Canada: A gold digger without a leg to stand on

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2009-02-05 18:04

Article here. Excerpt:

'A Montreal woman is suing her former lover -- the father of her three children--for spousal support, even though the two of them were never legally married and Quebec law does not grant so-called "common law" spouses any entitlement to alimony or property equalization.

The man is reportedly a billionaire. The woman is seeking a $50-million lump sum, plus $56,000 monthly. She already receives $35,000 monthly in child support, plus the use of a $2.4-million house and several servants.

The rhetoric of the woman and her lawyers is astonishingly arrogant. They speak and act as if the man on other side of this case didn't even exist -- as if they were fighting a grievance against the federal and provincial governments, rather than against a sentient human being.
...
The woman's lawyers suggest that the court draw a new line: Couples who have co-habited for three years (or one year if they have children) would get the same rights as consensually married couples. But this wouldn't end discrimination. It would merely discriminate against a different group: namely, those who have cohabited only two years and 364 days (or 364 days with kids). Why should a single additional day of cohabitation confer such enormous financial consequences? When will this group bring its constitutional challenge?'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Spousal support for people who can't even manage to hold common-law "marriages" together has been law in Ontario since 1999. It applies after 3 years of cohabitation or immediately if there's a kid involved, whether that kid is the man's or not. Does anyone else wonder why men are running screaming from Ontario?

How is it that a man is deemed to be married because a woman chooses to have a child? That's even more primitive than requiring rape victims to marry their rapists per the old Mosaic laws, yet the Ontario government claims it won't allow religious law to influence "family" law. Mind you, that kind of double-think isn't really a surprise in that province.

I guess the poor golddigger will have to learn english and hop the border if she wants a free meal ticket for life. Poor dear. It's not as if she's an able-bodied adult who could just go GET A JOB or anything.

The law needs to stop seeing women as incompetent children who men are required to support (feminists actually resist such reforms). Feminists need to get their heads out of their asses and support attempts to abolish laws forcing men into fatherhood and wage slavery, all because those men made the mistake of being born with a penis and looking sideways at a woman. Are they so stupid that they can't see the conflict here? Do they not see that it's their own rhetoric and policy that forces society to see women as incompetent children?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by RandomMan on Thu, 2009-02-05 23:37

her excuse for remaining unemployed is that "she's spent all that time being by his side and caring for the kids, losing the opportunity to get started on college studies"

or something to that effect. considering all the free crap she already got from him, i think that line of reasoning is total bull.

i mean, a good percentage of college students have to study AND work at the same time. they're lucky to get free time.

someone in her position not being able to study sounds like a load of crap. i mean, she has that big-ass house and a whole bunch of nannies and servants to check the kids should she be gone.

plus, she gets more than enough cash to finance her studies with.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dudejo on Thu, 2009-02-05 23:45

she's spent all that time being by his side and caring for the kids, losing the opportunity to get started on college studies

Bullshit. We expect released male convicts to find profitable work after years and years removed from society. This woman had millions at her disposal, nannies and cooks and daycare workers doing all the "mothering". She needs to get off her fat ass and get a job. Now. Plenty of other adults manage to get college educations while raising kids, and plenty of other adults manage to have profitable careers without a college education.

Why does she deserve any different because she spread her legs for someone voluntarily? Are women really that incompetent?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by RandomMan on Thu, 2009-02-05 23:51

the inability to self support
and the judicial acknowlegement of same,
leads logically to one sad conclusion.

yes they are.

if they were as smart (on average)
as they claim, there would be no need for all these
constant handouts.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Fri, 2009-02-06 02:50