Common Sense for Common-Law (third and final!)

If the link does not direct you properly, please kindly advise.

 

Workshop no. 2, comments on Vanessa’s research

7. In what way is the conclusion satisfying? Explain in two complete sentences.

 

Vanessa’s conclusion summarizes very well her research. It incorporates the important elements of her research, and proposes some new ideas on the future of recycling in Quebec.

 

8. What questions do you have of the writer?

 

Is an information campaign would be enough to really convince people of the importance of recycling, along with informing them of the inability to recycle the plastic of the same color?

 

 

9. What do you want to know more about?

 

Vanessa’s paper is quite complete, although there is always room to learn something new. I am no expert in plastic recycling, and I learn a great deal from her paper.

 

10. What in your opinion is the most interesting aspect of the essay?

 

The most interesting about any paper is to learn new things, and about the matter of recycling plastic, Vanessa’s paper is really helpful. I did not know that plastic was lost when the colors are mixed. From now on, I will certainly pay attention to the new recycling procedures and try to respect them.

 

 

11. The least interesting?

 

From my personal perspective, I do not like when there are phrases in brackets. I prefer when information is integrated into the text, it is clearer and easier to read.

 

 

12. What is the most pertinent piece of advice that you have for the writer?

 

Vanessa, your research is very interesting and well written.

 

It might be interesting to quote another newspaper like Le Devoir or La Presse. These papers often provide a perspective very different from the Journal de Montréal or Le Journal de Quebec. They have a more intellectual point of view on hot topics.

 

 

Common sense for common-law (final draft, second stage)

In Quebec, a person who chooses to live in common-law is not protected.  If they have children and sacrifice their careers to stay at home to raise their children, they are still not protected. Many people mistakenly believe that unmarried couples with children have the same rights as married couples, after a certain number of years. This assumption is absolutely false. If a woman or a man decides to abandon their career to stay home and care for their children, they do so at their own risk. In matters of separation, the women and children in common-law arrangements should have the same rights concerning alimony and support as a legally married couple. In this essay, we will try to understand how unmarried couples can better protect themselves, in the light of a new ruling from the Quebec Court of Appeal.  The issue at hand can not only aid in the rights of common-law couples, but also better protect all citizens of Quebec regardless of the status of the family.

There are two types of unions in Quebec: married couples (including civil and religious marriages), and unmarried or common-law couples. Married couples live under the patrimonial law of the family. Family patrimony is the sharing of all property acquired during the duration of the time of marriage. Thus, a woman who stays at home to raise the couple’s children will not see a change in living standards upon divorce. She will be entitled to alimony for her children, as well as alimony for herself. She will also be entitled to half of everything: money in the bank, the value of the house or other properties acquired during marriage, and the savings (RRSP, retirement plans, etc.). In the case of an unmarried couple that has one or more children, the equal share of family patrimony does not apply. The woman will be given a pension for the children, based on the salary of the spouse, but nothing for herself. Even if she had contributed to the enrichment of the family while she raised the children, she must prove by official papers that she contributed financially to the acquisition of family assets. This lack of protection stems from the judicial system in Quebec, in particular, the civil code of Quebec.

The civil code came into effect on January 1^st, 1994. The Civil Code of Québec, as defined by the Québec Portal, under the Justice section:

The civil code of Québec is a general law that contains all of the basic provisions that govern life in society, namely the relationships among citizens and the relationships between people and property. It governs all civil rights, such as leasing items or property, sales contracts, etc. It also deals with family law, as in the case of matrimonial regimes.

The history of the civil law in Quebec started in 1763 in New France with the abolishment of the French system when the British took control of the territory. A few years later, in 1774, French civil law was restored in Quebec. By the Act of Quebec, the English parliament gave its power back to the province of Quebec in terms of civil law. Private and criminal law are still in the Federal jurisdiction, and only civil law is under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec. This demonstrates that the law is different here, and that for the spouse; it is Quebec that legislates, independently from the other Canadian provinces.  The other provinces within Canada recognize common-law as equal to that of legal marriage. Quebec does not recognize common-law unions. In the case of separation, you are not entitled to financial support from your spouse regardless of how many years you spend living together, and not considering whether or not you have children. The present law does not provide alimony for the spouse, despite the fact that he or she may have contributed to the enrichment of the couple.  The majority of the population believes that unmarried couples are protected in the same way as married couples. Often, this belief stems from the notion that once a couple has been living together for a certain number of years, or if they have children together, they are protected by the civil law of Quebec; again, this is false. As Quebec is still the weakest province in the country when it comes to legislature in this matter, it proves to be a tough battle for those trying to fight the system and get their voices heard.

For several years, Anne-France Goldwater, a family law lawyer, worked very hard for the recognition of de facto spouses. For over 10 years, Anne-France Goldwater has been defending the rights of spouses.  She has spent most of her time challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in the Civil Marriage Act, as well as many dispositions of the Civil Code of Quebec, which discriminates against de facto spouses. Currently, she is challenging the constitutionality of the guidelines on provincial child support in the province of Quebec. She, among others, requested that non-married couples be granted the same protection as married couples, especially in cases where one spouse has abandoned their career to care for the couple’s children. Currently, a parent who ends up with custody of children is entitled to alimony, but only for the children, not for them. It is not taken into consideration whether or not one of the parents worked at home for years. It is not taken into consideration that they may have lost years of work to stay home and raise children, nor is it considered that both members of the couple may have decided together that one of them should stay home for the well being of their children. The alimony is established according to one of the parents’ salary, but only for the children[1]. What can be insidious about this way of assigning alimony is that the parent with custody of the children may be left penniless, living under the poverty line for months, years, or possibly for life. The parental contribution covers the basic needs of children, but not those of the parent.   To understand what might happen in the case of an unmarried couple with children who decide to separate, here is an example:

Peter and Mary lived together for 10 years, and they had two children, 8 and 6 years of age. They both decided not to marry, for personal reasons. After the birth of their first child, Mary returned to work. She was a nurse and had five years of seniority at the hospital where she worked. She had just got a permanent position, with a rather stable schedule and a good salary. Then, at the birth of their second child, Paul, the situation became more complicated. Paul suffered from respiratory problems and heart disease. His condition required special care and many appointments with specialists. Mary returned to work anyway, but after six months she was exhausted physically and mentally, as someone must always be present to care for Paul. Peter and Mary decided together that Mary should stay home, in order to provide a better environment for the children. Since Peter earned much more than Mary (his income was close to 200 000 dollars a year), it was decided that Mary would stay home. Six years later, the couple decided to separate. Mary received custody of the children, and she was entitled to alimony of $ 14,390 per year, based on Peter’s salary. She would have returned to work, but Paul’s condition still required for the same care. In addition, she had lost her seniority at work, and if she returned, she should work the “on call” or night-shift, which was out of the question. In this case we see that Mary is in a precarious situation; she has no job, no money, and she had lost several years of work experience. It will take time to rebuild her life and regain her independence. It is obvious here that Peter should pay an amount of money to Mary, as they had made a choice several years ago, a choice that had serious consequences on Mary’s professional life. Most people would agree that Peter should assume his share of the responsibility. It seems unconstitutional for Mary and the children live under the poverty line while the father obviously has the means to help his family.  Real civil cases, such as this, have been presented to the courts in the past, only to be cast aside, as the law does not support common-law separation battles. Most of the time, the judge dismisses the case and thus little to no progress has been made in this matter, until recently. A new ruling of the Court of Appeal has held that: It is discriminatory that “Mary” is not protected simply because she and her partner did not choose to get married.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec has recently ruled on common law. The court finally made a formal statement, ruling that, by not protecting unmarried parents in case of separation is discriminatory. Indeed, after many years and many battles, the court has given ammunition to advocates of common law. The judge who was involved in the groundbreaking decision has given the matter the push it needs to hopefully get the government to reevaluate the law.  The government must address the issue of de facto spouses, and it can hardly ignore the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Let’s be clear: it is not about being entitled to half the family assets (house, savings, RRSP), but rather “to establish a system to meet the basic needs of survival,” argues Marie-France Bureau, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Sherbrooke. She adds, “If both spouses are self-sufficient and earn a good income, the law will not apply. Support should be provided only in cases of economic dependency. A mere difference of income is not a sufficient reason. It takes, on one hand, a financial dependence because of the union, and on the other, a capacity to pay.”  Of course, that implies that there will still be a choice for non-married couples. They will now have the freedom to forego marriage, should they choose to, and they won’t have to comply with a new law on de facto spouses. If both spouses agree to separate amicably, they may still do so.

 

 

The advantage of a law for non-married couples is to protect a spouse who is in a situation of dependency. If the law does not hold both parties responsible, who is? Who will support that person? The State? Us? Our taxes? There is nothing wrong with financially supporting the most vulnerable members of our society; it is the foundation of our democracy. The state should not take responsibility for a former spouse who has the means to care for his family. Having a sound law in place ensures us, as a society, that families will not fall below the poverty line. It guarantees us that children born out of wedlock do not have to bear the brunt of a separation that goes wrong. That, in itself, is a social responsibility and we have, as a civilization, a duty to protect all of our citizens, especially children. The judge, who has just declared that it is discriminatory not to protect the spouses, has not changed the law. He acted as a philosopher, and ruled on a situation that has persisted for too long in Quebec. Think about it: in Québec, 60% of children are born outside of wedlock. It is high time the government put in place laws that protect these children. Now that the court ruled, the government has what it takes to review the law in Quebec, and make the necessary changes. Ultimately, all citizens will benefit from an amendment to the Civil Code, since it will better protect each individual within our society. And as everyone knows, a well-protected society is a stronger society.

 

Word count: 1996

 

 

Research Paper (first draft)

In Quebec, a person who chooses to live in common law, to have children within that relationship, and stay at home to raise children, is not protected. Many people mistakenly believe that unmarried couples with children have the same rights as married couples, after a certain number of years. This assumption is absolutely false, and if a woman or a man decides to abandon their career to stay home and care for the children, do so at their own peril. In this essay, we will try to understand how, in light of a new ruling from the court of Appeal of Quebec, unmarried couples could take advantage of a new law that will protect them better, while leaving them free not to consider it. For the sole purpose to better protect all citizens of Quebec, men, women and children, as yet, the facto spouses are not protected by the civil code.

 

There are two forms of unions in Quebec: married couples (including civil and religious marriages), and unmarried couples. Married couples live under the family patrimony law. Family patrimony is in the sharing of all property acquired during the time the marriage lasts. Thus, a woman who stayed at home raising the couple’s children will not see their living standards change upon divorce. She will be entitled to alimony for her children, and alimony for her. She will also be entitled to half of everything: money in the bank, the value of the house or other properties acquired during marriage, and the savings (RRSP, retirement plans, etc.). In the case of an unmarried couple that has one child or more, the equal share of family patrimony does not apply. The woman will be given a pension for the children, based on the salary of the spouse, but nothing for herself. Even if had contributed to the enrichment of the family while she raised the children, she must prove by official papers that she contributed financially to the acquisition of family assets.

 

The reason that law does not protect unmarried couples is the judicial system in place in Quebec. This system is called the Civil Code of Québec, and here is its definition, as you can find it on the Québec Portal, under Justice section:

The Civil Code of Québec is a general law that contains all of the basic provisions that govern life in society, namely the relationships among citizens and the relationships between people and property. It governs all civil rights, such as leasing items or property, sales contracts, etc. It also deals with family law, as in the case of matrimonial regimes.

 

 

 

But from where comes the civil law in Quebec? A little history: the French system was abolished in 1763 in New France, when the British took control of the territory. A few tears later, in 1774, the french civil law was restored in Quebec. By the Act of Quebec, the English parliament gives its power back to the province of Quebec in terms of civil law. Private law and criminal law are still in place across Canada and in Quebec as well, and only the civil law is under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec. This explains that the law is different here, and that for the spouse; it is Quebec that legislates, independently from the other Canadian provinces.

 

The law (or non-law) from the civil law is therefore different from that of other provinces. Quebec does not recognize common-law unions. No matter how many years you spend living under the same roof as your spouse, and regardless of whether you have children or not; in case of separation, you are not entitled to financial support from your spouse. The law does not provide alimony for the spouse, regardless of whether or not he or she had contributed to the enrichment of the couple.

 

Unfortunately, most people have always believed that unmarried couples are protected in the same way as married couples. There are those who believe that a couple living together is protected after a year of living together. Others believe that after three years or seven years together. This is absolutely false. There are too a lot of people who believe that once a couple has children, the same laws as married parents protect them. That is also false.

For several years, some people, such as Anne-France Goldwater, have work very hard for the recognition of de facto spouses. Anne-France Goldwater is a family law lawyer, here in Montreal. She is been defending the rights of spouses for over 10 years, and she is been challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in the Civil Marriage Act, as well as many dispositions of the Civil Code of Quebec, which is discriminating against de facto spouses. Currently, she also challenges the constitutionality of the guidelines on provincial child support in the province of Quebec. She, among others, requested that non married couples would be granted the same protection as married couples, especially in cases where one spouse has abandoned her career to care for the couple’s children. Currently, a woman who ends up with custody of children is entitled to alimony, but only for her children, not for her. It will not be took into consideration that this woman worked at home for years; it will not be took into consideration that she lost years of work to stay home and raise children; It will not be took into consideration that the two members of the couple have decided together that one of them should stay home for the well being of children. The alimony will be established according to the father’s salary, and for the children only[1]. What can be insidious in this way to assign alimony is that the woman can be left penniless, living under the poverty line for a few months, a few years, or for life. The parental contribution covers the basic needs of children, but not those of the mother. And who, then, must support this woman? The State. Us. Our taxes. There is nothing wrong with supporting financially the most vulnerable of our society; it is the foundation of our democracy. But the state should not take responsibility for a former spouse who has the means to care for his family.

 

But the Court of Appeal of Quebec has now ruled on common law. The court ruled that not protecting unmarried parents in case of separation is discriminatory. Indeed, after many years and many battles, the court has given ammunition to advocates of common law. The government must address the issue of de facto spouses, and it can hardly ignore the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Let’s be clear: it is not about being entitled to half the family assets (house, savings, RRSP), but rather “to establish a system to meet the basic needs of survival,” argues Marie-France Bureau, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Sherbrooke. She adds: “If both spouses are self-sufficient and earn a good income, the law will not apply. Support should be provided only in cases of economic dependency. A mere difference of income is not a sufficient reason. It takes, on one hand, a financial dependence because of the union, and on the other, a capacity to pay.”  Of course, that implies that there will still be a choice for non-married couples. It gives them the freedom not to marry if they do not want to, and they won’t have to comply with a new law on the facto spouses. If both spouses agree to separate amicably, they may still do so.

 

To understand what might happen in the case of an unmarried couple with children decides to separate, here is an example. Peter and Mary lived together for 10 years, and they have two children 8 and 6 years of age. They have both decided not to marry, for personal reasons. After the birth of first child, Mary returned to work. She was a nurse and had five years’ seniority at the hospital where she worked. She had just got permanent, with a rather stable schedule and a good salary. Then, at the birth of second child, Paul, the situation became more complicated. The second son of Peter and Mary suffers from respiratory problems and heart disease. His condition requires special care, and many appointments with specialists. Marie returns to work anyway, but after six months she can’t do it anymore, little Paul needs continuous presence and care. Peter and Marie decide that Marie should stay home, in order to provide a better environment for the children. Peter earns much more than Marie anyway, his income come close to 200 000 dollars a year. So Marie became a full time mother. But after almost six years,

the couple decide to separate. Mary has custody of the children and an alimony of $ 14,390 per year, based on Peter’s salary. She would return to work, but Paul still asks the same care. In addition, she had lost her seniority at work, and if she returned, she should work on call or night, which is unthinkable. In this case we see that Mary is in a precarious situation; she has no job, no money, and she had lost several years of experience. It will take time to rebuild her life and regain her independence. It is obvious here that Peter should pay an amount of money to Mary, as they have make a choice of life several years ago, a choice that has serious consequences on Mary’s professional life. Peter must assume his share of responsibility. Why Mary (and the children) should live under the poverty line while the father, obviously, has the means to help his family? That is what the new ruling of the Court of Appeal has held: It is discriminatory that Mary is not protected simply because she is not married.

 

The advantage of a law for non-married couples is to protect a spouse who would have been in a situation of dependency. This ensures, as a society, not to impoverish families. It provides children born out of wedlock do not have to bear the brunt of a separation that goes wrong. That, in itself, is a social responsibility, and we have, as a society, a duty to protect all of our citizens, especially children.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] It is possible to view the table to determine the basic parental contribution – 2009 by following that link: http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/table09-a.htm

Proposal-Outline-Annoted Bibliography (final draft)

Proposal

Sarah-Danielle Gagnon-Leduc

Student no. 9533427

Concordia University

Professor Jeanette Novakovich

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Library Building

University Concordia, Montreal, Quebec

 

Subject: Permission to do a research paper on de facto unions in the province of Quebec.

Dear Professor Novakovich,

In Quebec, a person who chooses to live in common law, to have children within that relationship, and stay at home to raise children, is not protected. Many people mistakenly believe that unmarried couples with children have the same rights as married couples, after a certain number of years. This assumption is absolutely false, and if a woman or a man decides to abandon their career to stay home and care for the children, do so at their own peril. I was myself a victim of that false assumption, and I would like to let other women know how to protect themselves in case of a separation. It happens to me a few years ago, and I was astonished to find out that I was entitle to nothing at all, even though I had just spent three years at home with my son. I would like to analyze how recent developments may change the lives of over a million people in Quebec, as the situation for common law spouses may evolve very quickly. Indeed, the Court of Appeals of Quebec has now ruled on the importance of recognizing de facto unions in Quebec. The Court finds that the current law is discriminatory. Therefore, the government will have to established if, whether or not, in case of separation, the two members of the union should be protected in the same way as married couples. I am kindly asking you to let me continue my research on the de facto unions in Quebec, in order to present an academic work that will takes into account the criteria established in the course ENG 213.

Sincerely,

Sarah-Danielle Gagnon-Leduc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outline

1. Two types of unions exist in Quebec

 

a) Married couples

b) Unmarried couples

 

Married couples enjoy more privileges in the event of separation. The spouses have financial obligations towards each other, and what constitutes the family patrimony will be divided between both spouses.

 

Unmarried couples have no financial obligation towards each other. Alimony will be paid only if one or more children were born within this union, according to the salary of the person who earns the most (usually the man).

 

2. Why spouses are not protected in the province of Quebec

 

a) Civil law takes its roots in French (from France) civil law, it is different from the civil law in the rest of Canada.

b) Brief explanation of Quebec civil law: different from other provinces.

 

3. A few misconceptions about spouses’ privilege

 

3.1) In Quebec, most people are convinced that de facto spouses are                                              automatically protected in the event of separation

a) After a certain number of years,

b) If children were born from within the union.

 

 

4. What is requested from our government

 

4.1) We must protect the spouses when children are involved

 

a) The state (i.e. the taxpayers) should not shoulder the burden of                                                   impoverished spouse upon separation,

b) The obligation and responsibility belongs to the other spouse.

 

 

5. A new ruling: the Court of Appeal of Quebec is challenging the government

5.1) The Court of Appeal consider that not protecting de facto spouses is                                 discriminatory

a) What is the new ruling?

5.2) What the courts thought (before)

 

a) Give the choices for couples:

1) Remain open if desired,

2) Do not marry if desired.

5.3) Some figures to illustrate the situation in Quebec:

 

a) Number of marriages V common-law unions,

b) Number of children born out of wedlock V number of children born in                         common-law unions

 

 

5.3) What the courts think (today)

 

a) What the new law can change

 

6. What the government can do with this decision

 

a) It may ignore the trial (unlikely),

b) It may amend the law to reflect the decision (very likely).

 

 

7. Reading of the situation

 

7.1) Some examples to clarify the situation:

 

a) A good example: the case of Susan,

b) A bad example: the famous case of Lola.

 

8. Conclusion

8.1) Is protecting families and children can be a social choice?

 

a) What could happen?

b) What are government’s bonds?

 

 

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

 

Schirm, Sylvie. Être conjoints de faits, Pour une vie à deux sans soucis: Québec, Éditions Québec Amérique, 2009.

 

Ms. Schirm is a lawyer in family law. In this book, she explains the law concerning de facto spouses. It explains how to create a contract of life together; a two-life contract helps us define our obligations to our spouse and our children. It makes us realizes that the contract of life together is essential for couples, since no law does protect spouses, they have children or not. This book also contains several examples of couples that found themselves in court after a separation. Those examples demonstrate the potential impact of common life if the couple did not sign  a contract, and at the same time demonstrates the importance of establishing a law  that would recognize the de facto spouse.

 

Jarry, Jocelyne. Les conjoints de fait au Québec: vers un encadrement légal. Cowansville, Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc., 2008.

 

Ms. Jarry is also a lawyer in family law. In this book, we learn that Quebec is the only Canadian province that does not provide a legal framework to unmarried couples. The author therefore proposes to establish a legal framework. The reflections of the author are the same that led to the decision of the Court of Appeals on the 2 November 2010; couples should be protected in case of separation, and the law should provide a support alimony among members of unmarried couples who has children.

 

Ambert, Anne-Marie. Union libre et mariage [electronic resource]: y a-t-il des similitudes? Ottawa : Institut Vanier de la famille, 2005.

 

This book discusses of the advantages and disadvantages of living in cohabitation, and the advantages and disadvantages of marrying. It compares marriage and common-law and check if whether or not, the two are equivalents.

 

 

D.-Castelli, Mireille. Précis du droit de la famille. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2000. 401-416.

 

A chapter of this book is dedicated to the almost ignorance of spouse’s privileges in the eyes of the law.

 

CanLII, Institut canadien d’information juridique. Québec-Cour d’appel. 1998. Web. 1^st Nov. 2010.

 

This site contains all the laws of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It proves that no laws protect de facto spouses. One can also see the judgments that have been made in various courts, and confirm that the spouses are not protected in the event of separation.

 

Justice Québec: Les conjoints de fait. Gouvernement du Québec, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 1^st Nov. 2010.

 

This site is specific to the Quebec legislation. It clearly explained what are the legal obligations of people living in common-law.

 

 

Two interviews with Anne-France Goldwater, granted to the radio of Radio-Canada:

 

Goldwater, Anne-France. Interview by Raymond St-Pierre. C’est bien meilleur le matin, Radio-Canada, 2010. Radio. 2 Nov. 2010.

Goldwater, Anne-France. Interview by Michel Desautels. Société, Radio-Canada, 2010. Web. 1st Nov. 2010.

 

Anne-France Goldwate a family law lawyer, here in Montreal. And she is known for her involvement in defending the rights of spouses; for over 10 years, she is been challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in the Civil Marriage Act, as well as many provisions (dispositions?) of the Civil Code of Quebec, which is discriminating against de facto spouses. Currently, she also challenges the constitutionality of the guidelines on provincial child support in the province of Quebec. In those two interviews, she gives a commentary on the decision of the Court of Appeal, which has just declared that the law on for de facto spouses is discriminatory. She also explains how this decision could change the current provisions of the future common law.

 

Leckey, Robert. “Opinion.” La Presse 4 November 2010. Print.

 

Robert Leckey teaches family law at McGill University. In this article, he gives his opinion on the recent court decision from the court of appeal on spouses. He explains how this decision might, in the future, better reflect the new reality of Quebec families.

Boisvert, Yves. “ Quand la cour marie un million de gens.”  La Presse 4 November 2010. Print.

 

Boisvert is a columnist in judicial and political affairs for the newspaper La Presse. This article brings the downside on the recent decision by the court of appeal.

 

 

 

draft workshop for Vanessa

Writing a Proposal

Describe the introduction. How does it engage or fail to engage the reader?

• Because she is explaining very well what she intends to do, Vanessa caught my attention. The issue of recycling can be quite redundant, but it seems to me that her approach on the matter is going to be interesting.

 

Explain the writer’s credentials or why is he or she interested in writing about the topic?

• The author, who is a young woman of 20 years, is concerned about the future of the environment. I think that the mere fact of being concerned about the environment is sufficient to focus on it.

Describe the research gathered to incorporate into the argument. Is it sufficient? Credible? Do you have any suggestions for the writer?

• It is sufficient and credible. Research so far seems serious and sensible. The author wants to use her sources as well as her personal knowledge to produce her research paper. She should avoid falling into the trap of claims ; a matter that affects the environment and recycling could lead to a track that has already been covered.

What is the value of the project? What does it mean to you the reader? When you first began to read the proposal did you have other expectations?

• The project could be very valuable if the author focusses on the victories rather than defeats. Indeed, when it comes to the environment, newspapers are more willing to report bad business moves. Little is said about companies that have good recycling programs, and it’ll be refreshing to hear about their successes.

 

Writing an Outline

Write the thesis statement:

• “Due to a recent recycling scandal in Montreal, it is important that the public get educated about the recycling processes, along with more educational programs provided by the government in order to further the recycling industry in Canada. »

 

How would you revise it for strength and clarity? What is unnecessary? What is missing? Is it a valuable argument? Write complete sentences for each of the above questions.

• It is very clear and the strength is just enough.
• I think it is not necessary to include the government in the matter.
• I don’t think that anything is missing, although I would like to know what public she is talking about.
• The argument is more than valuable, since it is true that Montreal experienced a few scandals on the recycling. As I said earlier, it would be nice to have a positive point of view though.

 

 

Does the outline employ strong topic sentences? Do they sound valuable you?

• I think that the sentences lead to a very valuable point of view. but I would put emphasis on certain phrases and I’ll try to make it more catchy

 

Does the author provide clear and valuable evidence?

• It is clear that the author will make use of examples and that she intends to support its evidence with serious and relevant issues.

 

Writing an Annotated Bibliography

Is the annotated bibliography complete? How would you describe the sources in your mind?  Is the author’s assessment accurate?

• I think she could put even more sources. The sources she cites, however, seem very relevant. She could give one or two sources more powerful sentences.
  • Describe the quality of the source?
  • What is in it (content, scope)?
  • How is the information relevant and useful for my topic?

 

 

 

Did the author use a broad range of sources for this assignment? Going on location, taking photographs and interviewing people will add to the complexity of your writing. In addition, take careful notes during our library lecture. Not all sources should be web-based.

 

 

 

 

Do you have any helpful suggestions for the author?

 

• The author could add a few written sources. It’s missing maybe two or three, if you follow the instructions.

 

 

 

 

What are the kinds of sources employed by the writer?  The majority of sources should NOT be web material. They should be journal articles, newspaper articles (contemporary to the action in the piece when possible), books. Interviews with experts are great.

 

• See the advice given above!

Proposal-Outline-Annoted Bibliography (first Draft)

 

Proposal

 

Sarah-Danielle Gagnon-Leduc

Student no. 9533427

Concordia University

 

 

Professor Jeanette Novakovich

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Library Building

University Concordia, Montreal, Quebec

 

Subject: Permission to do a research paper on de facto unions in the province of Quebec.

 

Dear Professor Novakovich,

 

In Quebec, women who chose to live common law, to have children without being married, and stay at home instead of work are not protected. Many people mistakenly believe that unmarried couples with children have the same rights as married couples, after a certain number of years. This assumption is absolutely false, and if a woman or a man decides to abandon their career to stay home and care for children, they do so at their own peril. No law protects that person, no matter how many years he or she has invested in the education of his or her children, to the detriment of his or her career. But the situation for common law spouses may evolve very quickly. Indeed, the Court of Appeals of Quebec has now ruled on the importance of recognizing de facto unions in Quebec. The Court finds that the current law is discriminatory. Therefore, the government will have to established if, whether or not, in case of separation, the two members of the union should be protected in the same way as married couples. I am kindly asking you to let me continue my research on the de facto unions in Quebec, in order to present academic work that will takes into account the criteria established in the course ENG 213.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Sarah-Danielle Gagnon-Leduc

 

 

 

Outline

1. Two types of unions exist in Quebec

 

a) Married couples

b) Unmarried couples

 

Married couples enjoy more privileges in the event of separation. The spouses have financial obligations towards each other, and what constitutes the family patrimony will be divided between both spouses.

 

Unmarried couples have no financial obligation towards each other. Alimony will be paid only if one or more children were born within this union, according to the salary of the person who earns the most (usually the man).

 

2. Why spouses are not protected in the province of Quebec

 

a) Civil law takes its roots in French (from France) civil law, it is different from the civil law in the rest of Canada.

b) Brief explanation of Quebec civil law: different from other provinces.

 

3. Misconceptions about spouses’ privilege

 

3.1) In Quebec, most people are convinced that de facto spouses are                                              automatically protected in the event of separation

a) After a certain number of years,

b) If children were born from within the union.

 

 

4. What is requested?

 

4.1) We must protect the spouses when children are involved

 

a) The state (i.e. the taxpayers) should not shoulder the burden of                                                   impoverished spouse upon separation,

b) The obligation and responsibility belongs to the other spouse.

 

 

5. A new ruling: the Court of Appeal of Quebec is challenging the government

5.1) The Court of Appeal consider that not protecting de facto spouses is                                 discriminatory

a) What is the new ruling?

5.2) What the courts thought (before)

 

a) Give the choices for couples:

1) Remain open if desired,

2) Do not marry if desired.

5.3) Some figures to illustrate the situation in Quebec:

 

a) Number of marriages V common-law unions,

b) Number of children born out of wedlock V number of children born in                         common-law unions

 

 

5.3) What the courts think (today)

 

a) What the new law can change

 

6. What the government can do with this decision

 

a) It may ignore the trial (unlikely),

b) It may amend the law to reflect the decision (very likely).

 

 

7. Reading of the situation

 

7.1) Some examples to clarify the situation:

 

a) A good example: the case of Susan,

b) A bad example: the famous case of Lola.

 

8. Conclusion

8.1) Protect families and children, a social choice?

 

a) What could happen?

b) What are government’s bonds?

 

Annotated Bibliography

 

Schirm, Sylvie. Être conjoints de faits, pour une vie à deux sans soucis: Québec, Éditions Québec Amérique, 2009. Ms. Schirm is a lawyer in family law. In this book, she explains the law concerning de facto spouses. It explains how to create a contract of life together; a two-life contract helps us define our obligations to our spouse and our children. It makes us realizes that the contract of life together is essential for couples, since no law does protect spouses, they have children or not. This book also contains several examples of couples that found themselves in court after a separation. Those examples demonstrate the potential impact of common life if the couple did not sign  a contract, and at the same time demonstrates the importance of establishing a law  that would recognize the de facto spouse.

 

Jarry, Jocelyne. Les conjoints de fait au Québec: vers un encadrement légal. Cowansville, Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc., 2008. Ms. Jarry is also a lawyer in family law. In this book, we learn that Quebec is the only Canadian province that does not provide a legal framework to unmarried couples. The author therefore proposes to establish a legal framework. The reflections of the author are the same that led to the decision of the Court of Appeals on the 2 November 2010; couples should be protected in case of separation, and the law should provide a support alimony among members of unmarried couples who has children.

 

Ambert, Anne-Marie. Union libre et mariage [electronic resource]: y a-t-il des similitudes? Ottawa : Institut Vanier de la famille, 2005.  This book discusses of the advantages and disadvantages of living in cohabitation, and the advantages and disadvantages of marrying. It compares marriage and common-law and check if whether or not, the two are equivalents.

 

 

D.-Castelli, Mireille. Précis du droit de la famille. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2000. 401-416. A chapter of this book is dedicated to the almost ignorance of spouse’s privileges in the eyes of the law.

 

CanLII, Institut canadien d’information juridique [electronic resource]. This site contains all the laws of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It proves that no laws protect de facto couples. One can also see the judgments that have been made in various courts, and confirm that the spouses are not protected in the event of separation.

 

Justice Québec: Les conjonts de fait. [electronic resource]. Gouvernement du Québec, Publications générales. This site is specific to the Quebec legislation. It clearly explained what the legal obligations of people living in common-law are.

 

 

 

 

 

Two interviews with Anne-France Goldwater, granted to the radio of Radio-Canada :

 

• Goldwater, Anne-France. Interviewed by Raymond St-Pierre. Interview. C’est bien meilleur le matin, broadcast et the radio of Radio-Canada, 2010. Radio. 2 Nov. 2010.

 

 

• Goldwater, Anne-France. Interviewed by Michel Desautels. Interview. Société, Radio of Radio-Canada, 2010. Web. 1st Nov. 2010. Anne-France Goldwater is a family law lawyer, here in Montreal.

 

Anne-France Goldwater is known for her involvement in defending the rights of spouses; For over 10 years, she is been challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in the Civil Marriage Act, as well as many provisions (dispositions?) of the Civil Code of Quebec who are discriminated against de facto spouses. Currently, she also challenges the constitutionality of the guidelines on provincial child support in the province of Quebec. In those two interviews, she gives a commentary on the decision of the Court of Appeal, which has just declared that the law on common law is discriminatory. She also explains how this decision could change the current provisions of the future common law.

 

Leckey, Robert. “Opinion.” Cyberpresse 4 November 2010. Web.

Robert Leckey teaches family law at McGill University. In this article, he gives his opinion on the recent court decision from the court of appeal on spouses. He explains how this decision might, in the future, better reflect the new reality of Quebec families.

 

Boisvert, Yves. “ Quand la cour marie un million de gens.”  La Presse 4 November 2010. Print.

Boisvert is a columnist in judicial and political affairs for the newspaper La Presse. This article brings the downside on the recent decision by the court of appeal.

a thesis statement that is more of a proposal

The situation on the common law may evolve very quickly. Indeed, the Court of Appeals of Quebec has now ruled on the importance of recognizing de facto unions in Quebec. The Court finds that the current law is discriminatory. Therefore, the government will have to established if, whether or not, in case of separation, the two members of the union should be protected in the same way as two persons who were married.

That will considerably change the voice of my research. I will still count on my bibliography, since I have to established the situation in Québec right now, in order to analyses what could happened in the future. But I will have to add my own voice to the paper, and take in consideration all the information that comes everyday from the news.

 

1.Women have to marry and they should not have children outside the bonds of marriage. They would then be protected and their children too.

2. If a woman decided to stay home to raise her children,  it is her choice. Spouses should not have to pay for the mistakes of its ex in case of separation.

3. Since there are so many couples who choose not to marry, here in Quebec, it would be important for the future of our families to have laws that protect men, women and children in case of separation.

…because a strong society must ensure that all people who belong to this society are protected.

freewrittin…

In Quebec, the facto spouses are popular. Over 60% of couples have decided to live in common law, even when they start a family, while a low 30% decided to pool their life by the sacred bonds of marriage. A law called the law on family property, protect the couples and children born of this union, and ensures that no individual will be bullied in divorce. But for unmarried couples, it is quite another story.