{"title":"Avant-propos","authors":"Pape François","doi":"10.1787/924cd57b-fr","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1787/924cd57b-fr","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74293191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Considérations sur l’influence de la religion en droit public au Canada","authors":"Gérald-A. Beaudoin","doi":"10.7202/1059526AR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059526AR","url":null,"abstract":"Sous le régime français, le catholicisme était religion d’État en pratique sinon\u0000 même en théorie.\u0000 Après la Conquête, sous le régime britannique (1760-1867), quatre constitutions se\u0000 sont succédées. La première fut peu libérale pour les catholiques. La seconde de 1774\u0000 reconnut le libre exercice de la religion catholique qui coexista avec la religion\u0000 anglicane; sous la troisième constitution, celle de 1791, les juifs se virent reconnaître\u0000 par une loi un statut d’égalité; sous la quatrième constitution, celle de 1840, fut adoptée\u0000 en 1851 une loi sur la liberté des cultes, encore en vigueur.\u0000 L’origine du régime canadien remonte à 1867, date de l’adoption de notre\u0000 constitution fédérale actuelle; cette cinquième constitution ne traite pas expressément de\u0000 religion si ce n’est pour protéger les droits confessionnels des catholiques et des\u0000 protestants. En 1982, le Canada se dotait d’une charte constitutionnelle des droits qui\u0000 consacre inter alia la liberté de conscience et de religion. Bien avant 1982\u0000 toutefois, la jurisprudence avait établi qu’il n’y a pas au Canada de religion d’État, que\u0000 toutes les religions sont sur un même pied, que tout citoyen peut pratiquer sa religion dans\u0000 le respect des lois et qu’il a aussi le droit de n’en point avoir.\u0000 Les religions catholique et protestante ont joué un grand rôle au Canada. Dans ce\u0000 pays multiculturel, multiconfessionnel, en pratique séculier, laïc, elles continuent quand\u0000 même d’influencer la législation dans le respect des croyances de chacun.","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47736469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Co-Parental Divorce: Removing the Children from the Jurisdiction","authors":"J. D. Payne, Eileen Overend","doi":"10.7202/1059529AR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059529AR","url":null,"abstract":"The preservation of parenting rights in contested custody or access proceedings\u0000 arising on the dissolution of marriage necessitates a judicial reconciliation or balancing\u0000 of the competing interests of the children, the parents and members of any extended or\u0000 reconstituted families. In C. v. C., (unreported, March 7, 1984, Ont.\u0000 S.C.) the mother was held to the terms of a prior separation agreement and was ordered not\u0000 to remove the children from the Province of Ontario without the father's consent or a\u0000 further order of the court. In reaching this decision, the trial judge placed heavy reliance\u0000 on the evidence of a mediator who had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the differences\u0000 between the parents and who was of the opinion that the children would be at risk if the\u0000 mother proceeded with her plans to remarry and establish a new home for herself and the\u0000 children in England.\u0000 C. v. C. raises diverse fundamental issues concerning the legal\u0000 resolution of parenting disputes on marriage breakdown or divorce. The following issues are\u0000 addressed in the commentary of this judgment (reproduced in annex):\u0000 1. What significance, if any, does, and should, a court give to the express terms\u0000 of a separation agreement?\u0000 2. If a mediator is retained, should the mediation process, including the\u0000 mediator's evaluation, be “open” (i.e. subject to disclosure to the court) or\u0000 “closed” (i.e. confidential and excluded from any evidence adduced in subsequent\u0000 judicial proceedings)?\u0000 3. How can the best interests of the children — the legal criterion to be applied\u0000 in the adjudication of parenting disputes — be reconciled with the best interests of other\u0000 concerned family members?\u0000 4. Could, and should, the court have addressed the possibility of some alternative\u0000 form of parenting arrangements that might accomodate the competing interests of all the\u0000 affected parties?\u0000 5. To what extent can the courts legally fetter the freedom of a custodial parent\u0000 to establish a new home for (i) herself (or himself) and (ii) the children?\u0000 Some of these issues are specifically addressed in the unreported reasons for\u0000 judgment. Others are ignored. The purpose of this commentary is to canvass these issues and\u0000 point to the need for a family-oriented approach to the resolution of parenting disputes,\u0000 rather than an individual rights approach, such as has been traditionally adhered to by the\u0000 courts in the adjudication of custody and access disputes.","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47485291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"P.G.Q. et la Régie du logement c. Grondin et al. : marche arrière\u0000 justifiée sur un chemin parsemé d’embûches","authors":"Grégoire Lehoux","doi":"10.7202/1059559AR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059559AR","url":null,"abstract":"Dans l’arrêt analysé, qui concerne l’art. 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle de\u0000 1867, la Cour suprême du Canada fait marche arrière par rapport à ce qu’elle a décidé\u0000 dans deux affaires récentes. L’auteur soutient que ce cheminement est justifié.\u0000 Deux questions principales sont soulevées par l’arrêt : 1. L’art. 96 de la Loi\u0000 constitutionnelle de 1867 peut-il produire des effets qui diffèrent d’une province à\u0000 l’autre ? 2. La Cour suprême amorce-t-elle un retour à sa position traditionnelle à l’égard\u0000 des clauses privatives, concernant l’effet de l’art. 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle de\u0000 1867 ?","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44855077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}