Consortium (Meaning of): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | [[Category:Legal Principles]] | ||
[[Category:Tort | [[Category:Tort Law]] | ||
==V et al. v. C et al., 1972 CanLII 495 (ON SC)<ref name="VC"/>== | ==V et al. v. C et al., 1972 CanLII 495 (ON SC)<ref name="VC"/>== | ||
Revision as of 18:56, 16 October 2020
V et al. v. C et al., 1972 CanLII 495 (ON SC)[1]
There is also a modern case in the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with consortium and the bases of Ontario jurisdiction:
- Kungl v. Schiefer, 1962 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1962] S.C.R. 443, 33 D.L.R. (2d) 278[2], on appeal from 1960 CanLII 22 (ON CA), [1961] O.R. 1, 25 D.L.R. (2d) 344 (C.A.)[3]. There the Courts were concerned with whether there existed an action for alienation of affections in Ontario and concluded that there was not. At p. 7 O.R., p. 350 D.L.R., of the Court of Appeal judgment Schroeder, J.A., says:
- The term "consortium" is not susceptible of precise or complete definition but broadly speaking, companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse
- -- all belonging to the marriage state -- taken together make up what we refer to as consortium.
- The term "consortium" is not susceptible of precise or complete definition but broadly speaking, companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 V et al. v. C et al., 1972 CanLII 495 (ON SC), <http://canlii.ca/t/g1c6d>, retrieved on 2020-10-16
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kungl v. Schiefer, 1962 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1962] SCR 443, <http://canlii.ca/t/1tvr9>, retrieved on 2020-10-16
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Kungl v. Schiefer, 1960 CanLII 22 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1vjnk>, retrieved on 2020-10-16
