Since the beginning of marriage, there has been adultery. Statistics show first marriages have a 50% chance of ending in divorce and the possibility grows larger with each successive marriage. Divorces in Canada peaked in 1987 following the introduction of the Canadian Divorce Act, which shortened the length of separation required before divorce to a year and allows an immediate divorce when adultery or cruelty are admitted to or proven. Infidelity has ruined its fair share of marriages, yet the 21^st century has brought new forms of adultery into the spotlight.

null

As times change, so must the law. Same-sex marriages are on the rise and this will inevitably lead to more and more same-sex affairs. With progressive provinces like British Colombia and Ontario taking the lead on issues like child maintenance and spousal maintenance during same-sex divorces, it is only a matter of time before these rights are ubiquitous.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of British Colombia amended their definition of adultery to include same-sex adultery. This was in response to a wife’s request for immediate divorce from her husband who had cheated on her with another man. Up until then, immediate divorce for adultery would only be granted if one of the spouses admitted to having “voluntary sex with someone of the opposite gender, to whom he or she is not married.” Although the federal definition of adultery is unchanged, this decision most likely influenced the courts of New Brunswick.

In 2006, a New Brunswick court heard a similar case. Courts initially refused Pascal Thebeau’s divorce because the federal definition of adultery was limited to heterosexual affairs. After Thebeau challenged their ruling, the New Brunswick court chose to expand the definition to include same-sex affairs as adultery and granted his request for a divorce.

This appears to be the way courts are leaning. Although there have not been landmark cases in each and every province, the cases on the books show a tendency towards granting divorce, albeit after challenge, due to same-sex adultery. The official definition of what constitutes adultery has yet to be changed and there is a chance a judge may take it upon his or herself to refuse a divorce, because the “adulterer” cheated with someone of the same sex, but that seems less than likely at this point. What is odd to me is that gay marriage was legalized in part back in 2003 and it took three years for the issue of same-sex adultery to arise- originating from a conventional marriage no less. Perhaps when 2010 brings around the dreaded “seven-year itch” there will be further precedent set on a nationwide basis.

Find a Family Lawyer, Lawyers and Attorneys at Lawyer ahead.ca.  Its quick, effective and is the best free way to find a lawyer.

Marriage as such is a very important institution in the human society. Two individuals decide to spend their entire lives together in each other’s company and they formalize the union. But somehow due to some circumstances many marriages do not proceed the way they were intended to. Divorce has become a common phenomenon these days. The reason for a divorce could be any.

In Canada the divorce law is a federal legislation and is on the grounds of separation that is living apart and separate for a year, adultery, and cruelty. Majority of the time it’s the case of living separately for a year that is held as the ground of divorce in Canada. There could be other reasons too. Sometimes going to the court could be perceived as complex and difficult that the option of staying apart for a year is the most cost effective alternative for some. People generally wait for their one year separation and are aware of the fact that in Canada if there is a separation agreement the divorce would go uncontested. The divorce lawyer then files the necessary paperwork with the courts which is returned after a lapse of a few months. Sometimes while filling the application for a divorce the divorce lawyer in Canada would include cases of abuse and adultery. Specifically if a parent is involved and it has to be shown that the relationship had an effect on the children. Many a times the divorce lawyer also considers the monetary aspect if large amounts of money were spent on the other person or while traveling to meet that other person outside the country or state.

If you are convinced that your marriage can no longer function and want to file for a divorce then you can easily seek the help of a divorce lawyer. Whether it be a Divorce lawyer in Toronto or a Divorce lawyer in Vancouver, an experienced divorce lawyer with lawyearhead.ca can assist you with all the legal procedures. Post your case here and have lawyers contact you with your thoughts on how best to proceed.

In what seems to be the logical addendum to something that most cash-strapped people dealing with ever-higher energy bills these days have figured out, smaller households, especially those with larger places and more rooms, consume more utilities- and thus have a higher impact on the environment, per person. Two researchers at Michigan State University have published a study showing the increased environmental impact of smaller households, by comparing space and energy consumption data from married and unmarried households.

According to the study, divorced households were 27-41% smaller, and people in them occupied 33-95% more rooms. Divorced households then spent 53% more on electricity and 42% more on water per person than people in married households. The study, which covered 12 countries (including 4 more-developed countries and 8 less-developed countries), also found that if all the divorced households in the countries they studied were combined into full-family households, there would be 7 million fewer households amongst them.

The study, published in December of 2007 by Eunice Lu and Jianguo Liu, raises an interesting point, though one that, once made, seems a bit self-evident. Anyone dealing with current energy prices while on a limited budget can tell you this: the smaller the space to heat, and the more people sharing the bill, the lower the gas bill will be. It would follow that grouping people closer together (in larger married households) would save electricity and water: thus reducing your environmental impact and per-person consumption.

While the study’s findings are interesting, it seems like looking at divorce’s impact on the environment is akin to looking at electric bicycles’ impact on global warming: interesting, but not really the central problem. Yes, looking at environmental impact based on the households and per-person energy use is a good step. But if we’re going to take that step, then perhaps it’s better to look at the increasing size of homes throughout the US and Canada, and separate areas’ population densities and the cost of providing utilities for each person. Divorce lets people remove themselves from bad domestic situations- from ones that they’re simply not happy with anymore, to ones that are downright abusive. While changes in household size are important to look at, maybe it would be better to advise people to live smaller, and in areas where utilities are easier (and more sustainable) to provide per person.

*If you’d like more information, you can read an extended abstract of the study here, or see more about divorce law here from lawyerahead.

*Today’s child support case that recieved the most attention from Family Lawyers in Toronto at lawyerahead.ca

Corri Fetman has brought a new degree of infamy to divorce law, and to her firm. A series of billboard promoting the firm Fetman, Garland & Associates Ltd., including one featuring Corri Fetman personally, have made quiet the splash in Chicago since they went up in April of 2007. The boards featured the tagline, “Life’s Short. Get a divorce.” Accompanied by risqué photos, the ads caused quite a stir, upsetting feminists, fellow lawyers, and community members.

John Ducanto, former president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, called the signs “grotesque,” and “undignified and offensive.” Ducanto was so outraged by the ads that he asked the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Illinois to sanction Fetman. The billboards were taken down thanks to action by 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus, because Fetman had failed to apply for the appropriate permits.

Fetman, however, sees no problem with the signs, which initially went up in April of 2007. Indeed, a second batch, now featuring the tagline “Take Control. Get a Divorce,” are now displayed throughout Chicago. However, not only has Fetman put up these ads: She stars in them! Fetman is the woman in these ads, and the man accompanying her is her “personal trainer.” (No, Really).

Fetman has also, as of January 2008, appeared in Playboy Magazine, and begun writing a column titled the “Lawyer of Love” for the infamous men’s magazine. Fetman’s work with Playboy has drawn a good deal of criticism, but she stands by her decision, stating that she “shouldn’t be punished for having brains and a body.”

“It was the best time I ever had with my clothes on or off. This was a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to pose for the premiere men’s magazine in the world,” Fetman says of the photo shoot for Playboy. The ads, which created quite a bit of stir initially, have caused significantly more attention for her firm. And while the first set drew the ire of the community, the second set, now with correct permits, have been able to stay up.

While Fetman may have caused quiet a stir, it remains that divorce in the United States has been declining since 1970. The divorce rate is still between 40 and 45 per cent in the US, (while only 37% of Canadian couples are likely to divorce, as of 2004) and Fetman’s firm is just another trying to capitalize on this particular phenomenon. While her ads and antics may make her colleagues wince, Fetman may take as much pleasure as she’d like in flaunting her body to advertise her completely-unrelated legal skills.

This week’s Top divorce lawyer in Toronto.

The divorce case that got the most attention from Divorce Lawyers.

Latest Divorce cases in Toronto

Divorce battles among the (even somewhat) famous have always been perfect fodder for tabloids and gossip talk shows, but the traditional ‘rags’ may have some stiff competition. A startling, user-generated video that was uploaded by embittered soon-to-be divorced Tricia Walsh-Smith has received nearly three million hits on the popular website Youtube.com. Yes, three million.

Tricia Walsh-Smith, a British actress, is married to Phillip Smith, president of Schubert Theatres. Shubert Theatres is the single largest theatre owner in New York City.

Walsh-Smith’s video depicts her plight to receive an equitable distribution of the marital property and assets. When Tricia Walsh marched down the aisle around nine years ago to marry her (then) beloved Philip Smith who is nearly twenty-five years her senior, she perhaps gave little thought to the prenuptial agreement that she signed before entering into anticipated wedded bliss.

Walsh-Smith claims that her estranged husband is attempting to have her thrown out of their posh Manhattan apartment, and further asserts that he wants to leave her destitute. Under the terms of their prenuptial agreement, Walsh-Smith would receive their home in Florida along with a cash award of one-half million dollars in annual alimony, should the couple’s marriage end in divorce. She now wishes to set aside the original agreement in the hopes of receiving more of her husband’s assets.

The popular video was posted on April 10, 2008 includes a narrated tour of the Manhattan apartment. During the video, Walsh-Smith exhibits photos from the couple’s wedding album, throws in some negative comments about her in-laws, and reveals intimate details about her hubby to his personal assistant (via a telephone conversation). She alleges that even though her husband never wanted to have sexual relations with her, she found pornographic material, condoms and Viagra among his possessions. She also vehemently claims that he has no “grounds for divorce” as required by the prenuptial agreement.

The big networks including CNN, ABC, and MSNBC have each aired footage about the video and its peculiar popularity. Opinions are divided about what the success of Walsh-Smith’s video implies. The video has certainly made her somewhat of an instant celebrity. She has five videos on the site, each one a follow-up on the proceedings in her case, and each one chiding her husband, his friends, and the legal system for their mistreatment of her. Walsh-Smith has certainly obtained a big following – will these videos put pressure on her husband to grant her a better deal without being ordered to do so by the courts? Perhaps Youtube.com users will be the first to know.

Walsh-Smith’s videos certainly leave nothing for the imagination. One can’t help but wonder, however, if she is truly the jilted spouse or if these video depictions are simply the product of a talented actress who was once touted the “commercial queen” in her native London (she claims to have done over five hundred commercials). Either way, she certainly has the Youtube.com community sold!

You can view Walsh-Smith’s controversial first video by clicking on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx_WKxqQF2o