1. Objectifs

Intentions :
This article provides «a comparative analysis and critique of various jurisdictions’ laws on inheritance and how they treat blended families. The article takes a comparative approach, engaging with legislation and cases across Canada as well as France, England, and Scotland. The origins and purposes of each country’s laws will be analyzed to evaluate whether the latter serve the objectives intended by the legislatures.» (p. 575)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’autrice analyse la législation en matière de succession conformément au droit de la famille du Canada, de la France, de l’Angleterre et de l’Écosse.

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

This article «offers a few thoughts on ways to think more inclusively about modernizing succession law, using these findings on blended families as an example. Across all the jurisdictions studied, there has been some interest in keeping bloodline relationships as a central focus.» (p. 622) Concerning the province of Quebec, «Quebec’s succession regime stands in contrast to its neighbouring common law provinces because of its population’s disinterest in allowing the stepchild’s claim. It too has never allowed for stepchildren to inherit from their step-parents. The distinction between parent and step-parent has been justified by the civil law’s focus on parentage—rather than relationships based on affinity—as the foundation of succession rights. The only exception to this tendency has been marriage. […] Rather, it seems that the step-relationship is given no weight because Quebec’s succession regime remains too anchored in the notion of parentage—or bloodlines—to allow any relationship outside of the formalized bonds of marriage or adoption. […] As far as the stepchild’s ability to inherit is concerned, this preference for bloodline relationships does not yet seem to be out of step with Quebec’s society. Sociological studies of Quebec’s population have indeed concluded that most of the time step-parents want property to remain within their own “kinship” […].» (p. 599)