The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

DIVORCE SYSTEM . WARMLY DEBATED W. E. N. Sinclair's Bill to Tighten Residence Quali-- tication Is Held Up CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED Divorces in Ontario engaged the Provincial Legislature yesterday after-- noon, when a bill from W. E. N. Sin-- clair, K.C., producscd varied expres-- sions of legal opinion, and finally a statement froni Attorney -- General Price on tho Government's policy. | Colonel Price asked Mr. Sinclair to interrupt progress of the bill until reports on the situation were received from th> judiciary. He denied that any official similar to the King's Proctor in England would be appoint: ed, but said the Attorney--General's Department would continue to act on collusion complaints received from the trial judge; lie opposed establish-- . ment of a special divorce court, and was convinced that the bench, now brought up to strength, scon would dispose of the accumulation of cases. Mr. Sinclair acceded to the At-- torney--General's request that the bill, then before the House for second reading, stand over pending further developments. The measure, Mr Sinclair explained, was intended to correct a situation whereby divorce plaintiffs, eager to avoid publicity and obtain quick action, transferred their cases from cities to rural courts. This. ne said, cost counties money and gave them a bad name. Lawvers in Debate. In moving the second reading of his \ bill to amend the Judicature Act, Mr. | Sinclair remarked that a practice has lgmwn up permitting these actions to be taken from place to place so that trials do not take place where the claimants reside as in other actions. Mr. Sinclair ascribed this to a dosire to avoid publicity and to expedite ac-- tions rising in municipal centres where judicial calendars are crowded. In the cou{tties. he explained, '"there is an opportunity to slide in an action Other contributors io the debate, all lawyers, were: E. Fred Singer (To ronto--St. Andrew), who drew applause from all sides of the House with his statement that the present divorce system already had shown too many defects for its continuance; Argue Martin (Hamilton West), who ques-- tioned Mr. Sinclair's fundamental ar. guments for the bill; A. E. Honeywell (Ottawa South), who saw sound basis in English law fo: the Ontario Statute, and W.* A. Baird (Toronto: High Park), who declared flatly that facilities for divorce should be restrict-- ed rather than enlarged. _ _ Before the divorce debate, legal ex-- perts of the Legislature discussed Mr. Sinclair's amendment to the Registry Act, concerned with registration of mortgages. In Strange Courts. or two along with the matters arising in the county." Citing a recent calendar of a dozen divorces at Whitby, he stated that ounly one or two wore of local origin. "This," Mr. Sinclair pointed out, "from a viewpoint of public morals was not good for the County of On-- tario.' 'The Liberal mentber stated that solicitors had been delayed and expenses increased in the county. Again mentioning the bad publicity which resulted, he added, "I will as-- sure the House that they were not 'homcbrew' cases at all." _ A change might be needed in the amendment in consideration of women who had moved from their legal domi-- cile in their husband's residence to a point at some distance, Mfr. Sinclair IN LEGISLATURE In support of his denunciation of the present divorce system, Mr. Singer criticiz»d the law permitting a single cause for divorce, the present systeml of alimony allowances, and the judi-- clal procedure. These attacks were prefaced by a tribute to the Province's general social legislation. Citing the | Liquor Control Act and the health acts as examgles, the member for St. Andrew's soid: "They are successful because 'hey are in accord with pub-- ]lhi,' opinion and modern social legis-- ation." 'The field of social legislation of the matrimonial type, he charged, had been noglected. "I think we ought to endmvor, in regard to divorce legis-- lation, to synchronize the law with modern . conditions." Naming the recem; Dominion act as the only for-- ward step since Confederation, Mr. Singer said that this was a step back-- ward in that it made the English lav of 1870 applicable in 1930. Favors Enlargement. "I say that the law today is al-- niost scandalous," the member for St. Andrew's declared. Criticizing the provision of a single statutory reason for divorce, he argued that the beat-- ing and maiming of a woman, per-- haps for life, should be of equal im-- portance. "Where there are cases of desertion and cruelty for many years there should be some form of divorce," Mr. Singer contended, and asked why a woman whose husband had been convicted of a major crime and sen-- tenced to a long term should be re-- quired to remain married. Extension of the grounds for divorce was not within the power of the Provincial House, he admitted, but he suggested that a future resolution might be sent to Ottawa. ol o Referring for a moment to Mr. Sin= clair's amendment, Mr. Singer de-- scribed it as unnecessary, arguing that an improvement in the legisla-- ;ion would ha't collusion and per-- ury. + "The law of alimony as it st,ands! today is a remnart of the Middle: Ages," he asserted. Mr. Singer charged | that it took into account neither, modern conditions nor the equality of . the sexes. +o 4s' & Mr. Singer resorved his heaviest fire for present judicial procedure in divoree cases,. After praising the personnel of the Bench, the member for St. Andrew's stated in reference to the procedure involved in divorce cases: "The Judges, I submit. have in many cases entrenched on the rights of Parliament." Mr. Singor suggcsled that "the courts should treat litigants for divorse exactly as they treas liti-- gants in any other matter" and as-- serted that "the Judges discrimir > between divorce actions and all other actions." Rules obligating the nami..* of a co--respondent, and the production of the officers' personal tostimony that subpcenas had been served, wore cited as examples. Of another regula-- tion he said: "I think the Judges have exceeded their rights in bringing that rule into the procedure." As a cure, Mr. Singer suggosted that a committee should be appointed to consider "incongruities and anomalies" in the divoree system, citing Eng-- land's recent inquiry as an example. A separate division of the Supreme Court, which would deal with divores and allied legal matters, was also pro-- posed, and the member for St. An-- drew's pointed out that such a court could co--operate more efficiently with social agencies and relieve the heavy schedules of ordinary couris. Residence Rule Challenged. Argue Martin (Conservative, Ham-- ilton West) followed Mr. Singer with a criticism of the legal connolations of the amendment. Mr. Martin asked why the plaintiff's county should be penalized by the expense rather than the defendant's county, and claimed that the residence clause should be clarified. In some cases, he con-- tended, transfer to other counties was justified. Mr. Martin also pointed out the absurdity of requiring a plain-- tiff to plead in Moosonee, when wit-- nesses might be residents of the Border Citles, : _ _ wl As a solution, Mr. Martin suggested that claimants should contribute $25 to any county in which they bring action without qualifying definitely as residents. ebxyu ax x is stands The advantages of uniform divorce legislation were mentioned by A. E. Honeywell (Conservative, Ottawa North) as reason for continuing to accept the English Act of 1870. "If we are going to permit each Province to have a checkerboard system of divorce, we are going to have condi-- tions similar to those in the United States," Mr. Honeywell contended. He also pointed out that the Act of 1870 had been revised to eliminate the double standard. W. A. Baird (Conservative, High Park) made the only answer to Mr. Singer's attack. "I look on the bill as an attempt to curtail the number of divoree applications and decrees in Ontario,"' Mr. Baird said. Tracing recent divorce statistics, he implied, that while "we have congratulated ourselves that divorce in Ontario was a rather uncommon thing," figures presented a disturbing picture. The debate on the bill was con-- cluded by the Hon. W. H. Price. The Attorney--General stated that the en-- tire divorce question had been con-- sidered in conference with Supreme Court Judges, at the time that the Dominion Act was passed, Later, in England, the late Edward Bayly had dGiscussed the problem with the King's Proctor. The Attorney--General opposed ac-; tive participation by his department in divorce cases. "If the court finds' that there has been collusion, and} that the case cannot be settled with--=} out bringing in the Attorney--General or one of his officers, then we are here, but I oppose making the Attor-- ney--General or one of his officials an active participant in divorce cases." | Colonel Price expressed disapproval of Mr. Singer's suggestion of a sep-- arate d@ivorce court. "I wouldn't favor a separate divorce court any more than a separate bankruptcy court," he said. Advising a general calendar for the Judiciary, he stated: "A Judge is better if he is not in a groove, but can deal with everything." 38 s The -- Attorney--General. aithough ho'lding that it would be regrettable if a great many divorce cases were transferred, desrribed Mr. Sinclair's amendment as "too rigid." He ad-- vised permitting the amendment to stand until the advice of the Supreme Court Judges could be obtained. _'The divorce debate folowed a spir-- ited legal controversy aroused by the second reading of Mr. Sinclair's bill to amend the Registry Act. Merits of the long and short mortgages in relation to title deeds and quit claims were argued at length after Mr. Sin-- clair had advocated that mortgagees should be relieved of the expense of full registry of a mortgage. W. A. Baird and J. F. Strickland (Conserva-- tive, Peterboro' City) supported the amendment; D Paul Munro (Liberal,} Wellinzton South) expressed ops)ool-' tion, and A. E. Honeywell and Coloncl: Price commented on the legal question involved. The bill was referred to the Tegal Bills Committee. 1