{"id":3882,"date":"2012-01-16T01:32:17","date_gmt":"2012-01-16T06:32:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/?post_type=mediareleases&p=3882"},"modified":"2020-12-11T14:15:41","modified_gmt":"2020-12-11T19:15:41","slug":"leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/","title":{"rendered":"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Common Law Spouses in Quebec Entitled to Access Family Law Protections<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

January 16, 2012 – Toronto – <\/b>On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear \u00ab\u00a0Lola’s\u00a0\u00bb s.15 Charter <\/i>equality rights challenge to the total exclusion of de facto<\/i> (common law) spouses from the Quebec Civil Code family law regime. Lola argues that this exclusion unconstitutionally discriminates against de facto <\/i>spouses on the basis of marital status. LEAF’s intervention will focus on the gendered nature and effects of this marital status discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0Approximately 35% of all couples in Quebec live in de facto <\/i>unions and over 60% of children in Quebec are born outside of marriage\u00a0\u00bb explains LEAF co-counsel, Johanne O’Hanlon of O’Hanlon, Sanders, Teixeira in Montreal. \u00ab\u00a0Yet women in Quebec who have not married or registered a civil union with their spouses are excluded from claiming spousal support, rights in the family home or sharing of property.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0This is true regardless of their circumstances\u00a0\u00bb continues O’Hanlon \u00ab\u00a0For example, a woman who has been with her spouse for 15 years, has had four children with him (or her), was the primary caregiver of the children and sacrificed her career or earning potential in the process while supporting the spouse’s career, is left at the end of a relationship without any support or family law claim to property, other than child support which is inadequate to sustain a single-mother family of four. The exclusion from any right to claim spousal support or other family law remedy is unjust and unfair and is often devastating for women and their children.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LEAF co-counsel Martha McCarthy of Martha McCarthy & Company in Toronto further explains: \u00ab\u00a0Spousal relationships continue to be marked by gender inequality. In most relationships, it is still women who have primary responsibility for children and domestic labour. As a result, women, or men who assume stereotypically gendered roles in the home, are economically disadvantaged on breakdown of spousal relationships. Family law statutes across the country are aimed at redressing the economic and other injustices created by gendered roles in spousal relationships.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0The rights of cohabiting spouses to equal sharing of property varies across the country\u00a0\u00bb explains LEAF Legal Director, Joanna Birenbaum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognizing the social reality of common-law spouses, some provinces and territories, like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and NWT, require common law spouses who have lived together for a defined period of time or who have children together, to share the property and debts accumulated during the relationship at relationship breakdown, unless the parties agree otherwise. British Columbia recently amended its family law legislation to extend matrimonial property rights and obligations to common law spouses. Other provinces, like Ontario, Alberta, and the Maritime provinces, do not include cohabiting spouses in the matrimonial property provisions of their family law statutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0LEAF argues that matrimonial property regimes must include unmarried cohabitants\u00a0\u00bb continues Birenbaum. \u00ab\u00a0At the moment the law in Quebec and other provinces, like Ontario and Alberta, is exclusion or \u00ab\u00a0opt-in\u00a0\u00bb contractually. This is unrealistic and ignores gendered power imbalances. The presumption should be equal contributions during the relationship and equal sharing of property. Couples can always opt-out at the end of their relationships or apply to the Court for unequal division where appropriate.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, explains McCarthy, \u00ab\u00a0most common law couples believe that matrimonial property regimes apply to them, particularly if they have children or their relationship is long term. A Supreme Court of Canada decision which requires the extension of division of property laws to cohabiting spouses would accord with societal expectations.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCarthy further explains that \u00ab\u00a0the social science evidence before the Court in this appeal demonstrates that, for the most part, couples have no idea of the legal consequences of the decision to cohabit. The evidence also confirms that the governing family law legal regime is not a factor which determines whether couples choose to marry or not marry.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0In my 17 years of practice in Quebec\u00a0\u00bb, continues O’Hanlon, \u00ab\u00a0in case after case, women inde facto <\/i>relationships are shocked to discover that their rights and contributions are not recognized in Quebec law, and that they are entitled to nothing.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to the press coverage ofthe Eric v. Lola challenge, O’Hanlon has been asked many questions about de facto <\/i>couples’ rights and obligations of spousal support if the appeal is successful. \u00ab\u00a0There’s a misperception in Quebec that if Lola’s challenge succeeds, support obligations will automatically flow in every case involving de facto <\/i>couples. This is incorrect. De facto <\/i>spouses, just like married spouses, will only be entitled to receive spousal support, or correspondingly pay support, if the claimant spouse meets the statutory test of means and needs. If there is no economic dependency, no support will be ordered.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quebec is the only province in Canada which excludes de facto <\/i>(or common law) spouses from the right to claim spousal support at the end of a relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of Eric and Lola, Lola repeatedly asked Eric to marry her and he refused, saying he didn’t believe in the institution of marriage. The couple cohabited for seven years and had three children together. Lola cared for the children and did not work outside the home. Although the wealth of Eric in this case is exceptional, the gendered power dynamic of the relationship is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0Why would the Supreme Court of Canada allow the more powerful spouse to avoid any family law obligations simply by unilaterally refusing to marry? Such a result would fly in the face of over a half century of progressive legislative and judicial evolution of family law in Canada\u00a0\u00bb states Birenbaum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LEAF’s factum is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more information contact:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joanna Birenbaum (<\/b>LEAF Legal Director) – Cell: (647) 500-3005; Office (416) 595-7170 ext. 223 – Email: j.birenbaum@leaf.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martha McCarthy<\/b> (Co-Counsel) – Office: (416) 862-6226 – Email:Martha@mccarthyco.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johanne O’Hanlon<\/b> (Co-counsel) – Cell: (514) 966-2735 – Email: j.ohanlon@ostavocats.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/b>Armenia Teixeira<\/b> – Cell: (514) 865-0524 – Email: a.teixeira@ostavocats.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Please direct all French language inquiries to Ms. O’Hanlon or Ms. Teixeira]<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L’intervention de FAEJ dans le cas d’Eric c. Lola<\/i>: \u00c9galit\u00e9 des droits<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

et protections en droit de la famille au Qu\u00e9bec pour les conjoints de<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

fait comme pour les couples mari\u00e9s<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le 16 janvier 2012<\/strong> – Toronto. Le 18 janvier 2012, la Cour Supr\u00eame du Canada entendra la cause de \u00abLola\u00bb soulevant la violation de l’article 15 de la Charte qui d\u00e9coule de l’exclusion totale des conjoints de fait du droit de la famille \u00e9tabli par le Code civil du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>. Selon Lola,<\/span> cette exclusion, bas\u00e9e sur le statut marital, est inconstitutionnelle et discriminatoire envers les conjoints de fait. L’intervention de FAEJ sera ax\u00e9e sur les effets discriminatoires de leur statut marital pour les femmes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abIl y a approximativement 35% des couples du Qu\u00e9bec qui vivent en union de fait et plus de 60% des enfants du Qu\u00e9bec naissent en dehors du mariage\u00bb explique, Me Johanne O’Hanlon, du cabinet Montr\u00e9alais O’Hanlon Sanders Teixeira, le co-conseil de FAEJ. \u00abUne femme au Qu\u00e9bec qui n’est ni mari\u00e9e, ni en union civile ne peut pas r\u00e9clamer une pension alimentaire pour elle-m\u00eame, des droits sur la r\u00e9sidence familiale ou un partage de propri\u00e9t\u00e9.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abCela est vrai quelles que soient les circonstances\u00bb, continue Me O’Hanlon. \u00abPar exemple, une femme qui a v\u00e9cu 15 ans avec un conjoint, avec qui elle a eu 4 enfants, qui s’est occup\u00e9e principalement de ses enfants en sacrifiant sa carri\u00e8re, ou son potentiel de gains, pour supporter la carri\u00e8re de son conjoint, se retrouve \u00e0 la fin de la relation sans aucune pension, ni aucune r\u00e9clamation \u00e0 faire valoir sur les biens de la famille, \u00e0 part la pension alimentaire pour les enfants qui est inad\u00e9quate pour soutenir financi\u00e8rement une m\u00e8re monoparentale de quatre enfants. Le fait de ne pouvoir r\u00e9clamer une pension alimentaire ou un autre rem\u00e8de en droit familial est injuste et in\u00e9quitable et c’est souvent d\u00e9vastateur pour ces femmes et leurs enfants.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le co-conseil de FAEJ, Martha McCarthy, du cabinet Torontois Martha McCarthy & Compagnie, explique que \u00ab Les relations entre conjoints continuent d’\u00eatre stigmatis\u00e9es par l’in\u00e9galit\u00e9 des sexes. Dans la plupart des relations, c’est encore la femme qui est la principale responsable des enfants et des t\u00e2ches m\u00e9nag\u00e8res. Cela a pour cons\u00e9quence que la femme, ou l’homme qui assume les r\u00f4les st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9s \u00e0 la maison, sont \u00e9conomiquement d\u00e9savantag\u00e9s lors d’une rupture. Les lois familiales \u00e0 travers le pays ont pour but de redresser les cons\u00e9quences \u00e9conomiques et autres<\/span> injustices due<\/span>s aux r\u00f4les sexu\u00e9s dans les relations entre conjoints.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abLes droits des conjoints de fait au partage \u00e9gal des biens varient \u00e0 travers le pays \u00bb explique, la directrice l\u00e9gale de FAEJ, Me <\/span>Joanna Birenbaum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reconnaissant la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 sociale des conjoints de fait, quelques provinces et territoires, comme le Manitoba, la Saskatchewan, le Nunavut et les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, requi\u00e8rent que les conjoints de fait ayant v\u00e9cu ensemble une certaine p\u00e9riode ou ayant eu ensemble des enfants, partagent, lors de leur rupture, les biens et dettes accumul\u00e9s durant toute leur relation, \u00e0 moins que les parties en d\u00e9cident autrement. La Colombie-Britannique a r\u00e9cemment amend\u00e9 sa l\u00e9gislation en droit de la famille pour \u00e9tendre les droits et obligations des r\u00e9gimes matrimoniaux aux conjoints<\/span> de fait. Les autres provinces comme l’Ontario, l’Alberta, et les Provinces Maritimes, n’incluen<\/span>t pas les conjoints de fait dans les dispositions des lois familiales relatives aux biens matrimoniaux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abFAEJ soutient que les r\u00e9gimes matrimoniaux doivent inclure les conjoints non mari\u00e9s\u00bb continue Me Birenbaum. \u00abPour le moment la loi au Qu\u00e9bec et dans les autres provinces comme l’Ontario et l’Alberta, l’exclut ou laisse le choix d’y participer contractuellement. Cela est irr\u00e9aliste et ignore l’in\u00e9galit\u00e9 des pouvoirs entre les sexes. La pr\u00e9somption doit \u00eatre une contribution \u00e9gale durant la relation et le partage \u00e9gal de propri\u00e9t\u00e9, lors de la rupture. Les couples peuvent toujours choisir autrement \u00e0 la rupture ou se tourner vers les tribunaux pour demander un partage in\u00e9gal, s’il y a lieu. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

De plus, explique Me McCarthy, \u00abla plupart des conjoints de fait croient que les r\u00e9gimes de partage des biens s’appliquent \u00e0 eux, surtout lorsqu’ils ont des enfants ou lorsque leur relation dure depuis de longues ann\u00e9es. Une d\u00e9cision de la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada qui exigerait que les dispositions l\u00e9gales pr\u00e9voyant le partage des biens de la famille entre conjoints de fait rencontrerait les attentes de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me McCarthy explique de surcro\u00eet que \u00ables faits sociaux mis en preuve devant la Cour dans cet appel, d\u00e9montre que la plupart des couples n’ont aucune id\u00e9e des cons\u00e9quences l\u00e9gales de la d\u00e9cision de cohabiter. La preuve confirme aussi que le r\u00e9gime l\u00e9gal n’est pas un facteur qui d\u00e9termine le choix des couples de se marier ou non\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abDans mes 17 ans de pratique au Qu\u00e9bec,\u00bb ajoute Me O’Hanlon \u00abcas apr\u00e8s cas, les femmes conjointes de fait sont surprises de d\u00e9couvrir que leurs droits et contributions ne sont pas reconnus par les lois du Qu\u00e9bec et qu’elles n’ont droit \u00e0 rien.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suite \u00e0 la couverture m\u00e9diatique du cas d’\u00c9ric c. Lola, Me O’Hanlon a \u00e9t\u00e9 questionn\u00e9e maintes fois au sujet des droits et obligations alimentaires entre les conjoints de fait dans le cas o\u00f9 l’appel serait un succ\u00e8s. \u00abIl y a une mauvaise perception au Qu\u00e9bec que si le cas de Lola r\u00e9ussit, qu’il y aurait syst\u00e9matiquement une pension alimentaire pour conjoint dans tous les cas impliquant des conjoints de fait. Ceci est incorrect. Les conjoints de fait, comme les couples mari\u00e9s, devront pour recevoir une pension alimentaire ou payer une telle pension r\u00e9pondre aux crit\u00e8res des besoins et ressources. S’il n’y a pas de d\u00e9pendance \u00e9conomique, aucun soutien alimentaire ne sera ordonn\u00e9.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le Qu\u00e9bec est la seule province du Canada qui exclut les conjoints de fait du droit de r\u00e9clamer une pension alimentaire \u00e0 la fin de leur relation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dans le cas d’\u00c9ric et Lola, Lola a toujours demand\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00c9ric de se marier et il a toujours refus\u00e9 lui r\u00e9pondant qu’il ne croyait pas \u00e0 l’institution du mariage. Le couple a cohabit\u00e9 pendant sept ans et ils ont eu ensemble trois enfants. Lola a toujours pris soin des enfants et n’a jamais travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 l’ext\u00e9rieur de la maison. Quoique les biens d’\u00c9ric, dans ce cas, sont exceptionnels, le r\u00f4le de chacun dans le couple ne l’est pas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abPourquoi la Cour Supr\u00eame du Canada permettrait au conjoint ayant le plus de pouvoir d’\u00e9viter toute obligation famili<\/span>ale simplement en refusant unilat\u00e9ralement de se marier? Un tel r\u00e9sultat ferait fi d’un demi-si\u00e8cle d’\u00e9volution progressiste du droit de la famille au Canada, tant sur le plan l\u00e9gislatif que judiciaire.\u00bb d\u00e9clare Me Birenbaum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le m\u00e9moire de FAEJ est disponible ici<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pour plus d’information contacter:    <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me Johanne O’Hanlon <\/strong>(Co-conseil) – Cell:(514) 966-2735 – Courriel: j.ohanlon@ostavocats.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me Martha McCarthy<\/strong> (Co-conseil) – Bureau:(416) 862-6226 – Courriel:Martha@mccarthyco.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me Armenia Teixeira<\/strong> – Cell: (514) 865-0524 – Courriel:a.teixeira@ostavocats.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[S.V.P. Veuillez diriger toutes vos questions en fran\u00e7ais directement \u00e0 Me Johanne O’Hanlon ou \u00e0 Me Armenia Teixeira]<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false},"categories":[210,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3882","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","category-leaf-cases","category-media-releases"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nLEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Common Law Spouses in Quebec Entitled to Access Family Law Protections January 16, 2012 – Toronto – On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear \u00ab\u00a0Lola’s\u00a0\u00bb s.15 Charter equality rights challenge to the total exclusion of de facto (common law) spouses from the Quebec Civil Code family law regime. Lola argues that […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LEAF\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-11T19:15:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\\\/\",\"name\":\"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-01-16T06:32:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-11T19:15:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"News\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/news\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/\",\"name\":\"LEAF\",\"description\":\"Women's Legal Education and Action Fund\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LEAF\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb.svg\",\"width\":612,\"height\":110,\"caption\":\"LEAF\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.leaf.ca\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF","og_description":"Common Law Spouses in Quebec Entitled to Access Family Law Protections January 16, 2012 – Toronto – On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear \u00ab\u00a0Lola’s\u00a0\u00bb s.15 Charter equality rights challenge to the total exclusion of de facto (common law) spouses from the Quebec Civil Code family law regime. Lola argues that […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/","og_site_name":"LEAF","article_modified_time":"2020-12-11T19:15:41+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/","url":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/","name":"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge - LEAF","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-01-16T06:32:17+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-11T19:15:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-intervening-in-eric-v-lola\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"News","item":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"LEAF Intervening in Eric v. Lola Equality Rights Challenge"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/","name":"LEAF","description":"Women's Legal Education and Action Fund","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#organization","name":"LEAF","url":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb.svg","width":612,"height":110,"caption":"LEAF"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/3882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}