Spousal Support Case
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Moge v. Moge (1992) sets an important and positive precedent for future spousal support cases; however, critics have asserted that the decision serves to undermine the principal of equality between men an women. If the sexes are truly to be considered equal in terms of social equality, should spousal support be deemed more of a necessity for women than men? Does not perpetuation of a different standard of need perpetuate social inequalities between men and women, however good the intention behind such a propagation? Moge v. Moge (1992) illustrates that women, at least "traditional" women, have an unfair advantage over men in spousal support cases. As "traditional" wives give way to "working mothers" in dual-income families, the decision in Moge v. Moge (1992) will become outdated, and thus irrelevant. As Boyd (1994) writes, "supporters have applauded Moge v. Moge for providing a realistic assessment of the consequences of divorce for many, if not most, Canadian women" (p. 235). Boyd (1994) regards the decision as indicative of the following: (1) self-sufficiency is only one variable to be considered in awards of spousal support, and (2) the importance of self-sufficiency may be eclipsed by the other considerations set out in section 17(7) (p. 236). Section 17(7) of the Divorce Act is concerned with the degree to which a party is economically disadvantaged as a result of the marriage breakup. Did the marriage breakdown, in fact, lead to economic hardship for one of
. . .
464).
References
Boyd, N. (1994). Canadian Law: An Introduction. Toronto: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
McLeod, J. G. (1992). Case comment: Moge v. Moge. pp. 455- 464. Rpt. in An Introduction to Canadian Law and Legal Institutions. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University, 1994. Reading 7.4.
The decisions handed down in three criminal cases yield the following generalizations about the principles involved in sentencing those convicted of criminal offences: (1) all law is prone to subjective interpretation, no matter how finely written; (2) judicial decisions must be viewed within their historical and sociological contexts; and (3) retributive justice may, and should weigh, more heavily than strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the law.
The three cases to be evaluated are appeals based upon their appellants' perceptions that judges had acted improperly in the handling of their cases. The criminal offences and their appellants are the following: sexual assault (Sarson), second degree murder (Korzepa), and robbery and aggravated assault (Crabe).
The case of R. v. Sarson was an appeal by the accused from his conviction and sentence on a charge of sexual assault and by the Crown from the sentence imposed.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Moge Moge, Rosalie Abella, Judge Anderson, Robert James, Lee Fidler, Divorce Act, Justice Craig, Fraser University, Specifically Korzepa, Judge Anderson's, boyd 1994, moge moge, moge moge 1992, moge 1992, canadian law, judge anderson, causal connection, decision moge, sarson 1992, crabe 1993, spousal support, decision moge moge, introduction canadian law, canadian law legal, law legal institutions,
Approximate Word count = 3396
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Spousal Support Case
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
