By Sarah D. Pinsonnault Although there exists no set rules to determine what constitutes a valid or “compelling” reason for a name change, Muratova c. Director of Civil Status, 2015 QCCS 2109 defines the applicable test as a “negative proposition”, whereby the reason invoked “should not be superfluous or insignificant” nor should it be “the result of a whim or other capricious reason”. Accordingly, Justice Robert Mongeon, S.C.J., granted the Petitioner’s motion which sought the addition of the masculine version of her patronymic name to the surname name of her three year-old son. Justice Mongeon found that the act of adding to a child’s name a surname that corresponds with the surname of both parents “is neither capricious or the result of a simple whim” and that it carries the positive effect of allowing the child to “relate equally to both parents”: “[24] In the present instance, the only obstacle… Lire la suite
27
Mai2015
