Canada v. Gettin’ The Get

Oh, big news in the world of Agunot this week!

Canada doesn't mess with religious matters in its courts so much, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the civil divorce agreement signed by Jason Marcovitz, in which is specifically agreed to give his wife, Stephanie Bruker, a get, was declared a valid contract that overrides his assertion for protection under freedom of religion. (Having never been divorced myself, is it standard in a civil divorce to specify a get to be forthcoming? I would imagine not and that this case could potentially hyper-sensitize civil divorce language if a husband has any inclination towards hesitating on the get, no?) The couple married in 1969 and obtained a civil divorce in 1980, with Marcovitz initially agreeing to give a get and later changing his mind, until 1995 when he did finally give her a get, at which point she was 46 years old, past child-bearing age for many women, as the court noted.

So, the court awarded his ex-wife almost $50K in damages, on the grounds that her ability to remarry and have more children was blocked by Marcovitz's lack of cooperation. (What, do you think, is a fair settlement for being barred from remarrying and having children or more children? Can you put a price on that, really? And, is it somehow worth more or less in damages if there were no previous children? Discuss.)

Evelyn Brook, president of the Canadian Coalition of Jewish Women for the Get, called the decision "a great relief." The ruling "does not say that he had to give her a get. It simply said that because he didn't, then there are things to forfeit," Brook told JTA. "For every husband who has gone back on his promise" in a divorce settlement, "this makes a difference." While many women's groups are gung-ho about this ruling, yet many in the legal world aren't so sure this is a good thing, as this ruling could be the first bit of tiptoeing into religious meddling by courts.

Marcovitz's complaint and reason he claimed to withhold the get from Bruker was that she'd had breached their civil agreement by becoming less observant and by turning the couple's daughters against him. This decision was reached 7-2 by Canada's Supreme Court, with the dissenting judges stating Marcovitz's promise was nothing beyond a moral obligation and that "finding otherwise will expand courts into areas where they have no jurisdiction", JTA reports this morning.

The Marcovitz/Bruker case was the first to be presented to Canada's Supreme Court since Ottowa's amendment to the Divorce Act in 1990, which prohibited people from creating or maintaining obstacles for their former spouse to marry religiously.

Surely we have an Agunot or two in our readership that could provide some insight here? Surely a few people with greater knowledge of the Canadian legal system than I can offer? Or, with great knowledge of American family law and how, if at all, this ruling could make waves in our courts…?