Consortium (Meaning of): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
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 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:Tort Law]] | [[Category:Tort Law]] | ||
[[Category:Family Law]] | [[Category:Family Law]] | ||
[[Category:Definitions (Re: Legal Usage)]] | |||
==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"/>== | ||
Latest revision as of 15:32, 2 May 2021
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
