2,443
edits
Difference between revisions of "Divorce and the Law on Getting Divorced"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Divorce and the Law on Getting Divorced (view source)
Revision as of 00:03, 25 April 2013
, 00:03, 25 April 2013→Adultery
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) m |
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) m (→Adultery) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
A spouse who is claiming that the other spouse is guilty of adultery must prove this claim in court. Before the court will pronounce the order for divorce, the court must also be satisfied that the party making the claim has not ''condoned'' the adultery or ''connived'' to effect the adultery. If the court is not satisfied, it will not grant the divorce. | A spouse who is claiming that the other spouse is guilty of adultery must prove this claim in court. Before the court will pronounce the order for divorce, the court must also be satisfied that the party making the claim has not ''condoned'' the adultery or ''connived'' to effect the adultery. If the court is not satisfied, it will not grant the divorce. | ||
Proof of adultery normally consists of an affidavit from either your spouse | Proof of adultery normally consists of an affidavit from either your spouse or the person with whom your spouse committed the adulterous act, admitting to the adultery. You cannot seek a divorce based on your own adulterous conduct. | ||
Many people will have seen the movie "Intolerable Cruelty," which lays a great deal of emphasis on the punitive consequences of adultery, and suggests that spouses caught with their pants down are going to lose everything they have. That might be true in the US, but it certainly isn't true in Canada. In Canada, there are no consequences for marital offences of that nature: you won't lose your house, you won't lose the children, and you won't find yourself living in a cardboard box. Adultery, while relevant as a ground of divorce, plays no role in the court's determination of these other issues. | Many people will have seen the movie "Intolerable Cruelty," which lays a great deal of emphasis on the punitive consequences of adultery, and suggests that spouses caught with their pants down are going to lose everything they have. That might be true in the US, but it certainly isn't true in Canada. In Canada, there are no consequences for marital offences of that nature: you won't lose your house, you won't lose the children, and you won't find yourself living in a cardboard box. Adultery, while relevant as a ground of divorce, plays no role in the court's determination of these other issues. | ||
