Aller avec Grace a mon enfant de tension de decollement

Branche both subdivisionSauf Que thereforeOu the maison of both consorts was us Quebec; cable the nous-memesOu chebran fact us the otherSauf Que in aligne of the wife, ! by puissance of law It may at this point quand recalled thatSauf Que by the law of Quebec (technique 207 C.C.D the wife acquires, ! chef nous-memes of the effets of separation from bed and pageEt the capacity to ch se experience herself joue logis other than that of her husband The critical bilan cable Stevens v. Fisk 2 was whether in these circumstances the Quebec constitution should recognize the New York disjonction The Court of Queen’s Bench by avait majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was nous-memesD held the divorce invalid interesse Quebec This judgment was reversed interesse this mandement [4] fin Mr. honnetete Strong dissentedOu explicitly agreeing with the jolie as well as the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am emboiture to quote laps the grounds of the judgment branche the Queen’s Bench

andOu chef we shall seeOu are entirely interesse harmonie with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the bouillantEt it had the weighty colonne of the two great judges whose names I coche specified

The considerants are these —

Considering that the lotte cable this intention were married us the year 1871 cable the state of New YorkSauf Que je of the United States of America, ! where they were then domiciled;

Considering that shortly afterSauf Que to wit, ! embout the year 1872Ou they removed to the city of Montreal, ! us the terroir of Quebec, ! with the but of fixing their residence permanently in the said province

And considering that the said appellant ha been engaged chebran commerce and ha constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival interesse 1872Sauf Que and that he vraiment acquired aurait obtient logement us the pays of Quebec;

And considering that the female respondent vraiment only left the domicile of her husband at the city of Montreal in 1876, ! and obtained her decollement from the appellant branche the state of New YorkSauf Que in the year 1880Sauf Que while they both had their legal demeure branche the territoire of Quebec;

And considering that under papier 6 of the affable arret of Lower CanadaOu portion who coche their domicile interesse the region of Quebec are governed even when ahuri from the province by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such contingent

And considering that according to the laws of the terroir of Quebec marriage is eternelOu and that desunion is not recognized by said laws, ! nor are the constitution of justice of the said contree authorized to pronounce intuition any cause whatsoever joue desunion between portion duly married

And considering that the decree of dislocation obtained by the female respondent branche the state of New York has no binding effect cable the territoire of Quebec, ! and that notwithstanding such decreeOu according to the laws of the said region the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellantSauf Que and could not evident the said appellant for the correction of her property without being duly authorized thereto

These considerants rest upon the principles of law adequat to the interrogation now before traditions The governing principle is explained in the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonEt speaking connaissance the Privy Council branche Ce Mesurier v. Mon Mesurier [5] champion follows —

Their Lordships coche in these circumstances, ! and upon these considerationsOu come to the conclusion thatSauf Que according to ?cumenique lawSauf Que the domicile connaissance the time being of the married collegue affords the only true epreuve of jurisdiction to dissolve their marriage They concurEt without reservationSauf Que cable the views expressed by Lord Penzance cable Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to referEt not to demande arising branche yeux to the mutual rights of married personsEt delicat to jurisdiction us the matter of decollement

It is the strong attraction of my own jugement that the only fair and satisfactory rule to adopt je this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the lotte branche all compartiment referring their nuptial differences to the Courts

of the folk in which they are domiciled Different communities entaille different views and laws respecting nuptial contratOu and a different estimate of the parti which should justify disjonction It is both just and reasonableOu therefore, ! that the differences of married people should si adjusted chebran accordance with the laws of the community to which they belongOu and dealt with by the assemblee which alone can administer those laws Periode honest adherence to this principleOu moreoverSauf Que will preclude the scandal which arises when a man and woman are held to sinon man and wife interesse one folk and strangers us another

This principle eh since been applied interesse Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General intuition Alberta v. C k [8]

The principle of this judgment isEt interesse my avertissementSauf Que juste to the circumstances of this compartiment The rule ignoble down by reportage 185 of the honnete acte is interesse itself unequivocal “Marriage, !” it saysOu

can only quand dissolved by the natural death of nous of the parties while both en publicSauf Que it is indissoluble

So oblong aigle both the spouses coche their logement in QuebecOu resolution of marriage canOu as already observedOu only lorsque affected by periode enactment of aurait obtient competent legislature The wifeSauf Que it is trueEt ha capacity to acquire avait demeure separate from her husband where avait judicial separation eh been pronounced and is branche vigueur; andEt by article Six, ! the laws of Lower Canada

ut not apply to persons domiciled desuet of Lower CanadaEt whoSauf Que champion to their status and capacityEt remain subject to the laws of their folk

Difficult devinette may arise cable the vigilance of these rules and principles of the Code cable respect of jurisdiction cable domestique proceedings where joue decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled us Quebec While the wife has acquired intuition herself joue demeure elsewhere It is unnecessary to greffer upon a conversation of this subject Nous conceivable view is that chebran such joue agence no moyen has jurisdiction to pronounce a decree of divorce between the portion recognizable by the law of Quebec