Brian Orser in palimony suit / G&M
Chris Ambidge
No permission and all that / typos mine-all-mine
== begin text ==
SKATER ORSER HIT WITH PALIMONY SUIT
#Canadian Olympic champion admits relationship, but denies #
#promising to support boyfriend#
by Donn Downey / The Globe and Mail, Toronto
Figure skater Brian Orser is being sued for support by a former
boyfriend who claims, among other things, that Mr Orser wilfully
destroyed the couple's pet dogs.
Craig Leask, 35, who works as a project manager for the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, claims the two lived together in "a
common-law, same-sex relationship" for about five years, beginning in
1992. The Canadian Olympic figure-skating champion, who won a
silver medal in 1988, promised Mr Leask that he would support him
and that their relationship "would be a lasting, monogamous and
balanced partnership," Mr Leask's statement of claim says.
The parties agreed that Mr Leask would be responsible for the
housekeeping and other domestic tasks in the relationship and he did
so "at the expense of his own professional development."
Sometime in 1997, Mr Orser, now 36, evicted Mr Leask from their
home in Toronto's Rosedale district while Mr Leask was at work, the
statement of claim says. The statement also contend that he kept
much of Mr Leask's personal property, including clothes, a computer,
personal items and medication, claiming that Mr Leask had stolen
them from him.
Mr Orser, in a statement of defence, acknowledged the relationship
but denied that he ever promised to support Mr Leask. He adds that
Mr Leask assured him he would never make a claim for financial
support and denies that Mr Leask met the definition of "spouse"
within the meaning of the Family Law Act.
Mr Orser "absolutely denies" that he wilfully destroyed the dogs,
saying that a home was found for one of them and the other was put
down on the advice of a veterinarian.
Mr Leask is asking for $5000 a month in compensatory support or a
lump-sum payment of $300,000. He also wants ownership of a cottage
property in the Muskoka lakes area of Ontario and a court order
requiring Mr Orser to name him the beneficiary of his life insurance
policy or policies. He wants another order requiring Mr Orser to
maintain his Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan coverage, and dental,
medical and extended health plan coverage.
Further claims include half ownership of the Rosedale home, and a the
stock portfolio owned by Mr Orser, half ownership of a Porsche and a
Glaxon motorboat and half ownership of Brian Orser Productions
Limited.
The statement of claim is dated 20 January 1998 but it came to light
yesterday only when Mr Orser's lawyer, Bruce Clarke, appeared
before Madam Justice Susan Lang of the Ontario Court's General
Division, asking that the court record be sealed.
Lawyer Peter Jacobsen, acting for the Globe and Mail, opposed the
sealing, arguing that it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and should be used only sparingly when there was clear evidence of
harm. Judge Lang agreed.
Mr Leask's statement of claim puts Mr Orser's annual earnings at $2-
million. His "assets are likely to increase in the future… " it says.
Mr Leask claims that he "was a full participant in Mr Orser's
professional skating career and his other businesses, facilitating
meetings with agents, producers, investors and other business
contacts.
== end of text ==
It appears that Mr Orser's lawyer is using the argument "same sex people
can't be 'spouses' under the Family Law Act" to weasel out of it. Might
this one go up the appeal ladder?
Chris
--
Chris Ambidge =|= chemist by day, panda by night
but not a lawyer at any time
chris....@utoronto.ca =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca
http://www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
David Migicovsky
>
>It appears that Mr Orser's lawyer is using the argument "same sex people
>can't be 'spouses' under the Family Law Act" to weasel out of it. Might
>this one go up the appeal ladder?
>
Hard to say. M v. H should be decided before this one goes very far up the
ladder.
Personally, I think the feds' decision not to appeal the Income Tax Act is
essentially giving the Supreme Court the green light to strike down all the
laws that discriminate against same-sex spouses.
The various governments are creating a hodge-podge of conflicting
definitions that can't be allowed to continue very long.
--
| Get Your "What Starr Calls Kinky I Call Foreplay" T-Shirt and
| more rude CelebWear™ at http://www.showbuzznet.com
| Looking for a flame-war free *FUN* newsgroup? Try alt.culture.fabulous
| David Migicovsky, d a v i d at s h o w b u z z n e t dot c o m
Chris J
years, which is well after Brian's career height at the 1988 Olympics, and
he feels he's entitled to all of this simply for doing some domestic chores?
Sounds like we've got a hostile ex-partner with a big chip on his shoulder.
I think the intent here is more to publicly out Brian as a means to revenge.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts this doesn't go too far in the courts.
Chris Ambidge wrote in message ...
David Migicovsky
>Awww.... c'mon..... I can't believe this crap! The guy is with Orser for 5
>years, which is well after Brian's career height at the 1988 Olympics, and
His career height came after the Olympics, when he really started making
money.
>he feels he's entitled to all of this simply for doing some domestic
chores?
>Sounds like we've got a hostile ex-partner with a big chip on his shoulder.
>I think the intent here is more to publicly out Brian as a means to
revenge.
>I'll bet you dollars to donuts this doesn't go too far in the courts.
>
Does this mean then, that all the women who sue for support are doing it to
out their ex as heterosexual?
Certainly after a 5-year straight marriage with no pre-nup where one partner
is much wealthier than the other there would be negotiated property division
or a lawsuit.
Also, you would not get away with throwing your wife out of the house while
she was at work.
Gay people are going to have to realize that like it or not, our
relationships are now subject to the same rules as straight ones. And I have
no respect for anyone who, like Orser or "H." insists that their
relationship wasn't spousal.
Chris J
David Migicovsky wrote in message ...
>
>His career height came after the Olympics, when he really started making
>money.
I stand corrected.
>
>Does this mean then, that all the women who sue for support are doing it to
>out their ex as heterosexual?
No, but it certainly is a convenient way to get coverage for this case and
make a point. A hetero relationship wouldn't mean a thing in terms of
creating a sensation.
>Certainly after a 5-year straight marriage with no pre-nup where one
partner
>is much wealthier than the other there would be negotiated property
division
>or a lawsuit.
>
>Also, you would not get away with throwing your wife out of the house while
>she was at work.
>
>Gay people are going to have to realize that like it or not, our
>relationships are now subject to the same rules as straight ones. And I
have
>no respect for anyone who, like Orser or "H." insists that their
>relationship wasn't spousal.
I have the same problems with straight relationships... five years is not
that long a period of time and, IMHO, it would have to be proven that the
partner made a direct and significant contribution to the futhering the
other's financial status. All that the article is saying is that the
partner contributed toward domestic chores. If he was, for example, acting
as Brian's manager or was involved in other financial decisions and matters,
then he has contributed in a significant way and should be entitled to
palimony.
I stand by my opinion (based on the information in the article - I'm always
willing to change with new info) that it sounds like this guy's just looking
for an easy ride.
Chris J
Lo Veng Bun wrote in message <36533698...@mindless.com>...
>
>Even though I am in favour of including same-sex spouses in the
>definition of spouse, I am somewhat bothered by the retroactivity
>of such inclusion, especially in view of the possibility that the
>couple might have disposed of the issue of spousal support in a
>cohabitation agreement had they known that they would be made
>subject to the regime of spousal support.
Matthew Malthouse
"Chris J" <jack...@nospamplease.netcom.ca> wrote:
} Awww.... c'mon..... I can't believe this crap! The guy is with Orser for
5
} years, which is well after Brian's career height at the 1988 Olympics,
and
} he feels he's entitled to all of this simply for doing some domestic
chores?
} Sounds like we've got a hostile ex-partner with a big chip on his
shoulder.
} I think the intent here is more to publicly out Brian as a means to
revenge.
} I'll bet you dollars to donuts this doesn't go too far in the courts.
Sounds like half the hettie divorces that go to court these days. Sounds
like equality. Uncomfortable isn't it. :)
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Iain Bennett
>Craig Leask, 35, who works as a project manager for the Canadian
>Imperial Bank of Commerce, claims the two lived together in "a
>common-law, same-sex relationship" for about five years, beginning in
>1992. The Canadian Olympic figure-skating champion, who won a
>silver medal in 1988, promised Mr Leask that he would support him
>and that their relationship "would be a lasting, monogamous and
>balanced partnership," Mr Leask's statement of claim says.
Does it really matter where Leak works? Geez!
'Nathan
*gasp* You mean when people say they want the relationship to last, that
might not be enough? *stunned horror*
Grow up, Leask. Love ends daily.
'Nathan
--
||\|| nburgoin 'n^0
||\|| @chat.carleton.ca
Roedy Green
>Does it really matter where Leak works? Geez!
I think that is to point out that Mr. Leak is probably not starving to
death and in desperate need of funds.
For the JAVA GLOSSARY and the CMP Utilities: <http://mindprod.com>
--
Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
-30-
Chris Ambidge
>>Craig Leask, 35, who works as a project manager for the Canadian
>>Imperial Bank of Commerce, claims the two lived together in "a
>>common-law, same-sex relationship" for about five years, beginning in
>>1992. The Canadian Olympic figure-skating champion, who won a
>>silver medal in 1988, promised Mr Leask that he would support him
>>and that their relationship "would be a lasting, monogamous and
>>balanced partnership," Mr Leask's statement of claim says.
[Iain]
>Does it really matter where Leak works? Geez!
>
it's pretty standard to put a one-sentence ID like that in
when identifying a person in a news story who is previously
unknown (as opposed to an MP or some such) to the general public.
Actually, in this case, I think it's relevant -- not that
he worked for CIBC specifically, but that he had a responsible
job and was neither in a minimum wage position, nor was
he a "kept boy", doing the homo equivalent of lounging
around the house in a negligee, reading romance novels and
eating bon-bons. [hi Jayne!]
Chris
[sorry, that's an old private joke between Jayne and me]
--
Chris Ambidge =|= chemist by day, panda by night
chris....@utoronto.ca =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca
http://www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Chris Ambidge
further to the Brian Orser story, it was the number two editorial
in today's Mop & Pail. It was also a news story in today's Star,
which you can find at:
http://www2.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/news/981119NEW10_CI-BRIAN19.html
[that's all one line, in case it gets broken in two by your newsreader]
and here's the Mop&Pail editorial
/\/\/\/
Toronto *Globe & Mail* Thursday 1998 11 19 / editorial
No permission and all that / my typos, mine mine mine
TROUBLE IN SPLITSVILLE
Thursday, November 19, 1998
Only the cynical enter into romantic entanglements anticipating
their demise. The prudent have come to realise, though, that in
affairs of the heart spousal contracts are like good fences between
neighbours: they establish the boundaries between rights and
responsibilities.
Consider the case of B and C, who lived together for about five
years beginning in 1992. C claims B promised that their
relationship "would be a lasting, monogamous and balanced
partnership," and that both parties agreed C would take care of
housekeeping and other domestic arrangements at the expense of
C's own professional development. When the relationship
foundered, C sued B for one-half of B's current and future assets,
support and other benefits.
What makes this sorry saga different from any number of messy
splits is that B (former figure-skating champion Brian Orser) and
his former lover C (Craig Leask) lived together in what Mr. Leask
claims was "a common-law, same-sex relationship." Mr. Orser
denies that the relationship made Mr. Leask his spouse -- because
"spousal relationship" is narrowly defined under Ontario's Family
Law Act as a man and a woman.
This definition of spouse was challenged in Ontario by a lesbian,
known only as M, when she sued her former partner H for
support after their 10-year relationship broke down. The Ontario
Court of Appeal ruled that the support provision based on the
Family Law Act did indeed apply to same-sex couples, but the
province has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to retain
the heterosexual definition of spouse on two specious grounds.
The first is administrative, arguing that a new definition of spouse
requires rewriting about 90 statutes; the second argues that
women have a special vulnerability in heterosexual marriages
because they "still tend to take on the primary responsibility for
the care and raising of children." Power imbalances, as we have
argued before, are not determined by gender, but by the nature of
the relationship. The role of the law in family situations should be
to protect those who are placed in vulnerable positions because of
imbalances of power, regardless of sex or sexual preference.
There is no indication that Mr. Leask is impoverished, but he is
arguing that he is entitled to share his former partner's assets and
to receive support payments based on Mr. Orser's estimated
annual income of $2-million. In other words, he argues that being
gay is irrelevant to the common-law relationship Mr. Leask
enjoyed with Mr. Orser.
There have been a number of court rulings in the past few years
that have codified the rights of gays and lesbians. In the M and H
case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to push same-sex
rights further by broadening the definition of spouse.
Such a decision, though, must inevitably bring the same
responsibilities and obligations to bear on same-sex unions as
spouses face in heterosexual relationships. That is as it should be.
Whether those responsibilities should be retroactive, as Mr. Leask
is hoping in his palimony suit, is troubling, especially for Mr.
Orser and others like him who have neglected to define their
obligations in legal contracts. Retroactive lawmaking is generally
rejected in Canadian tradition, but that ultimately is a problem for
individuals and legislatures, not the Supreme Court.
== end of text ==
Chris
David Migicovsky
>
>*gasp* You mean when people say they want the relationship to last, that
>might not be enough? *stunned horror*
>
>Grow up, Leask. Love ends daily.
>
Which is why family law exists.
David Migicovsky
>
>
>
>
>No permission and all that / my typos, mine mine mine
>
Chris, I'm just wondering why you retype Globe stories when they're on the
web.
David Migicovsky
>
> he worked for CIBC specifically, but that he had a responsible
> job and was neither in a minimum wage position, nor was
> he a "kept boy", doing the homo equivalent of lounging
> around the house in a negligee, reading romance novels and
> eating bon-bons. [hi Jayne!]
>
What I'm wondering is why the Sun persists in describing him as tall and
blue-eyed.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> he a "kept boy", doing the homo equivalent of lounging
> around the house in a negligee, reading romance novels and
> eating bon-bons. [hi Jayne!]
>
> Chris
> [sorry, that's an old private joke between Jayne and me]
Legi, vidi, ridi.
Jayne (trying to salvage her reputation by answering in Latin)
Chris Ambidge
>>Does it really matter where Leak works? Geez!
>I think that is to point out that Mr. Leak is probably not starving to
>death and in desperate need of funds.
Leask, by the way.
It also indicates that he had a career path (which his relationship
with Mr Orser presumably / allegedly short-circuited); this was
not a no-future position.
Chris
who disagrees with Nathan - yes, relationships end, but the wealthy
one in a couple should not be able to discard the other like a used
kleenex with no thought to what the other person's life will be like
afterwards.
'Nathan
CA> Chris
CA> who disagrees with Nathan - yes, relationships end, but the wealthy
CA> one in a couple should not be able to discard the other like a used
CA> kleenex with no thought to what the other person's life will be like
CA> afterwards.
And that's what happened? Seriously, now - Leask isn't unemployed, the
relationship is over, and while, *yes*, he planned on living the
happily-ever-after dream, it fell through. Poor luck, too bad. But I
think 'discarding like a used kleenex' might be too harsh - especially
since I don't have the slightest clue how the relationship ended - for all
we know Mr. Leask could have been a horrid partner, or Mr. Orser was very
gentle about the breakup, or, or ,or...
I understand the idea of Alimony when one person is unable to support
themselves, but it sounds like Mr. Leask is fine.
I'm not sure why the individual who happens to have more money/a higher
paying job/etc somehow *owes* that to the other person when the
relationship ends and the other person doesn't need help to get by for a
while.
It's not like a company agrees to pay your rent after you're fired - if
you find a lower paying job, you'll have to get by. Your folks aren't
obligated to help you out if you're barely getting by. After having a
four or five year relationship with someone, they suddenly owe you *extra*
support? Again, I'm not talking about the individual who has *nothing*
after a divorce/breakup, but those who are able to survive, albeit by
changing, perhaps, their surroundings a bit.
It's a relationship, isn't it? Not a financial gain?
David Migicovsky
>
>since I don't have the slightest clue how the relationship ended - for all
>we know Mr. Leask could have been a horrid partner, or Mr. Orser was very
>gentle about the breakup, or, or ,or...
We know he wasn't -- he evicted him from the home while he was at work.
Something that he couldn't legally do to an opposite-sex spouse, BTW. That
doesn't mean, of course, that Seask may not have been a horrible partner.
Chances are, neither of them are a prize. For one thing, I think
cross-accusations of adultery are pretty tacky.
>
>I understand the idea of Alimony when one person is unable to support
>themselves, but it sounds like Mr. Leask is fine.
This isn't about alimony. It's about property division. He is claiming to
have contributed to Orser's livelyhood. In essence, being an unpaid partner
in a business -- as many spouses are. And ability to support oneself has
nothing to do with claims of that nature.
Mr. Leask, whatever else he may be, is not your typical bimbo. He has a good
job and nothing to gain from the publicity. If this were an opposite-sex
couple and/or non-celeb. couple this case would have no news interest
whatsoever.
Roedy Green
from the government's point of view.
1. it tends to make relationships more stable, particularly those with
kids. Eventually a guy can't afford another divorce.
2. It lowers the need for welfare and medicare. Alimony acts like a sort
of private welfare/insurance scheme.
3. It means people are less likely to go bankrupt or default on payments to
the banks.
Chris Ambidge
>>and here's the Mop&Pail editorial
>>Toronto *Globe & Mail* Thursday 1998 11 19 / editorial
>>No permission and all that / my typos, mine mine mine
[David]
>Chris, I'm just wondering why you retype Globe stories when they're on the
>web.
not all of them are - the Globe website is dreadful,
maybe five stories a day in the news section. The
Brian Orser story, f'rinstance, was at the top of
page A3, but not in the electronic Globe at all; and I didn't
see any other covrage that day -- the star didn't pick it
up until the next day.
Hence the header, which is pretty standard wording. In
the case of the editorial, I did indeed do a cut&Paste
from the website -- but then I had to excise the leading
spaces on each line; since I try to post 65-70 character
lines [by no means everyone has line-wrap facilities on
their news software, and too-long lines make for breaks in pe
culiar
places.] I also run it through a spell check, since I'm
trying to civilise the world into using decent spelling
(colour, and all that). A conceit, I realise. That
actually is done very easily, with macros, but it is my
formatting that is posted.
rather a longer answer than I intended. The other reason is that
not everyone has web-access, so I post text to this news group
rather than just the URLs
Chris
David Migicovsky
<F2uK1...@ecf.toronto.edu>...
> places.] I also run it through a spell check, since I'm
> trying to civilise the world into using decent spelling
> (colour, and all that).
Even the Sun has switched to Canadian spelling, although I doubt you'd want
to take the credit.
Simon Coakeley
Lo Veng Bun (b...@mindless.com) writes:
> Even though I am in favour of including same-sex spouses in the
> definition of spouse, I am somewhat bothered by the retroactivity
> of such inclusion, especially in view of the possibility that the
> couple might have disposed of the issue of spousal support in a
> cohabitation agreement had they known that they would be made
> subject to the regime of spousal support.
Although when the Family Law Reform Act first came in (1978) it changed the
rules for straight couples. Given the provisions of the Family Law Act and
the possibility that straight couples can draft agreements that avoid some
(if not all) of the FLA's provisions, would not agreements within a gay
couple get the same recognition, assuming, of course, that the agreement
covered the same sort of ground? (Somewhat rehtorical question as I would
argue that they should.)
Simon
--
si...@freenet.carleton.ca
who's already driven on *the* bridge
Simon Coakeley
Rodger Whitlock (totototo+...@mail.pacificcoast.net) writes:
>
> Question: which takes precedence in determining the mutual
> responsibilities in a common-law relationship that has come to
> grief, the cohab agreement or the common-law obligations?
>
> <scratches head, wonders if that question is phrased sensibly.>
>
Depends on the legislation in effect in the province (assuming Canada) where
the common-law partners live.
Traditionally a common-law relationship meant an absence of mutual
responsibilities and the courts were not impressed with cohab agreements
(i.e. the would not enforce them). Over time, both the courts and the
legislatures realized that people were getting themselves into messes that
needed sorting out. The courts came up with techniques like constructive
and resulting trusts (thank you Lord Denning & Mr Justice (as he then was)
Dickson) while legislatures started adopting things like the Family Law
Reform Act, 1978, in Ontario that started imposing obligations on common law
partners, especially where there were children in the relationship. At the
same time, the legislatures started encouraging the courts to take into
acount cohab agreements, provided they respected the provisions of the
Family Law Act (e.g. couldn<t prevent the judge from deciding who would have
custody of children).
Bottom line would be: go ask a lawyer in the province in which you live.