Although today is only the second day of spring, the weather in Toronto makes it feel like early summer. For many couples planning to marry, the nice weather inexplicably makes them want to ring their wedding bell sooner rather than later.
As a family law lawyer, I’d like to remind spouses-to-be that sometime before the knot is tied – amid all the cake tasting and gown fitting – there are a few legal things to think about. This is especially true if either or both of the spouses has been married before.
First and foremost, if either spouse-to-be has had a divorce outside Ontario, he or she must obtain a legal opinion letter (usually referred to as a “foreign divorce opinion letter“) from a lawyer stating whether that divorce should be recognized in Canada. Without the opinion letter and the authorization from the Office of the Registrar General, the couple won’t be able to obtain a marriage licence and cannot get married.
If either of the spouses-to-be has any children, he or she should consider entering into a marriage agreement (marriage contract) that specifies the other spouse’s rights with respect to the children and obligations to support them.
Merely being a step-parent doesn’t mean being obliged to support the kids financially, especially if the kids are older. However, if, say, a step-dad takes the kids in as if they were his own and supports them through the marriage, he may be required to continue his support even if the marriage fails.
It is also a good idea to enter into a marriage contract if either of the spouses-to-be expects an inheritance or a substantial amount of gifts, or if one of them will be moving into the other’s home.
The reason for the caution is that the law treats gifts or inheritances acquired after the marriage and the matrimonial home brought into the marriage as special species of properties. That’s why these items are often a source of regret if the marriage doesn’t work out.
If your bride or groom is expected to receive an inheritance or gifts after the marriage, or to move into your home, you should discuss the legal ramifications with your lawyer before the wedding bell tolls.
This blog is provided for educational purposes. It is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of this article.
Publication Ban in Williams’s Divorce Is Set Aside
The divorce involving the notorious convicted serial killer Russell Williams has taken another detour in the Court of Appeal.*
Williams’s wife, identified only as M.E.H., obtained a publication ban and a sealing order by motion from the Superior Court of Justice on April 12, 2011. Various media outlets then intervened and appealed the publication ban.+
On January 24, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the challenged provisions under the publication ban, unless the ban is further ordered by the court within 14 days.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly identified the legal principles relating to publication bans and sealing orders. However, the evidence at bar could not support that the order was necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice. Absent that finding, said the Court of Appeal, “the orders could not have been made under the controlling jurisprudence.”
Under the jurisprudence, a publication ban should only be ordered when:
(a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and
(b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.^
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the wife’s right to go to court without fear of harm. “Access to the court should not come at the cost of a substantial risk of serious debilitating emotion or physical harm to the party seeking access,” said the Court of Appeal.
However, in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, the evidence provided by the wife wasn’t enough to justify a sealing order. In particular, the Court of Appeal could not find evidence that the media’s access to items covered by the publication ban would in any way negatively affect the wife’s ability to fully participate in the proceeding. In other words, the dangers of harm claimed by the wife had not been substantiated.
*2012 ONCA 0035
+See my previous post, “On Publication Bans and Sealing Orders in Family Law,” August 17, 2011
^R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, at para. 32
This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. The law may have changed since the publication of this article. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.