Somewhere in North America, there is a place where little girls don’t give the slightest thought to what kind of wedding dress they’ll wear one day. A place where young men have never heard the expression: “why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?” — because the milk is always free. A place where no one asks an unmarried couple expecting a baby if they’re getting hitched.
This place is the province of Quebec. The French language spoken here is no guarantee for romance. Couples are practical, and lovers treasure their individuality. Quebec has become one of the least marrying places in the world, thanks to the institution known as “de facto spouses.”
But now, thanks to a bizarre legal case entangling a Quebec billionaire and his de facto spouse, the freedom to un-marry is under threat. More than 1 million Quebecois in this kind of relationship may soon be automatically married by the state, against their will.
De facto spouses are defined by Quebec’s law as two people who have been living together for a year or more without being married and who check the “couple” box on their income tax statement form. Quebec’s lawmakers have deliberately chosen not to give de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that married couples have under the Law of Quebec, to preserve the freedom of choice. Upon the termination of a relationship, “no matter how long cohabitation has lasted, de facto spouses have no legal support obligation to each other, even if one spouse is in need and the other has a high income.” Quebec is the only province in Canada where spousal support payments are not recognized by law for de facto spouses.
Other countries also recognize the status of common-law couples, including France and the Scandinavian nations. In the United States, common law marriage is a legal status in a minority of states.
The very religious province of Quebec traditionally perceived de facto spouses as a threat to the social order. But the ” Quiet Revolution” starting in the 1960s led to a radical rejection of the church, a decline in religious weddings, and a reform of the Family Law that introduced the notion of de facto unions in 1979. The status gained more recognition during the ’80s and ’90s, mostly thanks to lobbying by gay rights advocates.
The institution has become wildly popular in Quebec, for gays and straights. An astonishing 34.6 percent of all Quebec couples are de facto couples, and one half of couples under 40 are not married. A full 60 percent of Quebec children are born out of wedlock.
In 2002, “Eric” and “Lola” put an end to their decade-long de facto union. (These are pseudonyms used by the media, because Canadian law forbids the publication of the couple’s real names to protect the privacy of their children.) Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he “doesn’t believe in marriage,” refused.
When the separation occurred, Lola didn’t take it lying down. She decided to challenge Quebec’s law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to. Her lawyers claimed that the provincial law discriminates against unmarried couples.
The first provincial court to hear the case saw it otherwise. In 2009, The Supreme Court of Quebec rejected Lola’s claim for $56,000 (Canadian) per month for herself and $50 million as a lump sum. Eric was already giving her $411,000 per year as child-support payments for their three kids.
Lola appealed that court’s decision, and in 2010, the appeals court of the province sided with her. That decision suggested that every other person in a de facto couple had the same rights as her, or the same obligations as Eric. In other words, it invalidated the province’s law that one de facto spouse never has to support another when they split up. Groups that defend single mothers and children’s rights applauded the ruling.
The Quebec government, however, was astounded. The provincial Justice Minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, declared that the appeal court decision would harm the individual’s right to choose what kind of matrimonial state they want for themselves. The Quebec government has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will rule on it by July.
The sums of money involved make Eric and Lola’s case somewhat absurd to the average Canadian. But it could shape the lives of the 1.2 million Quebecois in de facto couples, making them as good as married, even though neither of them exchanged rings or asked the other person’s permission to spend their lives together.
Ever practical, Quebec’s lovebirds are taking precautions. Linda, a 43-year-old woman in Longueuil, moved in with her boyfriend a couple of months ago. He told her that he is going to make her sign a legal document to protect himself in case the “Eric and Lola trial” turns out in favor of Lola. Linda wasn’t shocked and she wasn’t insulted. Being a de facto spouse is normal, the modern way to go.
“His legal paper, he can bring it on! If he wouldn’t have suggested it, maybe I would have.” She is happy not to be married, and happy not to be obliged to provide for him.
Yeah right.
17 year old girl meets 32 year old wealthy man and starts licking her lips.
And shaking her hips.
Years later reality sets in and it doesnt look too good to him/her.
Time to back out gently ?
Really ?
Good luck with that.
Or as our friends over the river might say, ” Bon chance”.
Tabernac !
Funny how perspectives are different: I was thinking, “Poor kid, 17 yrs old, she had no idea what she was getting into.” Because I WAS a 17 yr old girl once, with lots of 17 yr old friends, and we thought about love, not money.
Yikes, another unanticipated consequence of “equal protection” arguments. It sure creeps up and expands over time.
Makes me wonder what’s coming next after homosexual marriage. Are there any limits or is it just a matter of popular opinion and what people want to do?
How does this have anything to do with “equal protection”? This is the exact opposite, couples who have DECLINED marriage are being legally labelled as such for the purpose of property law. Obviously you have an ax to grind. Grind it elsewhere please.
You don’t have a clue.
These are the facts: Lola and her lawyers claimed that she, an unmarried “de facto spouse”, was entitled to, “everything a married woman would be entitled to. Her lawyers claimed that the Quebec provincial law discriminates against unmarried couples.” In other words, Lola was claiming a denial of equal protection inasmuch as she, a de facto spouse, did not have the same rights and privileges as a married spouse, and the appeals court of Quebec agreed with her.
Next time, instead of getting your skivvies in a knot and talking about an “ax to grind”, read the article.
You are using this article to spew your hatred of homosexuals.. thats the ax. It has nothing to do with this article.
I thought we were talking about equal protection, but you’ve given that up, and for the best of reasons: You don’t know anything about it.
So all you do is end up talking about axes.
No, you’re just finding any way to twist this into something that it’s not so you can rant about people you have hatred towards. Canada does use the same laws we do, they don’t use the same legal definitions and they especially don’t have the same history and precedent of “equal protection” as we do. You just want to rant.
Give it up pal. Here’s the Canadian definition of equal protection:
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom: “(1) Every individual is EQUAL before and under the law and has the right to the EQUAL PROTECTION AND EQUAL BENEFIT of the law WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION and, in particular, without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.” [emphasis added].
This article, and my comments, are based on the Canadian case which is titled “Eric v. Lola”, an appeal to the the Supreme Court of Canada from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which squarely raises the issues of equal protection and discrimination under Section 15 quoted above.
I’ll give you credit for one thing, however; even though you couldn’t resist the usual “hatred” and “rant” buzzwords, you didn’t talk about axes.
Irrelevant. They’re not interchangeable.
What a joke. You’re so desperate to avoid an actual discussion, you’ll do anything to change the subject. Criticizing others punctuation, dismissing points as mere “buzzwords.” How pathetic. But I guess, what else should I expect from someone who hates gays and other minorities?
Of course Canadian and American equal protection guarantees are not interchangeable, and I never said they were. But they are very close to American equal protection provisions, close enough to perfectly illustrate the course of the Eric v. Lola case and my comment about equal protection and unexpected consequences.
As to your claim that I hate homosexuals and minorities, it’s utter nonsense. Your argument is purely emotional and makes about as much sense as if I were to argue that you are a homosexual and that your shame and guilt about your sexuality and your hatred of heterosexuals are so strong that they suppress your reasoning power and cause you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being motivated by hatred – like pulling the homosexual card.
LOL, I’m sorry you’re devastated that your bigotry is being called out for what it is. Call it what you want, but the fact remains that you’re willing to use the law against others that you disagree with. I’m not the one doing that, you are. You’re willing to punish people and give yourself special rights. Seems like hatred to me. But keep playing with words so you can sleep better at night. Whatever it takes.
Also, I don’t hate heterosexuals as I am one. I don’t hate myself for that. But it goes to show that your ridiculous opinions are shaped by assumption, or to put it more bluntly: ignorance.
You sure fooled me.
LOL, I fooled you because I consider gay people to be equal to me. What a concept!
That’s not what I had in mind.
You need to take a chill pill. You take yourself way too seriously.
Brilliant. Here’s a thought…if you’re so worried about what comes after homosexual marriage….how about legislating bans against divorce as THAT seems to be popular heterosexual opinion and what heterosexual people want to do…..multiple times…..and do it well I might add…..multiple times. pfffffffffft.
You have a very odd way of expressing yourself. Why do you use caps for that, ………….., repeat “multiple times”, and say pffffffffft?
Funny how you ignore the obvious flaw in your argument and choose to get upset about caps and punctuation. You must have a great argument!
Are there any limits to your bigotry? Or do you just want to fight against gays because it’s convenient? Who cares about divorce right?
Of course, the bigotry and fighting against homosexual cards.
Funny how you have no qualms about gay people being called “perverts”, but you screech over your behavior being described as bigotry. How consistent of you, LOL.
But homosexuality is perverted behavior. Being a homosexual is not but if you engage in sex with someone of the same sex it is.
Why do you care what kind of sex someone else engages in? Sounds like you’re the pervert.
Nature cares what kind of sex people engage in. Good morality makes for good medicine. I see your only response when you feel cornered is to insult them.
I don’t understand what consequence you are trying to get at. Canada does have same-sex marriage. This article is about a heterosexual couple who did not get married. They could have married if both parties wanted to, just as any homosexual couple could in Canada.
Finally a good question instead of an argument. Go back and read the article carefully without thinking about same sex marriage; the case is about equal protection and discrimination.
Before the Quebec appeals court ruled that Lola, a de facto spouse, was entitled to have what a married woman would have upon the end of her relationship with Eric, citizens in Quebec had choice in their domestic arrangements: either the de facto spousal arrangement with no rights and responsibilities or marriage with support obligations and other rights and responsiblities. That was the freedom of choice created by Quebec lawmakers.
Lola claimed that she was entitled to all the rights of a married woman when Eric split, i.e., support, as a matter of equal protection under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and the Quebec appeals court agreed with her, thereby upsetting the freedom of choice that had existed under Quebec provincial law. That is the consequence I was talking about: Yes, it’s fine for Lola that she gets support like a married woman, but a very bad consequence for other de facto couples who suddenly became saddled with an obligation they had deliberately avoided by opting for de facto spousal status. The case is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Did they really need to call her “Lola”?
“Sally” would have worked just as well..
Sultry Latin American?
Well they could have called her Lotita.
Or Lolita.
I wonder if a judgement in Lola’s favor will null and void the $411,000 per she is getting in child support. Also, should she enter into another “de facto marriage ” will the payments of “defactomoniy” be ended? If so how does one prove the new de facto marriage?
I like this concept, and wished it was available here: “de facto spouse.”
You get to choose, where, and with whom you co-habitate, and declare same when ready, within a (very small) amount of regulation.
Government stays out of your life and personal relationships. Of course, it helps to have universal health care, not pegged to who you are married or by whom you are employed.
The State of Maine does not declare my love for you, I get to show it–or not–every day, and you to me. Plenty of miserable people out there with the “benefit of a certificate,” which guarantees nothing.
Kids add another dimension, but one that focuses on the responsibility factor. Mothers and fathers are both responsible. If one cares for them daily, what is the dollar value of that vs. the cost of rent, clothes, and food? Medical and schooling taken care of by the society, via the very smart application of their taxes. You both make the kids, you both raise ’em.
Do “it” in a church if you want, or not. Guarantees nothing. Love each other daily is the key.
My boyfriend and I have been living together for 27 years (we have no children). We are a done deal and are committed to each other for life. However, if we did split up I would never expect him to support me, even if we were legally married. If we had children I would want enough child support to keep them in the lifestyle they had lived in before the split, and this girl is getting over $400,00.00 a year. I don’t see what her problem is. She should have to pay for her own personal luxuries, not her ex-boyfriend.
As my Canadian relatives might say, “Eh?” They’ve been together for nearly 50 years now and never saw the necessity of marriage. I don’t see how their government, or any government, has a say in that.
Another ridiculous BDN headline.. no one will be “forced to marry”. The ruling, if it stands, will simply define couples in this situation as being married for the purpose of civil law. If you can create a document to prevent being labelled this way (as reported later in the article), how is that being “forced”? Looks like these couples also checked “couple” on their tax return, which presumably gave them some tax benefit equivalent to that due married couples. What’s the big deal?
Hilarious……straight people in Quebec being ‘forced’ to get married (and in all likelihood divorced at some point and then remarried) while gay people in this state who want to get married still can’t….makes PERFECT sense. pfffffffft.
Just like with pervert ‘marriage’ – nothing but a money grab.
What about bigot marriage?
We’ll, there’s plenty of perverts who are married that’s for sure. Are you married?
Je me souviens, kaliss…
People who choose to live together need to make sure they have their interest protected legally.
Why do homosexuals want to get married? I thought they were “independent thinker and doers” they don’t want the government in their bedroom. Who cares about a piece of paper from the government. Why can’t they protect their interest legally. Make sure they have their ducks in order in case something happens to them. I am not married and I have made sure legally that my money and health interests are taking care of.
When that piece of paper gives you legal protections, you want it, just like any other married couple.
Let’s stop this nonsense of trying to redefine marriage. Everyone should just get a civil union decree and then if they are religious go to their church, if they want to, and get married. Marriage is a sacred vow between a man and woman and their holy union will be for the procreation of children. Even if they can’t have children at least having heterosexual sex is the norm. Sorry you may not like what I’m saying , but your way of having sex doesn’t reproduce.
I have absolutely no problem with what you’re saying. I AM talking about civil unions. Those civil unions – outside of any church – should be the same as for ‘married’ inside a church. But that doesn’t happen. There are many benefits for married people that do not cover civil unions. That is not fair.
I never understood alimony. When a couple divorces, there is still a compelling obligation to financially support their underage children, but why your ex-spouse? When the divorce is finalized, the legal union of the two unrelated people is terminated. There should be no financial or other court ordered obligation. However, since the courts can do this, I’m surprised they haven’t figured out a way to force any individual to make direct cash payments to any other unrelated individual the courts fancies. De facto spouses makes sense. We need it in the Good Old USA!
It makes sense to some people and it was a choice in Quebec until the Quebec appeals court decided it shouldn’t be, and that’s an unintended consequence of equal protection. And that’s the way it will be unless the Supreme Court of Canada reverses the judgment below.
I knew a woman who had a cat in her hat! She thought that when it became too costly to have the cat in her hat she brought it to the cat in the hat store. At…the cat in the hat store it costs a lot of money to care for the cat…..so the cat in the hat store sued her for the money they spent to care for her cat in the hat. She hat to spend money for a cat in the hat lawyer, which cost her a plenty. The court awarded the cat in the hat store the costs needed to feed, house and healthcare the cat in the hat. BEWARE…before you decide to have a cat in the hat!
First off it is CANADA not America. So who cares…