RSS FeedStudent-teacher love can be a serious crime in Canada
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (I am a law student). The text below contains only my understanding of the applicable law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your particular situation. Do not assume you can make any decisions based on this text. I do not intend this text to apply to anyone’s situation. This text is not legal advice. I am not qualified to give legal advice anyway. The purpose of this text is to encourage debate and create awareness of certain criminal offences. Please consult a lawyer if you need legal advice or help with your particular situation.
Our society is obsessed with sex. Not just in a dirty sense. We are probably as much into sex as we are afraid of it, and one proof of our fear of sex is in the criminal code. Sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching are serious crimes in our legal system. We want to punish sexual offenders because we want to protect ourselves and especially our women and children. Traditionally, the predators have been men, but more and more often the police arrest women for sexual crimes. I wrote about a case in Georgia where a trial court gave a female teacher ten years for a mutual love affair with a girl-student. The girl reached the age of consent but the court ignored it because the older woman was her teacher. A few days ago, an Ontario judge sentenced a female teacher for a love affair with a student. If the older women didn’t plead guilty, this case would be almost identical to the case in Georgia, except for the brutally harsh sentence. But the intricate details of the Ontario case are different enough to make this story a lesson for all adults—not just for teachers.
Love, Actionable
Love and Marriage
Contract law is no stranger to love, and vice-versa. We in the Western world, and most other places, have formalized romance for centuries in various different ways. What was once the union of a couple in love, witnessed by peers, blessed by relatives and ordained by God, is now a stack of paperwork.
That being the case, it’s no surprise that myriad legal and bureaucratic idiosyncrasies have, over the years, crept into the institution of marriage. One of the most important of which, which is also probably the oldest—aside from perhaps religious scripture—is the law of contract.
“Marriage” is the not-so-legal terminology for an “agreement.”
Damages for Cold Feet
MSNBC recently reported on the story of a woman who was awarded $150,000 in damages after her fiancé acquired a pair of cold feet and decided to use them, despite their frigidity, to back out of their wedding plans.
It’s a classic case at contract law:
- A asks B to marry him,
- B says yes (we have an agreement);
- B quits her high-paying job to relocate (we have an “acting on” to her detriment);
- A changes his mind and backs out of the contract without fulfilling his promise;
- B is screwed… figuratively, anyway;
- B seeks damages to compensate her loss and succeeds.
I sat on the fence for my first read of the story.
The romantic in me told me you can’t put a price on love and that the verdict was ridiculous, while my moral side reminded me that this woman was done wrong by someone who needs to think more before he acts regarding such sensitive situations, especially those that require other people to make significant life changes.
But eventually the romantic in me won out, aided, of course, by the irrational jackass in me.
Because let’s face it. Anyone who has ever been in love has also been an irrational jackass.
Love and Law
There are many conflicts in the world of law that pose impossible questions:
- Can law and morality intertwine without individuals and groups using “morality” to justify anything and everything, legal or not?
- To what degree can and should familial relationships be governed by the law?
- Can the law, which is itself a desperate attempt to provide formal solutions to informal problems, address matters of love and friendship?
The common trend in Canada has been to keep the law out of the most personal aspects of relationships, until of course they become formalized by something like marriage.
In the 2003 case of M.(N.) v. A.(A.T.), the plaintiff quit her job and relocated based on a promise made to her by her lover (who eventually kicked her out… snap).
Her action failed because it was missing one key element that was necessary for her promissory estoppel claim to succeed: A legal relationship.
Marriage.
So perhaps it’s a question of the varying degrees of formality. But in the current case, the American court decided that the actual legal relationship wasn’t necessary because there was no marriage.
Love and Rationality (or Lack Thereof)
The heightened degree of irrationality that generally accompanies love and its many manifestations render it almost entirely incompatible with anything rational, and further, legal or formal.
Who among us have not been irrational in the name of love? Should we all be forced to pay for things so human in nature?
I’m not talking about waking up next to a total stranger after a night of drunken debauchery. I’m talking about passion-infused statements and actions that may well lead another person to alter their life just because it “felt right at the time.”
Imagine… Cheap Love
A ruling like this could have unfortunate consequences. I’m not suggesting that we paint the bleakest picture possible of course, which I suppose would entail a judge ordering specific performance on a promise to marry.
Imagine that… you fall in love, like the irrational creature you are, you throw caution to the wind and you act on it. Suddenly reality strikes and you have second thoughts.
And then, wouldn’t you know it, the judge orders you to perform specifically the task you promised you would: Marry him/her, have 2.5 children, buy a dog, build a white picket fence and stay married for a minimum of a certain period of time, all in accordance with national averages.
That would, of course, be the legal equivalent of crying out that the sky is falling, but it’s kind of funny to imagine regardless.
Maybe the law hasn’t yet killed the romantic in me, but can we try not to cheapen love any further by putting a price on it?
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
