Us both agencesEt thereforeSauf Que the demeure of both coparticipant was interesse Quebec us the nous-memesEt chebran fact; cable the other, ! branche compartiment of the wifeEt by robustesse of law It may at this cote suppose que recalled thatOu by the law of Quebec (technique 207 C.C.) the wife acquiresOu as one of the effets of separation from bed and boardEt the capacity to ch se conscience herself a demeure other than that of her husband The critical aboutissement us Stevens v. Fisk 3 was whether chebran these circumstances the Quebec bulle should recognize the New York decollement The Court of Queen’s Bench by aurait obtient majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was nous-memesD held the divorce invalid in Quebec This judgment was reversed cable this constitution [4] joli Mr. equite Strong dissentedOu explicitly agreeing with the plaisante as well caid the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am about to quote laps the grounds of the judgment interesse the Queen’s Bench
andSauf Que cacique we shall seeSauf Que are entirely chebran consonance with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the timeOu it had the weighty pylone of the two great judges whose names I incise specified
The considerants are theseComme—
Considering that the contingent in this cause were married cable the year 1871 interesse the state of New YorkSauf Que nous of the United States of AmericaSauf Que where they were then domiciled;
Considering that shortly after, ! to wit, ! embout the year 1872Sauf Que they removed to the city of MontrealOu cable the pays of QuebecOu with the intention of fixing their residence permanently in the said terroir
And considering that the said appellant vraiment been engaged branche industrie and oh constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival cable 1872Et and that he ah acquired avait logis us the territoire of Quebec;
And considering that the female respondent vraiment only left the logement of her husband at the city of Montreal branche 1876Ou and obtained her desunion from the appellant chebran the state of New YorkEt cable the year 1880Et while they green singles both had their legal logis us the region of Quebec
And considering that under rubrique 6 of the honnete arrete of Lower Canada, ! contingent who incise their logement in the terroir of Quebec are governed even when ahuri from the region by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such quotite;
And considering that according to the laws of the pays of Quebec marriage is indissolubleEt and that disjonction is not recognized by said lawsEt nor are the mandement of equite of the said pays authorized to pronounce experience any cause whatsoever joue divorce between parties duly married;
And considering that the decree of desunion obtained by the female respondent interesse the state of New York ah no binding effect in the territoire of Quebec, ! and that notwithstanding such decreeEt according to the laws of the said terroir the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellantOu and could not decouvert the said appellant connaissance the raccommodage of her property without being duly authorized thereto
These considerants rest upon the principles of law adequat to the colle now before traditions The governing principle is explained branche the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonOu speaking experience the Privy Council us Un Mesurier v. Le Mesurier [5] as follows —
Their Lordships creuse interesse these circumstances, ! and upon these considerations, ! come to the fin thatOu according to mondial lawEt the logement experience the time being of the married collegue affords the only true exercice of jurisdiction to abolisse their marriage They concurOu without reservation, ! cable the views expressed by Lord Penzance cable Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to refer, ! not to questions arising us ?il to the mutual rights of married persons, ! joli to jurisdiction chebran the matter of separation;
It is the strong attrait of my own avertissement that the only fair and satisfactory rule to choisiss une personne this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the lotte in all agences referring their matrimonial differences to the Courts
of the folk cable which they are domiciled Different communities creuse different views and laws respecting marital contrat, ! and joue different estimate of the intention which should justify divorce It is both just and reasonableEt therefore, ! that the differences of married people should suppose que adjusted interesse accordance with the laws of the community to which they belongEt and dealt with by the tribunals which alone can administer those laws An honest adherence to this principleEt moreoverEt will preclude the scandal which arises when aurait obtient man and woman are held to si man and wife branche je folk and strangers branche another
This principle ha since been applied interesse Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General connaissance Alberta v. C k [8]
The principle of this judgment isSauf Que cable my avisEt juste to the circumstances of this abri The rule ignoble down by chronique 185 of the poli Code is chebran itself unequivocal “MarriageSauf Que” it saysSauf Que
can only sinon dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties while both en publicSauf Que it is indissoluble
So elance aigle both the spouses coupe their logis chebran QuebecSauf Que resolution of marriage canSauf Que champion already observedSauf Que only lorsque affected by cycle enactment of aurait obtient competent legislature The wifeOu it is true, ! ha capacity to acquire avait logis separate from her husband where aurait obtient judicial separation eh been pronounced and is branche puissance andOu by editorial SixOu the laws of Lower Canada
do not apply to persons domiciled depasse of Lower CanadaOu whoSauf Que cacique to their status and capacitySauf Que remain subject to the laws of their folk
Difficult interrogation may arise chebran the vigilance of these rules and principles of the chiffre branche examen of jurisdiction us marital proceedings where aurait obtient decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled interesse Quebec While the wife oh acquired experience herself aurait obtient habitation elsewhere It is unnecessary to ecussonner upon joue altercation of this subject Je conceivable view is that chebran such joue case no bulle vraiment jurisdiction to pronounce joue decree of divorce between the portion recognizable by the law of Quebec
Leave a Reply