If you are married and you don’t feel comfortable with your life partner, then there are only two options that the two of you have. One of them is to try and work things out and achieve a point where both of you are feeling good in your relationship. Of course, talking about this is not easy and even getting any good result is almost impossible because if nothing is working, you cannot do anything about it other than let it go. By letting it go, we are talking about getting a divorce because that will definitely save you a lot of headache and stress.
If you haven’t figured out, the second option that you have is getting a divorce. Yes, this might sound quite scary at first, but just look at yourself and how are you feeling at the moment. If you are not happy at all, then divorce will most definitely fix your life. There is nothing you should be scared about, that is a process that will make you happy, in some cases getting a divorce will make both people happy because both of them are suffering in their marriage. Knowing your rights is very important when getting divorced, even if it is an uncontested one, here is why.
The main reason why you always want to know all of your rights is because you can easily get away with things and more importantly, you can use the law to get things that actually belong to you. There are various cases where people lose a lot of things in a divorce when in reality those things belong to them. Of course, if you don’t know your rights that is completely fine, but you will have to hire a lawyer in that case because he will help you with them.
Even if you are both agreed on uncontested divorce, you have to be very careful because you don’t want to lose anything. Learning about your rights is very important in these types of situations because it can change a lot of things.
There are two ways in which the mental condition of an accused person can become an issue in a criminal trial.
This page gives a brief overview of how the first question is dealt with. The matter of exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder is dealt with separately.
The rules about mental disorder are found in Part XX.1 (Part 20.1) of the Criminal Code. Please note that, as with all the other topics discussed at this site, we are only providing a glimpse into this particular area of the criminal law. If your interest in it is more than casual, make sure you get legal advice, or at least study the law in much greater detail yourself.You cannot just put a person to a criminal trial if you clearly see that his or her mental health is not good. There are a lot of different cases where people are not being issues in a criminal trial because of their mental health. Of course, this doesn’t mean that these people will walk away freely, just that they will be sent to a specialized place.
As we mention in our notes on trial principles, an accused person has the right to be present at trial, to confront his or her accuser, and to make full answer and defence. When an accused is incapable of understanding the proceedings, he or she cannot really be considered to be “present” for those purposes.
The Criminal Code [s. 2] says a person is unfitting to stand trial if he or she suffers from a mental disorder that prevents him or her from conducting a defence, or instructing counsel to do so. In particular, this means an inability to understand the nature or object of the proceedings, or their possible consequences, or to communicate with counsel.
The issue of fitness is then tried separately from the trial on the charge itself. If that main trial is to be by jury, then a jury also decides the question of fitness, and it can be the same jury. If the main trial is to be by judge alone, or if there is to be a preliminary inquiry, the question of fitness is decided by the judge.
As we have said, criminal offences are classified as either summary, indictable or “hybrid” (ones that can be treated as either summary or indictable). To find out what type a particular offence is, read the section of the Criminal Code or other statute that creates the offence.Generally, summary offences are the most minor, indictable offences are the most serious, and of course hybrid offences tend to fall in between, in an area of overlap. A great number of offences are hybrid.
There are a various type of offences and if you are not specially educated about law, you most likely don’t even know them. When dealing with any type of criminal offence or anything else that involves breaking the law, the safest thing is to hire a lawyer to deal with the situation.For hybrid offences, the Crown decides (“elects”) whether to proceed summarily or indictable. Until it elects one way or the other, the offence is considered to be indictable, but if the Crown does not elect, and simply goes to trial in provincial court, it is considered to have elected to proceed summarily, and from then on, the offence is viewed as a summary one.
Summary offences are tried in provincial court, before a judge of that court sitting alone, with no jury. There is never a jury in provincial court.
There is a list of hybrid offences in s. 553 of the Criminal Code (including theft under $5,000 and driving while disqualified) which are also tried before a provincial court judge sitting alone, regardless of whether the Crown elects to proceed summarily or by indictment. These are the “absolute jurisdiction” offences.
Otherwise, someone charged with an offence that is proceeded with indictably can generally elect how they want to be tried [s. 536]: by provincial court judge sitting alone [s. 554], or in superior court, either by judge alone or by judge and jury. If the accused elects to be tried in the superior court, there will first be a preliminary inquiry in provincial court, to see if there is sufficient evidence to make a trial worthwhile.
If he or she does not make any election, there will be a superior court trial with a jury. This sometimes happens when two (or more) people are charged together, and elect different types of trial. The justice taking the election can record that as “no election”, in which case both the accused will be tried in front of a jury [s. 567].
This is the famous”Golden Thread” that runs through the criminal law of the English-speaking world. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing of an independent tribunal. This means that you cannot call a person guilty for a crime before you have all the proof that will eventually prove that hi is guilty of that crime. So, if you cannot prove that a person is actually guilty, he has all the freedom to walk out a free man.
The accused person must know what he or she is charged with, so that full “answer and defence” can be made. This means that there must be enough “particulars” (details as to time and place, acts complained of, damage caused, Criminal Code sections violated, etc.) in the charge to avoid unfair surprises at trial.
Generally, an accused person is entitled to be in court for the whole trial, as well as for any preliminary hearings, so as to be able to confront his or her accuser, and to make full answer and defence.
Generally, too, a trial is open to the public. This is important if justice is to be “seen to be done”, even though it can sometimes be painful or embarrassing for some of the people involved.
What this means is: since the Crown has brought this accusation to the court, the person it is accusing does not have to say a word in his or her defence until the Crown has placed evidence before the court which, if accepted, could justify a conviction. The prosecutor, in effect, has to justify the charge before the accused has to answer it.
Further, the prosecutor must prove the Crown’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge or jury is not just to decide whether the accused is more likely guilty or more likely innocent. There must be convincing proof of guilt. Of course, there might always be some tiny doubt, but for this to result in an acquittal, it must come from something more solid than mere speculation.
As for people who think rules like this favour the accused too much, they should perhaps bear in mind that we are still convicting a significant number of innocent people.
Getting a divorce is not a fun thing and nobody likes to be a part of a divorce. Of course, there will be always at least one person who wants to get divorced and for them, this process is not that bad because they can’t wait to get officially divorced from their spouse. As for the other person in a marriage, a divorce is a horrible thing and in most cases, they want to find a way to stop the divorce, but looking at the past few years, when a divorce has been issued, almost every single one of them was finished.
So, the best thing to do in this case is just let go and do the divorce, the sooner you start the process the sooner it will end and both of you can start living a completely free life with no attachments. Sometimes, people make the mistake and get together with someone they are not meant to be, well we cannot do anything about that other than both agreeing and getting divorced the fastest way. As you might know, if the divorce is uncontested, the divorce process will be done very fast and without any major issues. however, divorcing is not that easy every time, there are cases where insanity plays a big role.
In case that your spouse has incurable insanity, you have only one option when it comes to getting a divorce and that is to be separated for at least 3 years before getting anything officially. This is because your spouse will not understand the process if it happened regularly. This way your spouse can have enough time to process this and understand that the two of you are not married anymore. There are a lot of complications that can happen if you are facing this type of situation and there is no such thing as the fast way. You simply have to wait out the time if you really want to get divorced. The court will not grant you a divorce if you haven’t been separated for those three years.