Canada's Top Court Upholds Pre-Nups

	posted by Adam on 08:11 AM March 27th, 2004
	MAUS writes "Today the Supreme Court of Canada overturned decisions of two lower courts which cut a man's assets in two in spite of pre-nuptual agreement. The top court has ruled that pre-nuptuals and separation agreements, especially when both parties had fair access to legal council WILL NOT be subject to review or revision by any court in Canada because one party may deem them unfair after the fact. For unscrupulous lawyers in Canada who have profitted by the culture of mysandry, becomming a millionaire through screwing men in divorce court has just become harder. Prehaps the thought police commisioned by SOW to monitor mens activism sites on the internet are starting to get the message article"

<  Advocates fear due process | Suing the False Accuser  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:2) by Luek on 10:08 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#1) (User #358 Info) The top court has ruled that pre-nuptuals and separation agreements, especially when both parties had fair access to legal council WILL NOT be subject to review or revision by any court in Canada because one party may deem them unfair after the fact. Could this be true? Canada, the land of institutionalized misandry actually ruled in a man's favor? It sounds that the femitwits and their political sycophant stooges got knocked down on their collective butts on this ruling. Now if there were just someway to kick them while they are down!

Re:Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:1) by Cain on 10:17 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#2) (User #1580 Info) Unfortunately they have still left a loophole,if the original agreement can be shown as inherently "unfair" or "coerced" then it will be treated as though no agreement ever existed.   "All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie

Re:Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:1) by A.J. on 09:44 AM March 31st, 2004 EST (#3) (User #134 Info) if the original agreement can be shown as inherently "unfair" or "coerced" then it will be treated as though no agreement ever existed. Does this loophole also exist for the marriage agreement itself?

Re:Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:1) by Cain on 02:37 PM March 31st, 2004 EST (#4) (User #1580 Info) Yes,as in "I couldn't help it your honour i was mesmerised by her clevage!!" "All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie

Re:Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:1) by MAUS on 05:53 PM March 31st, 2004 EST (#5) (User #1582 Info) The ruling overturned two lower court rulings on a pre-nup and by the language of the ruling I don't think we need be that cynical. If the original agreement seemed fair at the time and there is no compelling evidence that it was obtained by force or deceit (which is the same for all contract law in Canada) then questioning it's fairness after the fact will not be entertained by the court. I am starting to see a break in the clouds. Enough people have howled about this to have made an impression and the courts are getting the backwash of all the things that fall out from what were fundamentally bad laws.The people on the bench have families too.

Re:Is Canada Emerging From The Dark Ages? (Score:1) by Cain on 08:50 PM March 31st, 2004 EST (#6) (User #1580 Info) One of the many problems we still have is a court system thats willing to base many of its decisions not on evidence but on the testimony of female "victims".There is no reason to assume that posture wont be used here as well to claim coersion.Even though this is definately a step in the right direction the victim posture and the courts willingness to accept it is still a problem.But you are right the sun is definately starting to peak through. "All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie

[an error occurred while processing this directive]