Ali_s Family Law LONG CAN - Fall 2018

1 LAW 515: Family Law Fall 2018 – Sowter Table of Contents INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY LAW ...................................................................................................................... 7 Division of Powers under Constitution Act .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Conflicting Orders ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Processes in Family Law ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ........................................................................................................................................ 7 L EGISLATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 D OMESTIC V IOLENCE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 E MERGENCY P ROTECTION O RDERS .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 PC Emergency POs under the Prevention of Family Violence Act ........................................................................................................ 8 Provincial Court Emergency Protection Orders under the Prevention of Family Violence Act ............................................................ 9 QB Protection Orders under the Protection Against Family Violence Act ........................................................................................... 9 Siwiec v Hlewka, 2005 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................. 9 P RACTICAL M ATTERS IN F AMILY L AW P RACTICE : D OMESTIC V IOLENCE ................................................................................................................. 10 Intake Interviewing: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Representing the Abuser ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Impact of DV on Outcome ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 MARRIAGE & VALIDITY ................................................................................................................................... 10 O VERVIEW : V ALIDITY OF M ARRIAGE .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Keywords: .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 E LEMENTS OF THE E SSENTIAL V ALIDITY OF M ARRIAGE – L EX D OMICILE ................................................................................................................ 10 Elements of validity: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Consummation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Degrees of Consanguinity/Affinity ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Prior Existing Marriage ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Consent .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Age ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 F ORMAL V ALIDITY OF M ARRIAGE – L EX L OCI C ELEBRATIONIS .............................................................................................................................. 12 Location of Marriage Ceremony ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 Other Presumptions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Hassan v Hassan .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Vo v Vo, 2017 ABQB ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Same-Sex Marriage ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Layland v Ontario (Minister of Consumer & Commercial Relations), 1993 Ont Div Ct ....................................................... 13 Halpern v Canada (AG), 2002 Ont Div Ct ............................................................................................................................. 13 Halpern v Toronto (City), 2003 ONCA ................................................................................................................................. 13 Re Same Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC ........................................................................................................................................ 13 DIVORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 T ERMS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 G ROUNDS FOR D IVORCE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Reconciliation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 i. Lawyers must ask about possibility of reconciliation – unless circumstances show it’s inappropriate: s. 9(1) DA ................... 13 J URISDICTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Molson v Molson, 1998 ABQB ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Wang v Lin, 2013 ONCA ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 S AME -S EX D IVORCES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 R ECOGNITION OF F OREIGN D IVORCES UNDER THE D IVORCE A CT ......................................................................................................................... 14 Zhang v Lin, 2010 ABQB ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 L IVING S EPARATE AND A PART ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Living Separate and Apart ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

2 Factors: Living Separate and Apart ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Dorchester v Dorchester, 1971 BCSC .................................................................................................................................. 15 Rushton v Rushton, 1968 BCSC ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Dupere v Dupere, 1974 NBCA ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Greaves v Greaves, 2004 ONSC ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Kansal v Bhardwaj, 2016 ABQB ........................................................................................................................................... 15 A DULTERY ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Orford v Orford, 1921 ONHC ............................................................................................................................................... 15 MacLennan v MacLennan, 1958 Scotland ........................................................................................................................... 15 P(SE) v P(DD), 2005 BCSC ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 I NTOLERABLE C RUELTY ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 General Principles .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Knoll v Knoll, 1970 ONCA ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 A(I) v D(S), 2009 ABQB 513 .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Delaney v Delaney, 1971 ONCA ........................................................................................................................................... 16 B ARS TO D IVORCE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Bars to Divorce ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Merchant v Dossani, 2007 ABQB 487 .................................................................................................................................. 17 Watkins v Watkins, 1980 NFLD TD ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Berger v Berger, 1974 BCSC ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Savoia v Savoia, 2009 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................ 17 ADULT INTERDEPENDENT PARTNERS .............................................................................................................. 17 T HE AIP MODEL IS UNIQUE TO A LBERTA , AND ALLOWS REGISTERED ADULT INTERDEPENDENT PARTNERS (AIP S ) WHO MAY BE OF THE SAME SEX TO ACCESS SOME OF THE SAME RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIED PEOPLE ( SUCH AS SPOUSAL SUPPORT – BUT NOT PROPERTY UNDER THE MPA). ...................... 17 A LBERTA ’ S A DULT I NTERDEPENDENT R ELATIONSHIPS A CT .................................................................................................................................. 17 F RAMEWORK : ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 AIP Act Relationship of Interdependence Factors ............................................................................................................................. 18 Spracklin Framework Common Law Relationship Factors ................................................................................................................ 18 Medora v Kohn, 2003 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Wright-Watts v Watts, 2005 ABQB ..................................................................................................................................... 19 THE MATRIMONIAL HOME ............................................................................................................................. 19 D EFINITION OF M ATRIMONIAL H OME ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Matrimonial Property Act .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Family Law Act ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 E XCLUSIVE P OSSESSION O RDERS U NDER THE MPA ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Exclusive Possession Orders Under the MPA: Process ....................................................................................................................... 19 E XCLUSIVE P OSSESSION O RDERS U NDER THE FLA ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Boutin v Viau, 2007 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................... 20 S(TJ) v S(LM), 2005 ABQB .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Tawiah v Tawiah, 2002 ABQB .............................................................................................................................................. 21 H OUSEHOLD G OODS UNDER THE MPA/FLA ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Exclusive Use of Household Goods under MPA ................................................................................................................................. 21 PROPERTY: UNMARRIED PARTNERS ................................................................................................................ 21 Charter Challenges to Treatment of CL Partners: .............................................................................................................................. 22 Murdoch v Murdoch ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 Rathwell v Rathwell, 1978 SCC ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Pettkus v Becker, 1980 SCC ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Sorochan v Sorochan, 1986 SCC .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Peter v Beblow, 1993 SCC .................................................................................................................................................... 23 Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC ................................................................................................................................................... 23 SPOUSAL SUPPORT: ENTITLEMENT ................................................................................................................. 24 K EY E LEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 F RAMEWORK : ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Medora v Kohn, 2003 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................ 25 S POUSAL S UPPORT U NDER THE D IVORCE A CT .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Court Powers Under the Federal Divorce Act .................................................................................................................................... 25

4 Living Arrangements and Parenting Time ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Decision-Making ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 S TATUTORY F RAMEWORK FOR C USTODY AND A CCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Divorce Act: Custody and Access ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Family Law Act: Guardianship and Access ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Shared Parenting ............................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Parallel Parenting .............................................................................................................................................................................. 39 G UARDIANSHIP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Guardianship Under the Family Law Act ........................................................................................................................................... 40 The Role of a Guardian ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Duties of Guardians ........................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Termination of Guardianship ............................................................................................................................................................. 40 Guardianship Orders .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Consent to Guardianship ................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Parenting Orders ................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Contact Orders ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 R v R, 1983 ABCA ................................................................................................................................................................. 41 C USTODY AND D ECISION - MAKING .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 W HO IS A CHILD ? ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 R ELOCATION .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 E X P ARTE C USTODY O RDERS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 M ARITAL C ONDUCT AND D OMESTIC V IOLENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Varying a Parenting Order under the Divorce Act ............................................................................................................................. 42 P OST G ORDON V G OERTZ T RENDS ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 Third Party Access/Custody Orders ................................................................................................................................................... 43 Shared Custody/Guardianship ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 Wakaluk v Wakaluk, 1976 SKCA .......................................................................................................................................... 43 S(D) v Y(T), 2010 ABPC ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 M(A) v M(J), 2016 ONCA ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Spencer v Spencer, 1980 BCCA ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Dix v Thomas, 2006 ONSC – VARYING CUSTODY ORDER under Gordon rules ................................................................... 43 DS v TY, 2010 ABPC – VARYING CUSTODY ORDER under Gordon rules (moving) .............................................................. 44 Kaplanis v Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Terin v Krisco, 2008 ABPC .................................................................................................................................................... 44 D(J) v P©, 2009 ABQB .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Domestic Violence ............................................................................................................................................................................. 44 P(JY) v M(RJL), 2007 NSCA ................................................................................................................................................... 44 Isakhani v Al-Saggaf, 2007 ONCA ......................................................................................................................................... 44 P(JY) v M(RJL), 2007 NSCA ................................................................................................................................................... 44 S(J) v S(M), 2014 ABPC ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Impact of Extended Family ................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Dix v Thomas, 2006 ONSC .................................................................................................................................................... 45 S(J) v W(R), 2008 ABQB ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 Culture etc .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Van de Perre v Edwards, 2001 SCC ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Perron v Perron, 2012 ONCA ............................................................................................................................................... 45 Variation of Orders ............................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Gordon v Goertz, 1996 SCC ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Guardianship ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 SB v JF, 2008 ABQB – REQUESTING GUARDIANSHIP under FLA .......................................................................................... 45 AM v JM, 2016 ONCA – EX PARTE CUSTODY ORDER ........................................................................................................... 46 JS v MS, 2014 ABPC – MUST CONSIDER BIC ........................................................................................................................ 46 Sharing Custody/Guardianship .......................................................................................................................................................... 46

5 Baker v Baker, 1979 ONCA .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Kruger v Kruger, 1979 ONCA ............................................................................................................................................... 46 B(S) v F(J), 2008 ABQB ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Kaplanis v Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Terwi v Krisco, 2008 ABPC ................................................................................................................................................... 46 JS v RW, 2008 ABQB – AUNTS WANT CONTACT ORDER ..................................................................................................... 46 D(J) v P(C), ABQB .................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Van de Perre v Edwards, 2001 SCC ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Perron v Perron, 2012 ONCA ............................................................................................................................................... 47 Stefurak v Chambers, 2004 ONSC ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Moving – Variation of Parenting Orders ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Gordon v Goertz, 1996 SCC ................................................................................................................................................. 47 ACCESS .......................................................................................................................................................... 48 K EY P RINCIPLES .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 A PPLICATION U NDER THE FLA: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48 S EEKING A CCESS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Access Under the Divorce Act ............................................................................................................................................................ 48 Contact Orders Under the Family Law Act ........................................................................................................................................ 48 A LIENATION AND E NFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................................................................... 49 How do you meaningfully enforce access? ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Enforcement under the FLA ............................................................................................................................................................... 49 Supervised Access .............................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Alienation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Young v Young, 1993 SCC .................................................................................................................................................... 50 C(JL) v L(JL), 2016 ABPC ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 Hardie v Payne, 2010 ABQB ................................................................................................................................................. 50 L(AG) v D(KB), 2009 ONSC ................................................................................................................................................... 50 L(N) v M(RR), 2016 ONCA .................................................................................................................................................... 50 LSUC v Curtis, 1993 .............................................................................................................................................................. 51 POTENTIAL ABUSE .......................................................................................................................................... 51 CHILD SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................. 51 O VERVIEW : ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 H OW MUCH SHOULD A STEP - PARENT PAY ? ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 S TATISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Child Support Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Child Support Agreements ................................................................................................................................................................. 52 C HILD S UPPORT O RDERS U NDER S TATUTE ...................................................................................................................................................... 52 The Divorce Act .................................................................................................................................................................................. 52 C HILD S UPPORT O RDERS U NDER THE FLA ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Family Law Act ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Child Support: Step-Parents ............................................................................................................................................................... 53 Chartier v Chartier, 1999 SCC .............................................................................................................................................. 53 H(KA) v H(RS), 2001 ABPC .................................................................................................................................................... 53 M(ST) v F(MD), 2002 ABQB .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Child Support: How Long? ................................................................................................................................................................. 54 Achkewich v Achkewich, 1998 ABQB .................................................................................................................................. 54 Wahl v Wahl, 2000 ABQB .................................................................................................................................................... 54 B(L) v V(PA), 2009 ABQB ...................................................................................................................................................... 54 FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................ 55 F RAMEWORK : ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 55 K EY E LEMENTS : .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 S PLIT C USTODY .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 S HARED C USTODY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 I NCOMES OVER $150 K ................................................................................................................................................................................ 55 S PECIAL OR E XTRAORDINARY E XPENSES .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 U NDUE H ARDSHIP ( S . 10(1)). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56

7 Introduction to Family Law Division of Powers under Constitution Act i. Federal powers : a. s. 91(26): marriage capacity and divorce – e.g. Federal Divorce Act . b. Also: bankruptcy, first nations, criminal law. ii. Provincial powers : a. s. 92(12): solemnization of marriage (formalities) b. s. 92(13): property and civil rights – e.g. Alberta’s Matrimonial Property Act, Adult Interdependent Realtionships Act, Protection Against Family Violence Act. iii. Which Court? a. QB: divorce, property, child support, spousal support, custody and access. b. PC: child support, spousal support, parenting arrangements, guardianship, adoption, and child protection. Vanier Institute Statistics i. Shift from 6.3% of couples living CL in 1981 to 21.3% of couples living CL in 2016. ii. 60.7% increase in number of same-sex couples between 2006-2016. iii. 33.4% of same sex couples were married; 12% have children living with them. iv. Average duration of marriage before divorce was 13.7 years; highest rate is less than 5 years. Conflicting Orders i. Under s. 20 of the Divorce Act – an order for divorce or corollary relief has “legal effect throughout Canada.” a. Can be registered in QB of any province then enforced as an order of that court. b. Renders inoperative any inconsistent prior order made under prov. law (through paramountcy). c. Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon , 1982 SCC – paramountcy where provincial/federal conflict. Processes in Family Law i. Mediation a. Considered the most generally useful process (except for in high-conflict cases). b. 78.3% result in long-lasting relationships – process makes it easier for parties to collaborate later. c. Average: i. High conflict: 13.7 months/$31k. ii. Low conflict: 4.8 months/$6k. d. Results 90.2% in client’s interest; 85.4% in kid’s interest. ii. Collaborative Process a. Second most useful process after mediation. b. 71.1% result in long-lasting relationships – process makes it easier for parties to collaborate later. c. Average: i. High conflict: 14.8 months/$25k. ii. Low conflict: 5 months/$6k. d. Results 94% in client’s interest; 98.9% in kid’s interest. iii. Arbitration a. 18.5% result in long-lasting relationships. b. Average: i. High conflict: 14.8 months/$40k. ii. Low conflict: 6.6 months/$12k. c. Results 34.2% in client’s interest; 39.5% in kid’s interest. iv. Litigation a. Most useful for high-conflict cases. b. 6.4% result in long-lasting relationships. c. Average: i. High conflict: 27.7 months/$54k. ii. Low conflict: 10.8 months/$12k. d. Results 31.2% in client’s interest, 30.2% in kid’s interest. v. Also : negotiation, mediation-arbitration, parenting coordinator. Domestic Violence Legislation i. Protection Against Family Violence Act (AB): a. Can seek EPO to protect from FV – see below for steps. ii. Family Law Act (AB): a. Best interests of the child – takes into account any family violence and its impact on (s. 18(2)(vi)): i. the safety of the child and other family and household members;

8 ii. the child’s general well -being; iii. the ability of the person who perpetrated FV to care for & meet needs of the child, and iv. appropriateness of making an order requiring co-operation on issues affecting the child. iii. Divorce Act a. A spouse may apply for divorce if (s. 8(1) and (2)): i. Separate & apart for at least one year; or ii. Adultery; or iii. Physical or mental cruelty such that it is intolerable to continue cohabiting. Domestic Violence i. Types: a. Coercive Control: Spousal violence as part of a pattern of coercive control and abuse; includes emotional and psychological control. Pattern of intimidation, humiliation, frightening the victim. b. Litigation Abuse: Litigation abuse tries to keep the abused spouse in litigation for as long as possible; often the parent who has never had primary caregiver role is seeking sole custody. c. Cycle of Abuse: i. Tension building – acute battering incident – loving contrition. ii. Pattern continues over period of weeks/months/years. ii. Period of Risk a. 40% of spousal homicides occur within 2 months of separation. b. Often occurs when the woman returns to the family home to retrieve belongings. c. 32% occur within 2-12 months of separation. d. 19% occur more than 1 year after separation. iii. Violence post-separation: a. 50% of women who leave abusive relationships report continuing abuse. b. 25% of batterers use access as a way to continue abuse . iv. Intimate partner violence: a. Includes all types of violence: threats, sexual violence, physical violence, death. b. 79% of victims are women; leading cause of violence against women in 2016. c. 35% perpetrators current partners; 32% current spouses. v. Effects on children: a. 33% of DV victims report kids saw violence; 10% incidence of child abuse too. b. Causes social, behavioural, emotional problems. c. Infants experience increased developmental delay/attachment disorder. d. Babies experience slow fetal growth, premature delivery and neonatal death. vi. Risk factors include: a. Perpetrator abused/witnessed DV as a child or suicidal behaviour in family of origin. b. Actual or pending separation. c. New partner in victim’s life. d. Child custody or access disputes. e. Excessive alcohol/drug use by perpetrator. f. Depression (opinion of family/friend and professionally diagnosed). g. Prior attempts/threats to commit suicide. h. Obsessive behaviour (stalking/spying/repeated phone calls/excessive gift giving). i. Sexual jealousy. j. History of: i. Destruction/deprivation of victim’s property. ii. Violence outside of the family. iii. DV with previous partners; DV with current partner/victim. iv. Prior threats to kill victim/threats with a weapon/assault with a weapon. v. Attempts to isolate victim; hostage taking/forcible confinement. vi. Forced sexual acts/assaults during sex. k. Escalation of violence. l. Victim’s intuitive sense of fear of the perpetrator. Emergency Protection Orders PC Emergency POs under the Prevention of Family Violence Act i. Family members: married spouses, AIP and CL, parents regardless of whether they have ever lived together, and children (s. 1(1)(d)). ii. “Family violence” includes ( s. 1(1)(e)): a. any intentional or reckless act or omission that causes injury or property damage and that intimidates or harms a family member; b. any act or threatened act that intimidates a family member by creating a reasonable fear of property damage or injury to a family member;

10 Practical Matters in Family Law Practice: Domestic Violence Intake Interviewing: i. Every new client should be screened for DV. ii. Clients might not disclose, even if asked directly or recognize CC (e.g. not know ok to refuse sex w/ spouse.) iii. Question it if a client refuses/is hesitant about pursuing a claim for SS, doesn’t want division of property, or agrees to a low offer – notwithstanding advice to the contrary. iv. Victims know their own risk better than anyone. Representing the Abuser i. Most will deny the abuse; try asking if their spouse will accuse them of abuse/DV. ii. Set ground rules early – if they don’t comply, can withdraw. iii. Instruct them to: a. Obey court orders; b. Reduce contact; c. Do access pick-up/drop-off in front of witnesses to protect themselves from further allegations. iv. Encourage counselling. v. If there are criminal charges await that outcome before finalizing custody/access. a. Abusers are twice as likely to seek sole custody – way to regain control over spouse. b. More likely to involve children in dispute and ask kids to choose. Impact of DV on Outcome i. Victim might be more inclined to accept less attractive offer due to fear. ii. Safety planning for court appearances, mediation, and settlement meetings. iii. DOJ recommends: a. Sole custody to victim-spouse; b. Specified access to abusing parent (including specific pick-up/drop-off, no flexibility); no direct contact between spouses (email can be ok – creates record); c. Supervised access. Marriage & Validity Overview: Validity of Marriage Keywords: i. Marriage: a. Family Law Act – “marriage” includes a void marriage and voidable marriage. b. Matrimonial Property Act – “spouse” includes a former spouse and a party to a marriage notwithstanding that the marriage is void or voidable. i. s. 2 – if you knew or had reason to believe the marriage was void, the MPA doesn’t apply. ii. Divorce – dissolves the marriage as from the date of judicial decree. iii. Annulment – void ab initio , declaration that marriage never existed/was void from beginning. iv. Voidable – marriage was valid, until court declared it void (retroactively voids the marriage). v. Void but subject to ratification – marriage is void, but if parties live together after the ceremony, and represent themselves as married, court would likely not declare it void. You need both elements of validity to have a valid marriage: • Lex loci celebrationis – law of the jurisdiction where the wedding event took place (event - formal validity ). • Lex domicile – law of the jurisdiction where the parties are resident (capacity – essential validity ). *** The presumption is that two people who live together and hold themselves out as married are validly married (this presumption is rebuttable)*** – Meszaros v Meszaros Elements of the Essential Validity of Marriage – Lex Domicile Elements of validity: 1. Consummation 2. Consanguinity/Affinity 3. Prior Existing Marriage 4. Consent

11 5. Age Consummation i. Ground for annulment. ii. Rules for inability to consummate – Rae v Rae : a. The impotence must exist at the time of marriage; i. Must also exist at the time of hearing – C(SS) v C(GK) b. The incapacity must render intercourse impractical; c. Incapacity may stem from physical, mental or moral disability ; and i. Psychological incapacity to have sex can suffice – C(SS) v C(GK) d. The impotence must be incurable. iii. If you knowingly enter a platonic relationship, you can’t request nullity for lack of intercourse . a. Norman – couple married for companionship, knowingly platonic. iv. Can’t get annulment if you entered the marriage knowing about the condition . a. Aisacan v Kahnapace – got married knowing he was quadriplegic before marriage. v. Need evidence/proof is unable to be consummated. a. C(SS) v C(GK) – he refused to have sex with her, psychologically incapable. b. Medical evidence isn’t always necessary – evidence of impotence is required. Degrees of Consanguinity/Affinity i. Consanguinity – relationship by blood; ii. Affinity – relationship by marriage. iii. Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act : a. Prohibited from marrying if lineally related – as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister – including by adoption: s. 2(2) MPDA. b. Allowed: i. Marriage between uncles/nieces or aunt/nephew. ii. Related by marriage if divorced – can marry the brother/sister etc. of former spouse. iii. No prohibition against marriages involving step-relations. Prior Existing Marriage i. A marriage is void if one party is already married to someone else at the time of marriage. ii. It is a crime to marry two people (bigamy – s. 290 of Criminal Code ). iii. Must end marriage by divorce, nullity or death before marrying a second time. iv. There is a presumption that two people who live together/hold themselves out as married are indeed validly married – but you can rebut this presumption with evidence of a prior marriage – Meszaros v Meszaros a. Meszaros – there was a strong presumption that her first husband was dead at time of marriage, so the second marriage was presumed valid. Consent i. As long as there is capacity to understand and no duress ( Banton ), fraud or mistake – a marriage probably won’t be invalidated for incapacity. ii. Court not empowered to determine if consent given too readily/improper purpose – S(A) v S(A) . a. Limited Purpose Marriages: Marriage is valid even if it was only for immigration purposes and one party deceived the other about intent. iii. Public policy requires marriages not be lightly set aside – S(A) v S(A) . iv. Very low threshold for understanding a marriage contract – Durham v Durham . v. If someone understands they’re signing a marriage contract, it won’t be set aside just because the marriage involved someone else taking advantage of them; some people are “willing victims.” i. Banton v Banton – elderly man married young woman because he wanted one last fling; she took him for everything he was worth; marriage upheld because his mental state was no issue. ii. Duress requires establishing that the applicant’s mind was so overcome with oppression that there was absence of free choice. i. S(A) v S(A) – issue of whether consent given at ceremony was real and voluntary; wife was 16 when she married and wanted annulment. iii. Note: i. Forced Marriage: When people are coerced into marriage against their will and under duress – can include emotional and physical pressure. No consent. ii. Arranged Marriage: Free and informed consent. Age i. Minimum age at common law – Legebokoff v Legebokoff a. Under 7 = void. b. Male 7-14 = voidable. c. Female 7-12 = voidable.

13 Same-Sex Marriage Layland v Ontario (Minister of Consumer & Commercial Relations), 1993 Ont Div Ct i. Application from two gay men who wanted to marry, arguing the denial of that right was discriminatory and a violation of s. 15 of the Charter . ii. Court rejects their application and says gay men can get married – to women. Halpern v Canada (AG), 2002 Ont Div Ct i. Ont Div Ct declared that the exclusion of same-sex marriage contravened s. 15 and was invalid . ii. Eight same-sex couples sought order requiring the clerk of Toronto to grant them civil marriage licenses. iii. Court emphasized need to understand marriage in context of contemporary Canadian society. Halpern v Toronto (City), 2003 ONCA i. ONCA reformulated the CL definition of marriage: “The voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” Re Same Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC i. Unanimous decision – held that extending capacity to marry to same-sex couples is consistent with the Charter – the FOR provision protects religious officials from being compelled to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their beliefs . Divorce Terms i. Separation – period of time when parties no longer living together. ii. Divorce – court procedure dissolving the marriage. iii. Corollary relief – spousal support, child support, custody & access. Grounds for Divorce i. Breakdown of Marriage (s. 8), defined as: a. Spouses have lived separate and apart for one year: s. 8(2)(a); b. Adultery: s. 8(2)(b)(i); c. Physical or mental cruelty: s. 8(2)(b)(ii). Reconciliation i. Lawyers must ask about possibility of reconciliation – unless circumstances show it’s inappropriate: s. 9(1) DA. ii. Lawyers must discuss advisability of negotiating support and custody issues: s. 9(2) DA. a. Must also sign a certificate saying both have been done: s. 9(3) DA. iii. Before considering the evidence, the court must satisfy itself that there is no possibility of reconciliation – unless inappropriate: s. 10(1) DA. Jurisdiction i. Must be brought in the Superior Court of province & either spouse has been “ordi narily resident in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding.”: s. 3(1) DA. a. “Ordinarily resident” = the arrival of a person in a new locality with the intention of making a home in that locality for an indefinite period – MacPherson, Molson b. First come first served – whoever applies first determines jurisdiction: s. 3(2) DA. c. Convenience and forum shopping aren’t necessarily considerations required by Act. Molson v Molson, 1998 ABQB i. Applicant became ordinarily resident in Alberta the day she arrived, because she arrived with the intention of making a home there for an indefinite period . ii. Claimant had to show evidence of when she moved , and that she intended it to be her home (and not that she shopped around to get better spousal support!). She wanted divorce in AB, he wanted a divorce in QC. Wang v Lin, 2013 ONCA i. Intention alone can’t determine ordinary residence; maintaining a home is not enough to make you ordinarily resident. We are looking to deter mine the “real” home . ii. Born and married in China, moved to Canada with kids. High conflict divorce; wife and kids went back to China to live with family and friends, she came back to Canada and filed for divorce. iii. Issue: where should the divorce be dealt with?

14 a. Court says her intention to live in Ontario is not enough – she had friends, family, assets, property – and more of it – in China rather than Ontario. Her actual, real home was China and she couldn’t choose Ontario laws out of convenience. Same-Sex Divorces i. The Civil Marriages Act was amended to reflect the fact that couples who married in Canada but lived in a foreign jurisdiction couldn’t obtain a divorce in Canada because of the jurisdictional rules in the Divorce Act . ii. Now, under of the Civil Marriages Act : a. A court in the province where the marriage was performed can grant a divorce if (s. 7(1) CMA): i. Lived separate and apart for one year; ii. Neither spouse lives in Canada at time of application; iii. Spouses have lived for one year immediately prior to the application in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage. b. Application must be made jointly, or on consent or with an order that the other spouse is incapable of making decisions, unreasonably withholding consent, or has disappeared: s. 7(2) CMA. Recognition of Foreign Divorces under the Divorce Act i. Foreign divorces are recognized if (s. 22 DA): a. Either spouse was ordinarily resident in the foreign country for one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding for divorce; OR b. Either spouse was domiciled in the foreign country. i. Court will consider jurisdiction fraud/shopping and public policy – Zhang v Lin ii. The Act also preserves CL re recognition of foreign divorces (s. 22(3) DA). Zhang v Lin , 2010 ABQB i. Court refused to recognize order under s. 22(3), for likely several reasons : a. Jurisdiction fraud ; ii. Public policy – Texas treatment of CS and SS contrary to Canadian public policy . iii. Mr. Lin obtained divorce order in Texas – where he no longer lived and previously only lived for 6 months. The order was favourable towards him for unequal distribution of property, no CS and no SS. iv. This case is controversial, because public policy doesn’t usually want the courts to look into motivations for seeking divorce, etc. Living Separate and Apart Living Separate and Apart i. Living separate and apart for one year is required by the Divorce Act : s. 8(2)(a) ii. Calculating the period of separation (s. 8(3)): a. There are two parts to the test: b. Lived apart; AND c. Had the intention to live separate and apart; AND i. Can be physical separation w/out finding the parties are separate & apart ( i.e. if it’s involuntary like a psychiatric institution, it doesn’t count! ) – Dorchester . ii. Need evidence for the date when the parties starting living apart and date the matrimonial relationship ceased to exist – Dorchester . d. Exceptions: The period they lived separate and apart will not be interrupted or terminated by: i. One spouse being incapable of forming/having an intention to live separate and apart (i.e. they would have continued living together if the spouse wasn’t incapable); or ii. Resumed cohabitation for not more than 90 days with reconciliation as the primary purpose. Factors: Living Separate and Apart i. The determination of “separate and apart” is fact -specific – Dupere. a. Core elements are physical separation and withdrawal from matrimonial obligation with intent of destroying matrimonial consortium – Rushton, Dupere . b. Thus, an unhappy household is not the same as a separated one – Dupere . c. Doesn’t need to be a shared intention – Kansal v Bhardwaj ii. Can have physical separation in a single dwelling unit – Dupere . a. For example, living in same home out of economic necessity – Oswell v Oswell . iii. Consider ( Oswell v Oswell ): a. Meal pattern? b. Discussion of family problems? c. Presence/absence of joint activities? d. Performance of household tasks? e. True intention of spouses – not just stated intentions (e.g. tax returns).

16 P(SE) v P(DD) , 2005 BCSC i. Adultery includes same-sex sexual activities . ii. Wife wanted divorce because husband admitted to having sex with a man; issue was whether same-sex activities could be adultery. Intolerable Cruelty General Principles i. Test ( S(JG) v S(WOJ) ): a. Question of fact. b. Plaintiff bears onus of proof ii. Mental cruelty must be cumulatively “grave and weighty” in nature and more than incompatibility of temperament between the spouses – Knoll v Knoll , A(I) v D(S) . iii. Fact specific, and the whole of the matrimonial relations must be considered – Knoll v Knoll . a. Looking at the cumulative effect of the behaviour. iv. Cruelty must be proven on a balance of probabilities – A(I) v D(S) . v. The test is objective and subjective ( A(I) v D(S) ): a. First, is the conduct capable of causing physical or mental hurt? b. Second, what is the subjective effect of the conduct complained of on the affected spouse? Knoll v Knoll , 1970 ONCA i. Cruelty is serious – something more than incompatibility. It is fact-specific, and requires looking at the whole of the matrimonial relations for the cumulative effect . ii. “The wife’s return to her home after a day’s work only to find her husband in an inebriated state, given to quarrelsomeness and abuse, heaping insult upon insult and indignity upon indignity, was clearly conduct amounting to mental cruelty of such kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses. I cannot be convinced that our community standards require a wife to tolerate such an intolerable situation.” iii. Husband drank heavily and wife left him as a result; the old rule at the time required proof of danger to life, limb, health (bodily or mental) so as to give rise to reasonable apprehension of danger. Court changes the rule. A(I) v D(S) , 2009 ABQB 513 i. Cruelty is a question of fact and the plaintiff bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities that the cruelty renders continued cohabitation intolerable. Two-part objective/subjective test . ii. Needs to be “cumulatively grave and weighty ” behaviour. iii. Wife sought divorce based on mental/physical cruelty on the basis of the fact that: she and husband fought over her wearing a bikini; when she complained about pain in the ocean after getting a bikini wax, husband swam away; he called her stupid; complained that she wasn’t doing a good job of cleaning . iv. Court found his conduct wasn’t objectively cruel and found his evidence more credible (since he delivered it calmly, while she was animated, agitated and angry). Conduct Delaney v Delaney , 1971 ONCA i. Cruelty can be subtle; it exists where conduct is calculated to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses; e.g. refusing to have sex with your spouse, if it has a cruel effect on them . ii. Husband refused to have sex with wife. Wife alleged cruelty – court found that the wife’s physical and ment al health was impaired by the husband’s behaviour and it amounted to cruelty (she was a nervous wreck, lost weight intolerable conditions ). Bars to Divorce Bars to Divorce 1. Collusion in the application for divorce: s. 11(1)(a) DA. a. An absolute bar to divorce. b. Manufacturing evidence to have divorce granted – “conspiracy” to which applicant for divorce is a party ( Merchant ). c. Examples: i. Marriage entered into on agreement wouldn’t be consummated – Singh . ii. Marriages of convenience, w/ parties intending to divorce as soon as one party received Citizen Act benefits and one party got paid – Johnson iii. Marriage for sole purpose of allowing one party to immigrate, and separation occurred on same day as the marriage – Kaur 2. No reasonable arrangements made for the support of children of the marriage: s. 11(b) DA. a. Divorce can be severed from corollary issues if it is uncontested and if the other issues remain in dispute. The Court will only grant if it is satisfied it won’t prejudice the other spouse – if there are kids, it’s usually deferred until child support is determined. b. Rules from Savoia :

17 i. What is reasonable depends on the facts of each case. ii. Need evidence as to income – including social assistance . iii. Need evidence as to support arrangements (objective test). 3. Condonation or connivance of adultery/cruelty – unless public interest is better served by granting the divorce: s. 11(1)(c) DA. a. If you agree to resume/continue cohab. with a partner who committed a matrimonial offence (i.e. adultery) then you can’t hold that offence over their head: s. 11(c) DA. i. Discretionary bar. ii. Reconciliation up to 90 days is not condonation: s. 11(3) DA. b. Three-step test ( Watkins ): i. Knowledge of matrimonial offence; ii. Intention to forgive; iii. Restoration into marriage of guilty spouse. 4. Connivance: a. A corrupt intention – i.e. the person complaining of misconduct consented or willfully contributed to its commission or promoted it. b. Berger – telling your spouse you want them to cuckold you and then divorcing them when they cheat on you! Merchant v Dossani , 2007 ABQB 487 i. The courts are reluctant to get involved in “sham” marriages – marriages entered into for improper purposes or reasons other than living together (e.g. for immigration). ii. Even with extremely short marriages, the requirements under s. 8(2) of the Divorce Act must be met. iii. They are reluctant to find that improper purposes invalidate marriages. iv. There is a limited line of cases following Johnson v Smith where the courts have held that where the intention of a party or one of the parties in entering into the marriage is to facilitate immigration, then the marriage is not valid and is void an initio . v. Generally, courts are reluctant to invalidate marriages on the basis of improper purpose. a. EXCEPT: Limited line of cases where one party has deceived the other to facilitate their own immigration, that married is not valid and void ab initio . Watkins v Watkins , 1980 NFLD TD i. Three elements needed for condonation: a. knowledge of the offence, b. intention to forgive, and c. restoration of the guilty spouse into the marriage . ii. Couple reconciled after husband sought divorce on the basis of adultery. The court is basically looking at the purpose of the sex in this case – was it pity sex, or were they legitimately getting back together? Berger v Berger , 1974 BCSC i. It wasn’t connivance – he didn’t have a corrupt intention, although he did actively encourage the intimacy of which he complained ! ii. Husband encouraged wife to have sex with another man in his presence; the three lived together for three years until wife left the husband for the other man (they moved out). Connivance is a corrupt intention, where the spouse is complaining about conduct to which they willfully contributed! iii. Court held that the husband, “actively encouraged the intimacy of which he now complains.” Savoia v Savoia , 2009 ABQB i. There is no set test for reasonable arrangements for child support – what is reasonable must be determined based on the particular facts of each case; need evidence as to income (including social assistance) and support arrangements (objective test) . ii. Don’t require extensive evidence , just need something as simple as a tax return to show salaried income, etc. iii. Wife wanted to sever corollary relief from divorce judgment; court needed to be satisfied that “reasonable arrangements” had been made for child support . Adult Interdependent Partners The AIP model is unique to Alberta, and allows registered adult interdependent partners (AIPs) who may be of the same sex to access some of the same rights and obligations of married people (such as spousal support – but not property under the MPA). Alberta’s Adult Interdependent Relationships Act i. Legislative coverage includes: a. Spousal support under the Family Law Act . b. Family violence protection under the Protection Against Family Violence Act . c. Benefits under the Income and Employment Supports Act .

19 h. No AIP agreement. iii. Court held that they were partners in an interdependent relationship – although there was no financial interweaving, Ms. M and Mr. K were involved in a “long -term, exclusive, conjugal relationship. They held themselves out to the community as a couple [and] made contributions to each other’s’ well -being . They divided household chores and jointly cared for the home in which they lived.” iv. He claimed that she didn’t perform domestic services and would suffer no economic consequences from the breakup; she was going to be a lawyer! He claimed no AIP because she was self sufficient . Court rejects his emphasis on financial interdependence. Wright-Watts v Watts , 2005 ABQB i. AIP Act does not apply to relationships which started and ended before the Act came into force . ii. This case is also an example of a relationship where AIP was not found – particularly because: a. No interconnected finances, no joint bank accounts or credit cards, friends didn’t recognize them as domestic unit, no split of household chores. iii. No children; she wanted divorce, division of property, spousal support and costs. She also wanted a constructive trust from their pre-marital relationship (dating 1992-1996 dom, dos 2000). Never lived together until after the wedding – she claims CL, he says they were just dating. iv. Threshold issue of whether CL relationship existed before wedding – then court can consider unjust enrichment analysis. Court found that they didn’t reach CL status; he didn’t sleep over much, brought few possessions over; he had to be home to care for his own farm. Few domestic services provided, no division – everything was more consistent with dating than with common law. The Matrimonial Home An order for exclusive possession can be made under any of the following: i. PAFVA – where there is a threat of family violence. ii. MPA – where the partners are married/divorcing. iii. FLA – everyone else. Definition of Matrimonial Home The definitions under the MPA and FLA are essentially the same: Matrimonial Property Act i. s. 1(c): “matrimonial home” means property a. (i) that is owned or leased by one or both spouses, b. (ii) that is or has been occupied by the spouses as their family home, and c. (iii) that is i. (A) a house, or part of a house, that is a self-contained dwelling unit, ii. (B) part of a business premises used as living accommodation, iii. (C) a mobile home, iv. (D) a residential unit as defined in the Condominium Property Act , or v. (E) a suite. Family Law Act i. s. 67 : “family home” means property a. that is owned or leased by one or both spouses or AIPs, b. that is or has been occupied by the spouses or AIPs as their home, and c. that is i. a house, or part of a house, that is a self-contained dwelling unit, ii. part of business premises used as living accommodation, iii. a mobile home, iv. a residential unit as defined in the Condominium Property Act , or v. a suite. Exclusive Possession Orders Under the MPA Exclusive Possession Orders Under the MPA: Process 1. Threshold Questions: a. Court can only make the order if (s. 5(1) MPA):

20 i. Divorce has been granted/declaration of nullity has been made; ii. Spouses have declaration of irreconcilability under FLA ; iii. The spouses have been living separate and apart for a year. iv. … see s. 5(1) for other grounds. b. Is it the matrimonial home? i. Apply s. 1(c) definition. 2. In deciding whether to grant an exclusive possession order, the court must consider (s. 20): a. The availability of other accommodation within the means of both spouses. i. Can one spouse find alternative accommodation easier than the other? – S(TJ), Tawiah b. The needs of any children living in the MH. – IMPORTANT, heavy weight. i. Who is actually taking care of the kids/who has custody ( is order still valid )? – Boutin 1. Strong factor – whoever has primary care will usually remain in the home with the kids. ii. Who is the traditional caregiver? Kids can remain in home and traditional caregiver took possession – S(TJ) c. What is the financial position of each spouse? i. Does one spouse’s income depend on using the home? – Tawiah ii. Court doesn’t care about new financial responsibility for new girlfriend’s kids – Boutin iii. Will losing access to the house freeze the income of one of the spouses (e.g. because they operate a business out of it?) – Tawiah d. Any order made by the court with respect to the property or support/maintenance of one or both of the spouses. i. Has the property already been divided, or spousal/CS been settled? – S(TJ) ii. Are the grounds on which the previous order was made still valid? – Boutin e. Note: The court is not looking at conduct (it is not a ground under s. 20), the court is solely focused on financial stability and making sure children are taken care of. i. Don’t care about allegations: Doesn’t matter if one spouse is a bad housekeeper or might have substance abuse issues – S(TJ) 3. Remedies: a. The court can order (s. 19(1) MPA): i. That a spouse be given exclusive possession of the MH; ii. That a spouse be evicted from the MH; 1. Boutin – 30 days for ex, his girlfriend, her kids and adult child to leave. iii. That a spouse be restrained from entering/attending at or near the MH. b. The order can include possession of surrounding MH as is necessary for use/enjoyment of the MH (s. 19(2) MPA). c. Can add conditions and time limits (s. 19(3) MPA). i. Boutin – ex had to leave the building supplies for the renovation he never finished d. Can make an order for exclusive use of household goods (s. 25(1) MPA). 4. Other Considerations: a. One spouse may owe occupation rent, unpaid property taxes, etc. (e.g. Boutin – she bought him out of his interest, but he still owed her for the time he spent in the MH living rent-free). Exclusive Possession Orders Under the FLA i. A court making a child/spousal/AIP support order may also order that a spouse/AIP (s. 68 FLA): a. Have exclusive possession of the family home; b. Be evicted from the family home; or c. Be restrained from entering the family home. ii. In exercising this power, the court must consider (s. 69 FLA): a. The availability of other accommodation within the means of both spouses/AIPs; b. The needs of any kids living in the family home; c. The financial position of each spouse/AIP; d. Any order made by the court re property/support/maintenance; e. Any restrictions/conditions of the lease. Same language under s. 69 of FLA for spouses and AIP, but adds consideration of: (e) any restrictions or conditions of any lease involving the family home, if applicable. Boutin v Viau , 2007 ABQB i. The court will pay special attention to the needs of COM and who can more easily find other accommodation; ii. T he court does NOT care about your new girlfriend’s kids (i.e. “obligations willingly assumed”) . iii. Cheryl and Norman were married 20 years, divorced. Had three kids together. Court granted Norman EP of MH and primary residence of 3 kids; in 2006, two out of three kids lived with Cheryl while Norman lived with his gf, her two kids, and he and Cheryl’s adult child in the MH. iv. Norman didn’t pay CS, SS, or occupation rent for those 2 years, and was an undischarged bankrupt. v. Section 20 analysis: