[lenaitch]

An interesting debate, similar to whether hospital CEOs need to be physicians or whether police chiefs/commissioners need to be sworn police officers. I think in many cases, the need for professional knowledge depends on the size of the organization being managed. A relative was the CEO of a comparatively small hospital, and the small size of the management structure under him meant that medical decisions did flow up to him. Perhaps a larger structure of a larger hospital (and school board) would preclude that.

Early in my career I briefly served under a non-sworn police leader and it worked well. A fairly recent similar exercise in the RCMP worked otherwise. A key component in leadership, whether it is a school board or private corporation, is listening to the professions under you and knowing what you don't know. If you take that position that management itself is the goal of the organization, or that you are smarter than the average bear, then you are likely going to fail. Having a teacher or doctor in charge, or not, is in and of itself, a guarantee of nothing.

 

[Northern Light]

Gotta love omnibus bills.

There's an expiry date for marriage licences? Who knew!!

Can anyone explain the logical virtue of a marriage license in the first place?

In most matters where licenses apply, they are there to certify that someone has completed a qualifying test, or has educational credentials or such that permit them to carry out such an activity. Or, in the alternative, it may suggest they carry insurance of some kind in case they screw up.

Now, maybe I missed it; but I'm pretty sure there's no mandatory pre-marital courses; no licensing exam; you don't get apprenticed (normally, LOL); and you typically can't buy divorce insurance.

WTF do need marriage licenses for?

Just wondering if the useful reform here wouldn't be abolition of said item.

 

[PinkLucy]

I don't have a marriage license. Back in the day, if you had your bans read at church a specified number of times, you didn't need a license. Not sure how many people go that route these days or if you can still do that, but it has meant that I've some 'splaining to do in situations where I was supposed to show said license to prove marital status (we do have a certificate). Do we even need to prove status any more? I haven't had to do it for years.

 

[lenaitch]

Can anyone explain the logical virtue of a marriage license in the first place?

In most matters where licenses apply, they are there to certify that someone has completed a qualifying test, or has educational credentials or such that permit them to carry out such an activity. Or, in the alternative, it may suggest they carry insurance of some kind in case they screw up.

Now, maybe I missed it; but I'm pretty sure there's no mandatory pre-marital courses; no licensing exam; you don't get apprenticed (normally, LOL); and you typically can't buy divorce insurance.

WTF do need marriage licenses for?

Just wondering if the useful reform here wouldn't be abolition of said item.

Perhaps a 'can of worms' alert? I would imagine initially it was a way to ensure that age of consent was confirmed, siblings weren't marrying each other and that there was a foundation to the legal status of factors such as offspring, estate rights, etc. It was deemed important enough to be identified in the BNA Act (continued in the Constitution Act). Much less so now, but it seems that a good part of society still holds out for a secular formalization.

Our daughter has been doing some genealogical and came across a marriage certificate for an aunt of mine who were married in Quebec (after arriving from Scotland). It was specifically identified as a non-Catholic registration, apparently known at the time as a 'heathen marriage licence'.

 

[PinkLucy]

My protestant great aunt was estranged from her family for years because she married a roman catholic, which was even worse than my English grandmother who married a Scot.

 

[Thinker]

I don't have a marriage license. Back in the day, if you had your bans read at church a specified number of times, you didn't need a license. Not sure how many people go that route these days or if you can still do that, but it has meant that I've some 'splaining to do in situations where I was supposed to show said license to prove marital status (we do have a certificate). Do we even need to prove status any more? I haven't had to do it for years.

Back in the days, you needed to go to city hall and obtain a marriage license - with that piece of paper you went to the civil or church marriage officiant, the license would be filed with the archive and the other part would become the marriage certificate. Yes, you still need the marriage certificate when your spouse dies in order to be eligible for governmental grants and pension. I had to dig and search for mine but finally found it.

 

[PinkLucy]

Back in the days, you needed to go to city hall and obtain a marriage license - with that piece of paper you went to the civil or church marriage officiant, the license would be filed with the archive and the other part would become the marriage certificate. Yes, you still need the marriage certificate when your spouse dies in order to be eligible for governmental grants and pension. I had to dig and search for mine but finally found it.

We didn't have to do the license part because of the banns. That's why I only have a certificate. This was almost 40 years ago; my sister did the same thing.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, you still need the marriage certificate when your spouse dies in order to be eligible for governmental grants and pension. I had to dig and search for mine but finally found it.

I tend to think this is better addressed today by simply whether one files joint taxes or not.

ie. If you declare to the government that you and another person are living as a couple; (and the other person agrees, LOL!) Then that's the way all government programs should treat you.

But I don't see that it ought to require more burdensome paperwork in this day and age.

 

[Thinker]

I tend to think this is better addressed today by simply whether one files joint taxes or not.

ie. If you declare to the government that you and another person are living as a couple; (and the other person agrees, LOL!) Then that's the way all government programs should treat you.

But I don't see that it ought to require more burdensome paperwork in this day and age.

You'd be surprised the amount of paperwork is required to settle an estate. Regardless if you filed joint taxes or not. Banks, Government, even Bell to cancel a cell phone (he had "purchased it 6 months prior to his death) and had 18 months left on the contract. They cancelled it no charge with proof of death.

 

[Northern Light]

You'd be surprised the amount of paperwork is required to settle an estate. Regardless if you filed joint taxes or not. Banks, Government, even Bell to cancel a cell phone (he had "purchased it 6 months prior to his death) and had 18 months left on the contract. They cancelled it no charge with proof of death.

Sadly, no surprises, I've had to do this for both my parents.

Obviously with couples there are extra wrinkles.

Though, there really shouldn't be; in theory, a spouse (or executor) should be able to simply notify a company of someone's death; and the company should be able to confirm that with a simple electronic inquiry, and then take whatever next steps are appropriate (terminating or transferring a contract)

 

[lenaitch]

My protestant great aunt was estranged from her family for years because she married a roman catholic, which was even worse than my English grandmother who married a Scot.

Lots of anecdotal stories like that from days gone by.

You'd be surprised the amount of paperwork is required to settle an estate. Regardless if you filed joint taxes or not. Banks, Government, even Bell to cancel a cell phone (he had "purchased it 6 months prior to his death) and had 18 months left on the contract. They cancelled it no charge with proof of death.

Sadly, no surprises, I've had to do this for both my parents.

Obviously with couples there are extra wrinkles.

Though, there really shouldn't be; in theory, a spouse (or executor) should be able to simply notify a company of someone's death; and the company should be able to confirm that with a simple electronic inquiry, and then take whatever next steps are appropriate (terminating or transferring a contract)

Been there, done that as well. The first bit of good advice I got was make lots of copies of the death certificate because everybody will want one. The thing with accounts, etc. between a deceased and a company, institution is that they are contracts between the two parties. An electronic inquiry to whom/what? I'm not sure how well allowing companies access some government database to confirm a death, yet still ensure privacy would work. I don't want private companies accessing my government records while I'm alive so that would seem to preclude their ability to access them when I'm gone. Without a death certificate, the opportunities for fraud would be rampant, and the length of time for some bureaucrat to update the database might impact estate settlement. Even if such an electronic search was practical, there still would have to be a way to confirm an executor's authority to give such direction. It might not mean much for a cel-phone contract but much more for property title.

We can file joint taxes in Canada?

Since the advent of legal recognition of common law relationships in Canada the rules have changed, but there are rules to establish that relationship. Poeple don't realize that they must keep their records up-to-date. Things like government benefits, joint investments, bank accounts, etc. have financial implications for both the estate and survivors. As a labour representative, I have witnessed several occasions where a member became divorced years ago and took up with somebody else (married or not) but failed to update their benefit records. It pretty heart wrenching to tell a surviving spouse that her name doesn't appear on the pension or life insurance as a beneficiary, and that relationship is private between the (now deceased) member and his pension/benefits administrator.

 

[Northern Light]

Lots of anecdotal stories like that from days gone by.



An electronic inquiry to whom/what? I'm not sure how well allowing companies access some government database to confirm a death, yet still ensure privacy would work. I don't want private companies accessing my government records while I'm alive so that would seem to preclude their ability to access them when I'm gone. Without a death certificate, the opportunities for fraud would be rampant, and the length of time for some bureaucrat to update the database might impact estate settlement. Even if such an electronic search was practical, there still would have to be a way to confirm an executor's authority to give such direction. It might not mean much for a cel-phone contract but much more for property title.

A death certificate is a public document, not a private one. You have no right to deny people knowing about your death! LOL

The death certificate can only be issued once your death is electronically recorded these days; or at least that's my understanding.

Its not a hand-filled in form.

At least it wasn't the last time for me.

If the authorized persons sign a death certificate; the province has a record of that; somewhere.

Now, it can be that the record is not currently in a place where its easy to access electronically, but that's not so hard.

That same company whose contract a loved one seeks to terminate will know of the death when handed a physical death certificate.

A document they will copy/scan for their records if kin/executor don't have extra copies.

Why would it be any less private if they were to confirm this data electronically?

All they require is sufficient proof of death, of the person with whom they have the contract; to take an action.

There is a default action in the case of some contracts (termination), or one involving a non-terminatable contract (a mortgage for example) that requires a secondary proof
that the person with whom they are talking has the right to speak on behalf of an estate.

That can be done with with will; or with probate documents where appropriate.

That would vary based on the nature and size of a contract.

But I'm not suggesting that companies get to randomly inquire with the government if their contract holder is deceased, LOL Though I don't suppose a yes/no answer would really violate anyone's privacy.

Rather, that that inquiry, if initiated appropriately by a next of kin/executor could be confirmed without having to walk around with a stack of death certificates and go to 10 different offices.

I grant there are limitations.

I'd just like to see the hassle of death for those left behind made a little less burdensome.

****

One thing I noted in my own experience, is that most people, even those with a will, don't keep a centralized list of everyone with whom they do business or who may need to know of their death.

So after you get through the obvious (Ministry of Transportation, terminate the driver's license) etc.

You have to assemble a list of who else needs to know.

In my case I had access to my parents bank accounts in their late life; as I was the one managing finances, so I had a fairly clear picture.

But what a hassle if that were not so.

****

Also I noted when I phoned the SIN office to cancel that; that they already knew of the death, as they were tied directly to the Ontario office that records deaths.

By contrast, Transportation was not aware.

Really odd.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I don't have a marriage license. Back in the day, if you had your bans read at church a specified number of times, you didn't need a license. Not sure how many people go that route these days or if you can still do that, but it has meant that I've some 'splaining to do in situations where I was supposed to show said license to prove marital status (we do have a certificate). Do we even need to prove status any more? I haven't had to do it for years.

Those "bans" were "invited" with the Council of Trent. It was so that priests remain unmarried. Before the Council of Trent, while priests were supposed be be celibate, there was no "proof" that they were or not. Common law marriages was the norm.

With the "bans", the couple had to have their names and witnesses and clergy written down to be "valid". Before the Council of Trent, the couple just had to make a "public announcement" that they were now married, which the wedding reception was (an announcement to the assembled group of people). Also, the wedding mass became a source of revenue. Which is why civil authorities got into the civil wedding "business", for the revenue.

 

[PinkLucy]

OK, I'm not that old ....

 

[Thinker]

OK, I'm not that old ....

But I am