Droit+de+la+famille—39

//Droit de la famille – 39, [1983] C.S. 74// __Facts__: On the day after attaining the age of majority, Plaintiff left her parent’s home. She claims that she cannot live in her father’s house because of his strict rules and their profound disagreements about religion and morality. She wants him to pay support to her. Defendant (P’s father) says that she can move back into the family home, but he cannot pay support because his daughter is living with a man and they are not married, which goes against his religious convictions. Paying support would be condoning behaviour that violates his religious principles. __Issues__: Does the father have to pay support? __Decision__: Yes ($95/week for 24 weeks). Parental obligation of support. __Reasoning__:
 * There is a clear and profound divergence between the religious and moral principles of P and D.
 * Court accepted the evidence of psychological experts, who determined that the family home restricted P’s ability to grow emotionally and intellectually. Thus, forcing her to move back to the family home would compromise her psychological development. This is therefore not an option.
 * Although art.647 CCQ mentions feeding and maintaining, and P is no longer a minor, P is almost finished her studies, and if D pays support to her now she can graduate and then get a job or continue her studies at university (which D would not have to pay for). When she tried to obtain a bursary, D refused to supply the necessary financial information, and she was subsequently refused. Court concluded that P did not spend money excessively and that D can afford to pay support.
 * D’s right to freedom of religion does not mean that he is free from the secular obligations he owes to 3rd parties. Anyway, his obligation to support his daughter does not contravene any catholic principles.