Find a Canadian Lawyer in your area - search form |
Divorce can be a very trying time for everybody involved, but understanding the process can help smooth some of the pain. Filing for a divorce in Canada is a fairly easy process if there are no major disputes involved in your divorce.
In Canada, the federal government makes the divorce laws, but the provincial governments determine how the law is administered. As a result, divorce laws are covered in the Divorce Act and are the same all over Canada, but the processes, fees and court forms are all determined provincially.
You can apply for a divorce if you were legally married in Canada. You can also file if you and your spouse were married in another country but at least one of you has been living in a Canadian territory or province for a minimum of one year prior to filing for the divorce. You don`t have to be a Canadian citizen to file for a divorce in Canada.
Divorces are granted in Canada for just one reason and that reason is breakdown of the marriage. According to the Divorce Act, this breakdown can be based on one of three grounds, which are adultery, cruelty or separation for one year. You just need one of these grounds to file for divorce. The separation for one year grounds is considered a no-fault divorce. If you file on the grounds of adultery or cruelty, you will be initiating a for-fault divorce.
Most Canadian divorces are filed using the separation for one year grounds. This means that you and your spouse must live "separate and apart" for at least one year having decided that your marriage is over. This doesn`t mean that you have to live physically apart. You can be living "separate and apart" while still sharing a home but living in two different bedrooms. The one-year separation starts as soon as at least one spouse plans to live separate and apart from the other spouse and acts accordingly.
Very few people use either adultery or cruelty as grounds for a divorce. These for-fault divorces are typically more messy, costly and time consuming than a no-fault divorce.
There are four basic types of divorce in Canada. The most common kind is the uncontested divorce. This means that you file the forms for your divorce and your spouse doesn`t file a response. You usually don`t have to go to court with an uncontested divorce. A joint divorce occurs when both spouses sign the divorce forms agreeing that both parties want a divorce and agree to the divorce terms. Not all provinces allow for joint divorces, however.
Couples experiencing a collaborative contested divorce cannot agree on all of the terms of the divorce, but are willing to try to negotiate through attorneys instead of in the courtroom. A contested divorce has lawyers and courtroom battles involved. The spouses cannot agree on the issues and must appear before the judge. Contested divorce cases take the most money and time.
Divorces become final 31 days after the judge has signed the order. After this time, you can apply for your certificate of divorce and are free to remarry. Various law programs offer specializations in divorce law if you decide to go back to school to help other couples going through this stressful time.
About Social Security Disability and Medicare (ezinearticles)
Fri, 18 May 2012 21:58:00 +0100
The only constant here is the amount of benefits you receive every month,
including your back payments given on the first month and, if applicable,
family benefits. However, medical benefits are only available if you have been
receiving benefits for two years or more.
Georgia State On My Mind - Here's the 350 Page Judgment and a Few First Thoughts (excesscopyright.blogspot)
Sat, 12 May 2012 19:19:00 +0100
The long awaited trial judgment in **the Cambridge et al v. Georgia State et
al** copyright litigation has been delivered. HT to Ariel Katz.
The University prevailed in 94 of the 99 initially alleged infringements:
_Of the 99 alleged infringements that Plaintiffs maintained at_
_the start of trial, only 75 were submitted for post-trial findings of_
_fact and conclusions of law. This Order concludes that the_
_unlicensed use of five excerpts (of four different books) infringed_
_Plaintiffs’ copyrights. _
Result – as per the Court:
Relief?
_VI. Relief To Be Granted_
_In light of the findings of fact and conclusions of law_
_contained in this Order, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file, within_
_twenty (20) days of entry of this Order, the proposed text of any_
_injunctive and declaratory relief they seek, together with the_
_rationale supporting their request. Alternative proposals are_
_acceptable. Defendants may state their opposition, if any, and may_
_propose one or more alternative orders, within fifteen (15) days_
_after Plaintiffs’ filing. If Defendants object to Plaintiffs’_
_proposal(s) or if Defendants suggest one or more alternative_
_order(s), the rationale shall be stated. These filings shall not_
_exceed thirty (30) pages each. ...
Globe & Mail: Lawful Access bill should be sent back to the drawing board (privacylawyer)
Tue, 15 May 2012 12:30:00 +0100
John Ibbitson's column in the Globe & Mail suggests that Bill C-30 should be
sent back to the drawing board since it will never be passed in its present
(comatose) state. Once re-drafted from scratch, it should be introduced by a
different minister because of the way Vic Toews mishandled it the first time:
> Tory law-and-order agenda meets its match online - The Globe and Mail
>
> The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister
Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and
purposes, the bill is dead.
>
> If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier
for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to
start from scratch.
>
> That new bill, if there is one, will probably be shepherded by a different
minister. That’s how much damage this botched legislation inflicted on the
government and on Mr. Toews.
>
> Bill C-30, also known as the lawful access legislation, would allow police
to compel Internet service providers to cough up identifying information about
anyone using the Internet.
>
> The authorities would not be able to ...
Harrison Pensa on list of “Best Law Firm Websites of 2012″ (canton.elegal)
Thu, 17 May 2012 13:47:00 +0100
Lawyerist.com has published a list of “Best Law Firm Websites of 2012”, and
Harrison Pensa’s new site is one of the 11 listed. Of the 11, only 2 are in
Canada. There is a voting process to pick the best site that ends on May 31
- so please vote for us! Our new site [...]
More insight from OSC Staff on NI 43-101 compliance issues for website and third party disclosure (canadiansecuritieslaw)
Thu, 17 May 2012 21:20:00 +0100
**Raymond McDougall** -
Last week, I had the opportunity to present at the 2012 **Mine Accounting &
Reporting Update** conference held in Toronto. The conference covered a
variety of topics of interest to mining and exploration issuers, including the
**issue of website and third party disclosure about which we wrote in early
May**.
At the conference, OSC Staff expanded on their views on this issue, including
with reference to our own blog post on the subject. With respect to compliance
with **National Instrument 43-101 _Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects_**, OSC Staff are of the view that if you publicly disclose it, post
it, or link to it, then you "own it" and are responsible for ensuring that the
disclosure complies with NI 43-101.
In respect of certain circumstances, such as an issuer's own fact sheets,
presentation slides or other "written disclosure" (as defined in NI 43-101),
last week's presentation by OSC Staff provided a useful reminder for issuers.
However, on the subject of website and third party disclosure, the
presentation provided confirmation that OSC Staff are continuing to look
beyond the disclosure produced by an issuer itself and will consider all
disclosure and information the issuer has ...
Perspective (LawIsCool)
Fri, 18 May 2012 16:59:00 +0100
Would this have changed the George Zimmerman case?
Regulators set out criteria for dual regulation of certain investment firms (Out-law)
Fri, 18 May 2012 17:09:00 +0100
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) will consider a range of criteria
including the value of an investment firm's total assets and its business
model when deciding whether it will be dual-regulated under the new financial
services regime.
TerraVest Income Fund Announces Changes to Board of Trustees (marketwire)
Fri, 18 May 2012 00:50:00 +0100
**VEGREVILLE, ALBERTA--(Marketwire - May 17, 2012) -** TerraVest Income Fund
(TSX:TI.UN) announced today that George Armoyan (biography below) has been
appointed as a trustee of TerraVest Income Fund and director of TerraVest
Industries Inc. following the resignations of Bob Phillips, Murray Wallace and
Tim Rorabeck earlier today. This appointment has been approved by the Trustees
of the Fund pursuant to the Declaration of Trust of the Fund which permits the
Trustees to fill vacancies among the Trustees to hold office until the close
of the next annual general meeting of unitholders, currently scheduled to be
held on June 26, 2012.
Trademark Settlement Agreements: Lost in Translation (CanadianTrademarkBlog)
Sat, 12 May 2012 01:24:00 +0100
A recent Ontario case is a rare example of parties seeking a judicial
interpretation of a trademark settlement agreement. It also emphasizes the
importance of understanding all possible translated meanings of a word before
committing to refrain from using any translated versions, a challenge that
often arises in a bilingual country. In Skipper Online Services [...]
The Charter & Freedom of Expression on Canadian University Campuses - Stay Tuned (excesscopyright.blogspot)
Thu, 10 May 2012 19:03:00 +0100
The Alberta Court of Appeal just released a very important decision yesterday
about academic freedom, universities and freedom of expression that appears
very likely destined to find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case
is **_Pridgenv. U. of Calgary_ 2012 ABCA 139.**
It involved a widely reported incident in which students were disciplined for
making very unflattering comments on Facebook about a particular lecturer.
There were severe problems in the procedure used to discipline the students.
The Alta. Court of Appeal has just released a judgment confirming that the
disciplinary proceedings should be quashed on purely administrative law
principles.
However the main judgment by Paperny, J.A. has some resounding language about
the Charter. The other two judges and concurred in the result – but wrote that
it was not necessary to decide the Charter issues in this instance.
So – according to Justice Paperny, the Charter generally and “freedom of
expression” in particular applies on university campuses in Canada. This might
have become an issue if the current Access Copyright board case were to have
played out in the normal way at the Board. It would have been interesting to
see how AUCC ...
IIROC requests comments on marketplace threshold rules (canadiansecuritieslaw)
Thu, 17 May 2012 15:46:00 +0100
The **Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada** (IIROC) recently
proposed **a set of principles** intended to guide it as it considers formal
proposals to establish marketplace price and volume thresholds. Specifically,
two guiding principles are proposed, namely (i) that marketplace thresholds
should generally preclude the execution of orders that would otherwise require
regulatory intervention by IIROC due to the trigger of a single-stock circuit
breaker or the application of policies regarding the variation and
cancellation of trades; and (ii) that the application of marketplace
thresholds should have the least amount of impact on price discovery and
access to tradable liquidity.
The release considers existing mechanisms to control volatility and notes that
IIROC has issued guidance or request for comments with respect to **single-
stock circuit breakers**, **regulatory intervention for the cancellation or
variation of trades** and **market-wide circuit breakers**. IIROC notes,
however, that these mechanisms are based on price impact and are not directly
affected by the volume of an order. Ultimately, IIROC requests comments on all
aspects of controlling price volatility in the Canadian marketplace and
specifically on a number of questions, including: (i) whether marketplaces
should be required to adopt a form of marketplace thresholds; (ii) ...
Les prix du Barreau pour honorer les meilleurs éléments de la profession (marketwire)
Thu, 17 May 2012 23:42:00 +0100
**TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - 17 mai 2012) -** Le 23 mai 2012, le Barreau
du Haut-Canada présentera des prix à neuf membres de la profession juridique
de tout l'Ontario qui se sont distingués pendant leur carrière par un niveau
des plus élevé de réalisation et d'engagement à servir la société et la
profession.
Big Data and the inevitable clash with privacy (canton.elegal)
Wed, 16 May 2012 14:30:00 +0100
Today's Slaw post Big data is a hot trending tech issue. Wikipedia defines big
data as "a term applied to data sets whose size is beyond the ability of
commonly used software tools to capture, manage, and process the data within a
tolerable elapsed time. Big data sizes are a constantly moving target
currently ranging [...]
Charest’s Bill 78 Riot Guide (LawIsCool)
Fri, 18 May 2012 16:39:00 +0100
Cloud Computing and the Patriot Act: A Red Herring? (privacylawyer)
Fri, 11 May 2012 21:24:00 +0100
The 2012 International Association of Privacy Professionals Canada Symposium
has just wrapped up. I had the pleasure of giving a presentation on cloud
computing and the USA PATRIOT Act with Lindsey Finch, the Senior Global
Privacy Counsel with salesforce.com. Our presentation is here:
> Cloud Computing and the Patriot Act: A Red Herring?
>
> Cloud computing is revolutionizing the information technology industry by
providing cost savings, flexibility and innovation. But many Canadian
companies are concerned that use of cloud computing services may cause them to
violate Canadian privacy laws, particularly because of potential non-Canadian
government access to data stored in the cloud. Join our expert panel as they
address persistent Canadian myths regarding cloud computing and privacy,
discuss how cloud computing services can be used in compliance with Canadian
privacy laws and the real impact of the Patriot Act, and provide tips to use
during RFP cycles and contractual negotiations.
>
> Lindsey Finch, CIPP/US, Senior Global Privacy Counsel, salesforce.com David
T.S. Fraser, Partner, McInnes Cooper, Halifax
>
> What you’ll take away:
>
> * Learn how to manage privacy risk and legal compliance in cloud computing
decisions, including both public and private sector privacy laws
> ...
If you are a legal professional and would like to get yourself or your company listed with our directory, please go here for more information. Once you've read through the information on the info page, simply scroll down to the bottom and click the Sign up now link to get started.
