Closing arguments were heard Thursday in the case of a mother of three taking her former live-in boyfriend to court for a $50 million chunk of his fortune, plus $56,000 a month in alimony.
The large sums of money and the lifestyle of the wealthy former-pair made the case interesting for the public and the media, even though a publication ban meant the names of the couple could not be made public, or any details about their jet-set lifestyle that would reveal their identities.
The lawyer for the woman, Anne-France Goldwater, said the reason the woman was seeking such great sums of money was because it was important to maintain the lifestyle the children were accustomed to when their parents were together.
She said the law as it currently stands is discriminatory against the lower income earner, which is the woman in this case. She said the children would face a significant difference in the quality of life with Mom than with Dad.
The judge hearing the case chided Goldwater in court Thursday for her media visibility. Judge Carole Hall�e of Quebec Superior court said the lifestyles of the ex-couple had nothing to do with the case in question. Instead, she pointed to the case being a matter of the interpretation of the constitutional rights of the woman.
The province
The Quebec government's position on the case was that changes made to the civil code 15 years ago clearly state there is a distinction between married and unmarried couples. Lawyers for the province argued this was implemented because many Quebec couples clearly chose to live together without being married, and the difference needed to be recognized.
The federal case
The federal government said the issue had been resolved through a Supreme Court decision in December of 2002. In this case, a couple from Nova Scotia who had had children together were breaking up after living together for 10 years.
The woman was seeking legal recognition that unmarried spouses played the same role as a married spouse, and that the law that stated otherwise was a denial of her rights as a Canadian.
In the Nova Scotia case the court decided, in an 8-1 decision, that it was not a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to consider unmarried partners as different than married partners when it comes to dividing assets gained during their time together.
However the one dissenting judge in that case made the argument that a person who wants to get married is powerless to make it happen if the other person refuses. Judge Claire l'Heureux-Dube also noted that people do not arrange their lives according to the worst-case legal scenario, in this case a break-up, and often do not know their legal rights.
Similar argument
Goldwater noted many co-habiting couples in Quebec believe erroneously that they are automatically granted the same rights as a married couple after three years together. She said she thought if people realized this, the lawsuit would be moot.
