- quired property,4 but could not recover permanent support upon the termination of the putative relationship.5 This article considers the ef- fect of these newly enacted sections on the traditional rights of a puta- tive spouse to share in a division of property and to recover in quasi- contract for the reasonable value of services rendered during the puta- * Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee of Experts on Family Law (Cj-Fa)
    Strasbourg, 21 September 2009 CJ-FA (2008) 5 [cj-fa/cj-fa plenary meetings/38 th plenary meeting/working documents/cj-fa(2008) 5e] COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON FAMILY LAW (CJ-FA) A STUDY INTO THE RIGHTS AND LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN BEING BROUGHT UP IN VARIOUS FORMS OF MARITAL OR NON-MARITAL PARTNERSHIPS AND COHABITATION A Report for the attention of the Committee of Experts on Family Law by Nigel Lowe Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for International Family Law Studies Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, United Kingdom Document prepared by the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs The views expressed in this publication are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Council of Europe. I. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND FORM OF REPORT The basic terms of reference of this report are: • to undertake an investigative study into the rights and legal status of children being brought up in various forms of marital or non-marital partnership and cohabitation; • to make proposals concerning a possible follow-up. An important backdrop to this study is the existence of: 1. certain Council of Europe instruments, namely, the 1975 European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born Out of Wedlock , which has long been recognised as in need of modernising, 1 and the not unrelated Recommendation No R (84) 4 on Parental Responsibilities and the “White Paper” On Principles Concerning the Establishment and Legal Consequences of Parentage ,2 which has not yet been followed up; and 2. human rights instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (“CRC”), to which all Council of Europe Member States are Parties, and by which State Parties are enjoined 3 to respect and ensure the Convention rights for each child within their jurisdiction are applied without discrimination of any kind .
    [Show full text]
  • Monogamy, Polygamy, and Polyamory in American Society 1
    MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY, AND POLYAMORY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY 1 The most debatable topics of the 21st century are monogamy, marriage, and sexuality. We live in the world where the words “homosexual” and “the same-sex-marriage” are our everyday reality. We hear and read about it all the time. Sometimes we get involved into heated discussions on whether homosexuals should have the right to get married or they should have open relationships. We even love to watch the popular TV series “Big Love” about openly polygamous couples. In these series, the women involved into polygamous relationships were portrayed as well-educated and independent women that had made a conscious choice of polygamy. The end of these series has also represented the general population’s view about polygamy and polyamory as the models of alternative relationships. Bill’s neighbor killed him to show his protest against the basic beliefs about marriage constitution. It was a symbolic presentation of general population’s opinion about polygamy as a system. It is very interesting to see the progression of the American society to the point when the hot topics like these do not create a shock in a general population, but make the points for discussions. How did we get to this point? What are monogamy, non-monogamy, poligamy, and poliamory? How do they affect us? Why do many people react negatively to polyamory? How do debates about same-sex-marriages and polyamory affect each other? Why is our reaction to these topics changing? All these questions create a lot of tension in our society.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Law As Constitutional Context for Same-Sex Marriage
    Private Law as Constitutional Context for Same-sex Marriage Private Law as Constitutional Context for Same-sex Marriage ROBERT LECKEY * While scholars of gay and lesbian activism have long eyed developments in Canada, the leading Canadian judgment on same-sex marriage has recently been catapulted into the field of vision of comparative constitutionalists indifferent to gay rights and matrimonial matters more generally. In his irate dissent in the case striking down a state sodomy law as unconstitutional, Scalia J of the United States Supreme Court mentions Halpern v Canada (Attorney General).1 Admittedly, he casts it in an unfavourable light, presenting it as a caution against the recklessness of taking constitutional protection of homosexuals too far.2 Still, one senses from at least the American literature that there can be no higher honour for a provincial judgment from Canada — if only in the jurisdictional sense — than such lofty acknowledgement that it exists. It seems fair, then, to scrutinise academic responses to the case for broader insights. And it will instantly be recognised that the Canadian judgment emerged against a backdrop of rapid change in the legislative and judicial treatment of same-sex couples in most Western jurisdictions. Following such scrutiny, this paper detects a lesson for comparative constitutional law in the scholarly treatment of the recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada. Its case study reveals a worrisome inclination to regard constitutional law, especially the judicial interpretation of entrenched rights, as an enterprise autonomous from a jurisdiction’s private law. Due respect accorded to calls for comparative constitutionalism to become interdisciplinary, comparatists would do well to attend,intra disciplinarily, to private law’s effects upon constitutional interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Playing with Fire: an Ethnographic Look at How Polyamory Functions in the Central Florida Burner Community
    University of Central Florida STARS HIM 1990-2015 2015 Playing with Fire: An Ethnographic Look at How Polyamory Functions in the Central Florida Burner Community Maleia Mikesell University of Central Florida Part of the Anthropology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015 University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIM 1990-2015 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Mikesell, Maleia, "Playing with Fire: An Ethnographic Look at How Polyamory Functions in the Central Florida Burner Community" (2015). HIM 1990-2015. 613. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/613 PLAYING WITH FIRE: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC LOOK AT HOW POLYAMORY FUNCTIONS IN THE CENTRAL FLORIDA BURNER COMMUNITY by MALEIA MIKESELL A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Honors in the Major Program in Anthropology In the College of Sciences and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, FL Spring Term 2015 Thesis Chair: Dr. Beatriz Reyes-Foster Abstract This thesis asks the question as to whether polyamory functions as a community glue or solvent for the Central Florida Burner Community. It explores the definition of polyamory and how it relates to the Burner counter-culture. This thesis explores what polyamory’s effects are on the individual and community levels for those who participate in it. The findings concluded that overall the participants reported a perceived positive impact on both the individual level and on community cohesion in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • CHILD SUPPORT: by JUDICIAL DECISION by LEGISLATION? (Pt
    REFORM OF THE LAW CHILD SUPPORT: BY JUDICIAL DECISION BY LEGISLATION? (Pt. I) Alastair Dissett-Johnson* Dundee This isa two-partarticle. Partone analyses the recent Supreme Court ofCanada decision in Willick and the Provincial Appeal Court decisions in L6vesque and Edwards on the issue ofassessing child support. Part two examines the British Child Support Acts 1991-5, which introduced an administrative formula driven method ofassessing child support, and the Canadian Federal/Provincial Family Law Committees Report Recommendations on Child Support. The merits and problems associated with administrative andjudicial methods ofassessing child support are examined and contrasted. Il s'agit d'un article en deux parties. La première partie analyse la décision récente de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l'affaire Willick, ainsi que les décisions de la Cour d'appelprovinciale dans les affaires Lévesque etEdward qui évaluent laprotection sociale de l'enfant. La secondepartie examine, d'unepart, les Child Support Acts britanniques (Lois sur la protection sociale de l'enfant) votées de 1991 à 1995 et quiontintroduit des moyens administratifs, basés surune formule, permettant d'évaluer laprotection sociale de l'enfant et, d'autre part, le Rapport des comités sur la législationfamilialefédérale/provinciale canadienne et les recommandations concernant la protection sociale de l'enfant. Les aspects positifs et négatifsliésaux méthodesadministratives etjudiciairesd'évaluation de la protection sociale de l'enfant sont examinés. I. Introduction .... ........
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide Formerly the Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research 2018 Canliidocs 161
    The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide Formerly the Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research 2018 CanLIIDocs 161 Edited by Melanie Bueckert, André Clair, Maryvon Côté, Yasmin Khan, and Mandy Ostick, based on work by Catherine Best, 2018 The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide is based on The Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research, An online legal research guide written and published by Catherine Best, which she started in 1998. The site grew out of Catherine’s experience teaching legal research and writing, and her conviction that a process-based analytical 2018 CanLIIDocs 161 approach was needed. She was also motivated to help researchers learn to effectively use electronic research tools. Catherine Best retired In 2015, and she generously donated the site to CanLII to use as our legal research site going forward. As Best explained: The world of legal research is dramatically different than it was in 1998. However, the site’s emphasis on research process and effective electronic research continues to fill a need. It will be fascinating to see what changes the next 15 years will bring. The text has been updated and expanded for this publication by a national editorial board of legal researchers: Melanie Bueckert legal research counsel with the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Winnipeg. She is the co-founder of the Manitoba Bar Association’s Legal Research Section, has written several legal textbooks, and is also a contributor to Slaw.ca. André Clair was a legal research officer with the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador between 2010 and 2013. He is now head of the Legal Services Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence Elizabeth Emens
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2004 Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence Elizabeth Emens Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Elizabeth Emens, "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 58, 2004). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 58 MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE Elizabeth F. Emens THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO February 2003 This paper can be downloaded without charge at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and at The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=506242 1 MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE 29 N.Y.U. REVIEW OF LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE (forthcoming 2004) Elizabeth F. Emens† Work-in-progress: Please do not cite or quote without the author’s permission. I. INTRODUCTION II. COMPULSORY MONOGAMY A. MONOGAMY’S MANDATE 1. THE WESTERN ROMANCE TRADITION 2.
    [Show full text]