Difference between revisions of "Divorce (3:IV)"

Special concerns arise in cases involving First Nation People registered under the [http://canlii.ca/t/7vhk ''Indian Act'', RSC 1985, c I-5]. The ''Indian Act'' sets out guidelines for and definitions of Aboriginal people, and defines who is eligible for “status”. Only “status” people are affected by the legislation under the ''Indian Act''. One spouse’s treaty payment may be directed to the other “where the Ministry is satisfied he deserted his spouse or family without sufficient cause, conducted himself in such a manner as to justify the refusal of his spouse or family to live with him, or has been separated by imprisonment from his spouse and family” (''Indian Act'', s 68). As well, reserve land allocated by a certificate of possession cannot be dealt with in the same manner as a matrimonial home because the rules in the ''FLA'' do not apply to reserve land. However, in such cases, the Court may ask that the spouse  in  possession  of  the  reserve  land  pay  cash  compensation  to  the  other  spouse  (''George v George'' (1997), 30 BCLR (3d) 107). Keep in mind that most provincial laws apply to Aboriginal people and reserve land unless they are in direct conflict with the ''Indian Act''. Further, courts will almost always take the cultural identity of the children into consideration when making an order for parenting time; see e.g. [https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1699/index.do ''D.H. v H.M.'', [1999<nowiki>]</nowiki> SCJ No 22], and see [http://canlii.ca/t/51z8 ''Van de Perre v Edwards'', [2001<nowiki>]</nowiki> SCJ No 60].