Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:54:06.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Divorce before Reform: The Case of Prince Edward Island, 1946–67*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Wendy J. Owen  and
J. M. Bumsted
Wendy J. Owen
Affiliation:
St. John's Ravenscourt School, Winnipeg, Manitoba
J. M. Bumsted
Affiliation:
St. John's College, University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper represents the first scholarly effort to explore the meaning and practice of divorce in Canada between the end of World War II and the coming of divorce reform in 1968. It is based on a thorough analysis of the case files of the divorce court of Prince Edward Island, resurrected in 1946 to deal with divorce in that province. The paper attempts to place the law and practice of divorce in Prince Edward Island in a national context. It also discusses social patterns of divorce 1946–67 (based upon data never before collected for the period), generally finding them consistent with other available information for the periods immediately preceding and following the one under discussion. The paper concludes with an examination of patterns of divorce among farm families on the Island, exploring other explanatory variables besides traditional morality to explain their distinctiveness

Résumé

Cet article constitue un premier effort académique visant à explorer le phénomène du divorce au Canada entre la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale et l'avènement de la réforme du divorce en 1968 ainsi que sa pratique au cours de cette période. Il se base sur une analyse approfondie des dossiers de la Cour de divorce de l'êle-du-Prince-Édouard, remise en service en 1946 afin de régler les causes de divorce dans cette province.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1993 , pp. 1 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stone, L., Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) at 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. See, for example, McKie, D. C.et al., Divorce: Law and the Family in Canada (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1983)Google Scholar; Ambert, A.-M., Divorce in Canada (Ottawa: 1980)Google Scholar; Sever, A., Women and Divorce in Canada: A Sociological Analysis (Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 1992).Google Scholar

3. The best general survey is Phillips, R., Putting A sunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar, which contains a useful bibliography. Among a large number of national or regional studies, some of the most useful are: Blake, N., The Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1962)Google Scholar; O'Neill, W. L., Divorce in the Progressive Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; May, E. Tyler, Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce in Post-Victorian America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Riley, G., Divorce: An American Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Horstman, A., Victorian Divorce (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Stone, supra, note 1; Phillips, R., Divorce in New Zealand: A Social History (Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

4. Evans, R. R., The Law and Practice relating to Divorce and Other Matrimonial Causes (Calgary: Burroughs, 1923)Google Scholar; Cartwright, H. L. & Lovekin, E. R., The Law and Practice of Divorce in Canada, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1962).Google Scholar

5. See, for example, Pike, R., “Legal Access and the Incidence of Divorce in Canada: A Sociohistorical Analysis” (1975) 12 Can. Rev. of Sociology and Anthropology 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maynard, K. Smith, “Divorce in Nova Scotia, 1750–1890” in Girard, P. & Phillips, J., eds., Essays in the History of Canadian Law, vol. 3: Nova Scotia (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1990) 232Google Scholar; R. Veinott, “Child Custody and Divorce: A Nova Scotia Study, 1866–1910” in Girard & Phillips, 273; Snell, J. G., “Married Cruelty: Women and the Nova Scotia Divorce Court, 1900–1939” (1988) 18 Acadiensis 3.Google ScholarSnell's, J. G.In the Shadow of the Law: Divorce in Canada 1900–1939 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is the first full-length modern historical monograph on divorce in Canada.

6. See, for example, the table in Pike, ibid. at 128.

7. Owen, W. & Bumsted, J. M., “Divorce in a Small Province: A History of Divorce on Prince Edward Island from 1833” (1991) 20 Acadiensis 86.Google Scholar

8. Wolfram, S., “Divorce in England 1700–1857” (1985) 5 Oxford J. of Legal Studies 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Stone, supra, note 1.

10. Smith Maynard, supra, note 5 at 234.

11. Owen & Bumsted, supra, note 7 at 89.

12. Backhouse, C., Petticoats and Prejudice: Women and Law in Nineteenth-Century Canada (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1991) at 167.Google Scholar In Rupert's Land and on the Pacific Slope, most marriages before the establishment of formal colonies were “according to the custom of the country” rather than by either legal or sacramental ceremonies, and could be terminated by a process known as “turning off.” See Kirk, S. Van, “Many Tender Ties”: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1760–1870 (Winnipeg: Wason & Dwyer, 1980) at 159.Google Scholar

13. The Quebec Civil Code of 1865 stated: “Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties; while both live it is indissoluble.” Civil Code of Lower Canada, 19 Vict., c. 41, (1865) art. 185.

14. The significant clauses were reprinted in Cartwright & Lovekin, supra, note 4 at 450.

15. Woodhouse, M. K., “The Marriage and Divorce Bill of 1857” (1959) 3 American J. of Legal History 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. For detailed discussion of the English legislation, see Shanley, M. L., Feminism, Marriage and the Law in Victorian England 1850–1895 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Horstman, supra, note 3; Holcombe, L., Wives and Property: Reform of the Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth-Century England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983).Google Scholar

17. Cote, J. E., “The Reception of English Law” (1977) 15 Alta L. Rev. 29.Google Scholar

18. Cartwright & Lovekin, supra, note 4 at 197.

19. G v. G, [1943] S.C.R. 527; [1940] McLennan v. McLennan, [1940] S.C.R. 335.

20. King v. King, (1904) 37 N.S.R. 204.

21. We know surprisingly little about marriage in nineteenth-century Canada. For what we do know, see Gee, E., “Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Canada” (1983) 19 Can. Rev. of Sociology and Anthropology 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Backhouse, C., “Pure Patriarchy: Nineteenth-Century Canadian Marriage” (1986) 31 McGill L. J. 265Google Scholar; Backhouse, supra, note 12 at 9–39; Snell, J., “‘The White Life for Two’: The Defense of Marriage and Sexual Morality in Canada 1900–1939” (1983) 16 Histoire Sociale/Social History 3Google Scholar; idem, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5. Ward's, P.Courtship, Love, and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century English Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990)Google Scholar is not concerned either with the legal side of the institution or with alternatives to formalism.

22. This was a principle the Colonial Office had opposed earlier in Prince Edward Island; see Owen & Bumsted, supra, note 7 at 88.

23. Gemmill, J. A., The Practice of the Parliament of Canada upon Bills of Divorce (Toronto: Carswell, 1889)Google Scholar; Hogg, F. D., Parliamentary Divorce Practice in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1925).Google Scholar

24. Backhouse, C., “Shifting Patterns in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Custody Law” in Flaherty, D. H., ed., Essays in the History of Canadian Law, vol. 1 (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1981) 212.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., at 232.

26. Ibid., at 238.

27. Veinott, supra, note 5 at 274.

28. Ibid., at 276.

29. Ibid., at 287.

30. Ibid., at 289.

31. Backhouse, C., “Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth-Century Canada” (1988) 6 Law and History Rev. 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 9.

33. Smith Maynard, supra, note 5 at 243.

34. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5.

35. The foregoing paragraph based on Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5. For statistics, see ibid., at 10 and Canada Yearbook (Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968) at 285.

36. See especially the province-by-province “Practice Remembrancers” (which take up most of the book) in Cartwright & Lovekin, supra, note 4.

37. An Act for Establishing a Court of Divorce, and for Preventing and Punishing Incest, Adultery, and Fornication, S.P.E.I. 1833, c. 10.

38. Owen & Bumsted, supra, note 7 at 89.

39. Prince Edward Island Journal of the Legislative Assembly (1920) at 94. No debate was recorded on this resolution.

40. Prince Edward Island, Legislative Assembly, Royal Gazette, 22 December 1945.Google Scholar

41. PEI Supreme Court RG6, Divorce Files 1946–1968, Public Archives of Prince Edward Island (hereinafter SC), file 1.

42. SC, file 5.

43. SC, file 7.

44. SC, file 17.

45. MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 44 D.L.R. (2nd) 443.

46. The Divorce Act, S.P.E.I. 1949, c. 10.

47. SC, file 6973. For further discussion see Owen & Bumsted, supra, note 7 at 102.

48. The Divorce Act, S.P.E.I. 1952, c. 15.

49. The following discussion is based on federal census returns for 1941–71, much of the data being summarized by Gasgupta, Sastadal in “The Island in Transition: A Statistical Overview” in Smitheran, V.et al., eds., The Garden Transformed: Prince Edward Island, 1945–1980 (Charlottetown: Ragweed Press, 1982) 243.Google Scholar

50. Nothing substantial has been published on the status of women or on women's issues on Prince Edward Island for the period 1945–68. Among the most useful studies of women in postwar Prince Edward Island are Mclsaac, L., The Role of Women in the Operation of Family Farms in Prince Edward Island (M.Sc. Thesis, Guelph University, 1983)Google Scholar [unpublished] and Prince Edward Island Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Women in the Island Economy: Conference Proceedings October 1982 (Charlottetown: Author, 1982).Google Scholar Perhaps the most substantial statement for the pre-1968 period is contained in “Brief to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada,” undated but probably compiled in 1969 by a consortium of women's organizations in Charlottetown and preserved at the Public Archives of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, accession number 3027.

51. SC, files 112, 130.

52. SC, file 256.

53. SC, file 240.

54. SC, file 119.

55. SC file 129; for other pre-war examples of similar testimony, see Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 199.

56. SC, file 196.

57. SC, file 60.

58. SC, file 34.

59. SC, files 43, 137, 141, 152, 175, 322. See Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 227 for prewar examples.

60. SC, files 147, 166.

61. SC, file 173.

62. SC, files 217, 235.

63. SC, file 160. Most Canadian legal wisdom of the time would have insisted that rape was not adulterous.

64. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 154 has higher percentages than these, but he does not distinguish in his table between cases before 1925 (when the double standard applied) and after 1925. On Prince Edward Island there was no double standard and charges of cruelty got the plaintiff nowhere.

65. Divorce Jurisdiction Act, RSC 1952, c. 84.

66. SC, file 324.

67. SC, file 148.

68. SC, file 161.

69. SC, files 239, 269.

70. SC, file 249.

71. Smith Maynard, supra, note 5 at 239.

72. C. Thane Campbell, “Practice Remembrancer, Prince Edward Island” in Cartwright & Lovekin, supra, note 4 at 375.

73. Palmer, E., “Reasons for Marriage Breakdown: A Case Study in Southwestern Ontario” (1971) 2 J. of Comparative Family Studies 251.Google Scholar

74. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 does not offer data on age of marriage of divorce participants, but a perusal of tables at 147 and 148 suggests similar results.

75. Ambert, A.-M., Divorce in Canada (Ottawa: 1980) at 33.Google Scholar

76. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 148.

77. Ibid.

78. Ambert, supra, note 75 at 33.

79. Kephart, W. M., “The Duration of Marriage” (1954) 19 Am. Sociological Rev. 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. Ambert, supra, note 75 at 34.

81. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 148.

82. Ambert, supra, note 75 at 46; Palmer, supra, note 73 at 255; Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 218.

83. Married Women's Property Act, S.P.E.I. 1896, c. 5.

84. Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 151.

85. Ibid., at 188.

86. MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 44 D.L.R. (2nd) 443.

87. MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 54 D.L.R. (2nd) 41.

88. Holman, H. T., “The Early History of the Court of Chancery on PEI” (1981)Google Scholar [unpublished]. Canadian historians have been slow to recognize the ways in which chancery courts in several provinces may have modified common law prescriptions.

89. The last figures come from Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 181.

90. McKie et al., supra, note 2 at 207.

91. SC, files 184, 195, 243.

92. SC, file 243.

93. SC, file 244.

94. Snell agrees; see In the Shadow of the Law, supra, note 5 at 224, where he writes: “Both in the divorce participation rate and in the character and timing of marriage breakdown, farming couples behaved consistently more conservatively than any other occupational group identified.” But Snell devotes only one tantalizing paragraph to the question.

95. SC, files 52, 58, 258.

96. SC, file 298.

97. SC, file 222.

98. Pike, supra, note 5 at 130.