Nouvelles
Éric réagit
L'équipe Droit-Inc
2010-11-03 13:08:00
Par la voix de ses avocats, le cabinet Ogilvy Renault, Éric vient de réagir au jugement de la Cour d'appel dans le litige qui l'oppose à son ex-conjointe de fait, Lola. Lisez la suite...
Réaction du défendeur à la décision de la Cour d'appel du Québec dans le dossier des conjoints de fait.
C'est par communiqué, qu'Éric a réagi. Le voici:
Réagissant à la décision de la Cour d'appel du Québec déclarant contraire à la Charte canadienne l'exclusion des conjoints de fait de l'obligation alimentaire prévue par la loi dans le cas de personnes mariées ou unies civilement, le défendeur a déclaré prendre acte de la décision de la Cour d'appel, qui l'affecte ni plus ni moins qu'elle n'affecte l'ensemble des personnes du Québec ayant choisi de vivre en union de fait.
Le défendeur rappelle qu'il a été attiré contre son gré dans un débat concernant la validité constitutionnelle de la politique législative québécoise envers les conjoints de fait. Le défendeur précise qu'il a toujours respecté la loi et il va sans dire qu'il continuera de le faire advenant que la loi soit modifiée pour se conformer à un jugement final dans ce dossier. Le défendeur n'a aucun autre commentaire à faire à ce sujet, sinon de prier les médias de respecter sa vie privée et celle de ses jeunes enfants.
Les avocats du défendeur - dont Pierre Bienvenu, d'Ogilvy Renault - ont déclaré quant à eux qu'il revient au premier chef au gouvernement du Québec de décider des suites à donner à ce jugement.
C'est par communiqué, qu'Éric a réagi. Le voici:
Réagissant à la décision de la Cour d'appel du Québec déclarant contraire à la Charte canadienne l'exclusion des conjoints de fait de l'obligation alimentaire prévue par la loi dans le cas de personnes mariées ou unies civilement, le défendeur a déclaré prendre acte de la décision de la Cour d'appel, qui l'affecte ni plus ni moins qu'elle n'affecte l'ensemble des personnes du Québec ayant choisi de vivre en union de fait.
Le défendeur rappelle qu'il a été attiré contre son gré dans un débat concernant la validité constitutionnelle de la politique législative québécoise envers les conjoints de fait. Le défendeur précise qu'il a toujours respecté la loi et il va sans dire qu'il continuera de le faire advenant que la loi soit modifiée pour se conformer à un jugement final dans ce dossier. Le défendeur n'a aucun autre commentaire à faire à ce sujet, sinon de prier les médias de respecter sa vie privée et celle de ses jeunes enfants.
Les avocats du défendeur - dont Pierre Bienvenu, d'Ogilvy Renault - ont déclaré quant à eux qu'il revient au premier chef au gouvernement du Québec de décider des suites à donner à ce jugement.
15412
DSG
il y a 14 ansYou’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
The Dude
il y a 14 ans> You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
DSG
il y a 14 ans> > You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
>
> You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
I told your mother not to tell anyone!
The Dude
il y a 14 ans> > > You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
> >
> > You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
>
> I told your mother not to tell anyone!
Don't confuse my mother with yours.
Anonyme
il y a 14 ans> > > > You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
> > >
> > > You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
> >
> > I told your mother not to tell anyone!
>
> Don't confuse my mother with yours.
The Dude 1, DSG 0.
DSG
il y a 14 ans> > > > > You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
> > > >
> > > > You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
> > >
> > > I told your mother not to tell anyone!
> >
> > Don't confuse my mother with yours.
>
> The Dude 1, DSG 0.
That’s not what your mother thinks. She’s here with me now, seated on my lap.
The Dude
il y a 14 ans> > > > > > You’re ruining it for the rest of us with this dangerous precedent. Give her the money before the Court of Appeal gives every skank that I’ve entertained a claim to my estate.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've been with one and you paid so don't worry about the precedent.
> > > >
> > > > I told your mother not to tell anyone!
> > >
> > > Don't confuse my mother with yours.
> >
> > The Dude 1, DSG 0.
>
> That’s not what your mother thinks. She’s here with me now, seated on my lap.
After a few "mother jokes", it's time to move on. One always talks about mothers when they have absolutely nothing intelligent to say.
me
il y a 14 ansAren't judges supposed to apply the law? Therefore, if you choose not to marry or have a civil union, you should not have the same rights as married or CU spouses. wow.
I would have expected that decision from a common law judge, but not 3 civilian judges on the CA. Someone needs to send them back to Barreau!
I am all for equity, but the law is the law, and people have choices. The fact that Lola didn't know any better is no excuse (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Quebec's Civilain law tradition is different and well thought out for a reason. If people want change it for equity's sake, then lobby the politicians. The judges over-stepped their discretion, IMHO.
If a person wants spousal support payments in the event of a rupture, then get married. It is not the job of 3 judges to try to make Quebec the same as the rest of Canada.
Anon
il y a 14 ans> Aren't judges supposed to apply the law? Therefore, if you choose not to marry or have a civil union, you should not have the same rights as married or CU spouses. wow.
>
> I would have expected that decision from a common law judge, but not 3 civilian judges on the CA. Someone needs to send them back to Barreau!
>
> I am all for equity, but the law is the law, and people have choices. The fact that Lola didn't know any better is no excuse (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Quebec's Civilain law tradition is different and well thought out for a reason. If people want change it for equity's sake, then lobby the politicians. The judges over-stepped their discretion, IMHO.
>
> If a person wants spousal support payments in the event of a rupture, then get married. It is not the job of 3 judges to try to make Quebec the same as the rest of Canada.
I completely agree with the above comment. I hope this case goes to the SCC and that the decision gets reversed. If I do not wish to marry, that's my choice!
Anonyme
il y a 14 ans> Aren't judges supposed to apply the law? Therefore, if you choose not to marry or have a civil union, you should not have the same rights as married or CU spouses. wow.
>
> I would have expected that decision from a common law judge, but not 3 civilian judges on the CA. Someone needs to send them back to Barreau!
>
> I am all for equity, but the law is the law, and people have choices. The fact that Lola didn't know any better is no excuse (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Quebec's Civilain law tradition is different and well thought out for a reason. If people want change it for equity's sake, then lobby the politicians. The judges over-stepped their discretion, IMHO.
>
> If a person wants spousal support payments in the event of a rupture, then get married. It is not the job of 3 judges to try to make Quebec the same as the rest of Canada.
Cynik
il y a 14 ans__"Freedom to love"
-R.I.P-__
''~400 000 B.C. - 2010 A.D.~''
Me
il y a 14 ans>>>> Aren't judges supposed to apply the law? Therefore, if you choose not to marry or have a civil union, you should not have the same rights as married or CU spouses. wow.
>>>> I would have expected that decision from a common law judge, but not 3 civilian judges on the CA. Someone needs to send them back to Barreau!
What a stupid comment. So in your opinion only a common law judge should be allowed to issue a declaration of unconstitutionality towards a section of a law. Basically, section 52(1) of the Canadian constitution doesn't apply to Québec, according to you.
Whomever is saying that those judges should be sent back to Barreau is obviously something who didn't complete not even the first year of law school.
Me
il y a 14 ans>>>>> I am all for equity, but the law is the law, and people have choices.
That's cute.
So you obviously wouldn't mind a law which says you get death penalty for jaywalking, nor would you want it to see it invalidated by the Constitution, because the law is the law ?
Me
il y a 14 ans>>>>> I would have expected that decision from a common law judge, but not 3 civilian judges on the CA. Someone needs to send them back to Barreau!
Civilist, dimwit. Civilist. Civilian refers to non-military.
GBS
il y a 14 ansLe jugement se tient, et est raisonable.
La loi prévoit qu'une personne mariée peut faire cette demande, et non un conjoint de fait. Il semble y avoir une discrimination interdite par la Loi.
Il est cependant possible de rédiger la loi pour que les couples mariés s'engagent à certaines conséquences, plutôt que ces conséquences soient automatiques en vertu de la Loi.
Je crois que la Cour d'Appel a été obligée de dire que telle que rédigée, la Loi contrevient à la Charte.
D'où le délai pour arranger les choses.