Common-law partners watch wealthy Quebec couple's battle
— There was talk of love and luxury, of $1.2-million penthouse apartments,
of bashes for 2,500 partygoers near Montreal and $40-million private jets.
As constitutional court challenges go, the details don't get much more
A legal battle over the financial duties of common-law partners morphed
into an account of conjugal turmoil and fabulous wealth yesterday, as a
jet-setting multimillionaire explained why he had loved his former live-in
partner but didn't feel obligated to give her $50-million of his fortune.
"I find it," he said before a crowded court, "excessively exaggerated."
The man and his ex, who cannot be named under Quebec family law, have become
the protagonists behind a potentially precedent-setting case. The woman, an
aspiring model who mothered three of the man's children, is seeking a share of
his wealth and $56,000 in monthly alimony.
Under Quebec law, he doesn't owe her spousal support because, like a third of
couples in the province, the two shared a home but never exchanged wedding vows.
She is seeking the same financial support as a married wife.
The highly successful businessman, whose presence in court yesterday brought
out a media horde, said he entered into the relationship clearly stating he
wasn't the marrying type.
"It wasn't an institution I believed in. I was always clear about it," he
said. "I respect those who make the choice, but it's not my cup of tea."
The man admitted he met the woman in South America when she was 17 and he was
32, and initially they could barely communicate because they spoke different
languages. They dated for about two years and he brought her to live with him in
Their relationship went through ups and downs, as well as break-ups, but she
became pregnant and they remained together until 2001. The man insists he always
treated her fairly. He bought her an apartment in Brazil, three cars for the
family, and took her on vacation in spots like Fiji.
More recently, he bought her a $2.4-million mansion on the upper reaches of
Outremont and, last year, spent $250,000 on nannies, vacations, private
schooling and other expenses.
He also pays $35,000 a month in child support.
He said he regretted that a debate over a constitutional issue evolved into
an airing of the couple's dirty laundry - although he did reveal in court that,
after their break-up, his ex had relationships with four other men, including
Montreal businessman Herbert Black.
Mr. Black has publicly acknowledged he is bankrolling the woman's court fees
of more than $1-million. The man has spent about an equal amount.
The woman's lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater, said the tales of yachts, planes
and personal staff shouldn't deflect from the case's core issue. She said the
woman's access to money is helping finance a court battle for "the million or so
women in Quebec who have no rights.
But the man's lawyer, Pierre Boisvenu, said the constitutional issue was
already decided by the Supreme Court when it ruled in 2002 that common-law
partners cannot claim an equal division of matrimonial property if they break
Commentary in the Globe and Mail by the Ottawa Mens Centre
This case is not about this particular woman who lives a life of luxury and
bases her claim solely upon the her six year relationship that started when she
was 17 and he 34 in South America. This case is about the FAILURE of society to
promote marriage, and in particular the contempt with which society treats
relationships that produce children, doomed by government incentives to
destruction of their families. It provides an opportunity for one spouse to
abuse. Generally, its men with the incomes who in Quebec escape any
responsibility for spousal support despite the sacrifices and disadvantages.
Times are changing, now many women are the income earners and society fails to
understand those changes and assumptions. It is that conceited, arrogant
pathological blindness and willingness to abuse the disadvantaged that is being
addressed. Quebec is out of step with the modern world, as is Ontario with a
failure to recognize common law property rights. Most importantly, Canada FAILS
its fiduciary duty to nurture Canadian children by failing to legislate a legal
presumption of equal parenting after separation. Our Canadian governments have
given unbridled power to feminist dogma, an agenda that promotes hatred towards
men that has destroyed the rule of law, obstructed justice by a flag.rant abuse
of Ju.dicial Power , against men. It's time for change and hopefully, the courts
will not only solve the rights of common law couples but think of our nation's
most valuable resource who deserve nurturing , equal parenting from both
parents, and a society where men and women are truly treated as equal rather
than our present lawless society that removes all legal rights from men at the
whim of a disturbed and troubled vindictive mother. See the roscoe research
paper on judicial bias at the ottawamenscentre site.
Her claim is roughly the
equivalent of an Ontario MALE spouse earning around two million a year after a 7
There is just one problem. Across Canada , especially ONTARIO, Ontario Family
Court Judges almost never order a woman to pay a man spousal support, such is
the corrupt influence that extreme feminists have on our judiciary and
specifically, the feminist influence in judicial appointments. Its not uncommon
for a lawyer's phone to ring with feminist seeking information about a potential
judicial appointment. Some of our feminist politicians have used their influence
with devastating effect in getting feminist lawyers appointed to the judiciary
regardless of their lack of experience and unsuitability not to mention
established record of bias towards men. One of the most biased judges in Canada
is on the Ontario Court of Appeal, with the dubious record of having made more
biased decisions against men than any other judge in history of the Ontario
Court of appeal. You can find out who by checking out the Roscoe Research at
Posted 23/01/09 at 12:08 PM EST